Facebook
Fark
Digg
Reddit
StumbleLETTER TO THE EDITOR:
Torture is against our laws, no exceptions
Sunday, May 24, 2009 | 2:05 a.m.
Regarding David Adams’ Friday letter to the editor in the Las Vegas Sun headlined “Cheney has not addressed all waterboarding:
Under U.S. and international law, we have convicted others who used waterboarding against our people. Now it’s a fact that U.S. leadership authorized our use of waterboarding (torture) on Iraq detainees.
The law against torture has no amendments that state it is acceptable if:
• it is called enhanced interrogation rather than torture.
• it is used against only three people.
• it produces desired results or propaganda.
• it is authorized by a country’s leadership.
To remain a country of laws where no one is above the law, those who authorized waterboarding must be held accountable in a court of law. Hopefully, politics with smoke and mirrors doesn’t supersede law.
Discussion: comments so far…
Comments are moderated by Las Vegas Sun editors. Our goal is not to limit the discussion, but rather to elevate it. Comments should be relevant and contain no abusive language. Comments that are off-topic, vulgar, profane or include personal attacks will be removed. Full comments policy. Additionally, we now display comments from trusted commenters by default. Those wishing to become a trusted commenter need to verify their identity or sign in with Facebook Connect to tie their Facebook account to their Las Vegas Sun account. For more on this change, read our story about how it works and why we did it.
Only trusted comments are displayed on this page. Untrusted comments have expired from this story.
No trusted comments have been posted.
Post a comment
Most Popular
- Viewed
- Discussed
- E-mailed
- Is Kate Upton the next Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Edition cover model?
- Man saves ‘60s Vegas party house, fills it with treasures
- Man kicked by officer says he still respects law enforcement
- Contraception a clear policy matter
- UNLV basketball in middle of big week of preparations for San Diego State game
- Las Vegas traffic stop leads to ‘Suge’ Knight’s arrest
- Big banks near mortgage deal with state AGs
- Sun’s Demirjian earns national award for congressional coverage
- Who would you like to see inducted into UNLV Athletics Hall of Fame?
- Teachers take protests to superintendent’s office
Blogs
Elsewhere
Revel reveals smoke-free casino opening
Cirque du Soleil show in Sands China casino to close this month
Meet the woman behind Sheldon Adelson
The Kats Report
A sophisticated look at line-moving and dog-show handicapping from Wynn's Johnny Avello
Elsewhere
Update 2: Caesars IPO pricing delayed due to "glitch" - underwriter
The Kats Report
A party replete with Carrot Top, 'AGT' contestants, a couple of Blue Men, deep-fried Oreos ... oh, and the Super Bowl (2 Comments)
High School Sports Scene
High School Hoops Picks: Week 7 (1 Comment)
The Sun
Locally owned and independent for more than 50 years.
It is your opinion that it is against the law.
Opinions are not facts.
Only a conviction in a US court of law can deem an act illegal. Usually that means a group of 12 citizens voting and agreeing in absolute unison.
Water boarding and water torture are two different things.
Water boarding only last less than one minute per session. Water does not enter into the lungs because of the physics.
Water torture as prosecuted after WWII last tens of minutes per session. Water was allowed to enter the lungs. Many of the subjects passed out because of the lack of water and nearly drowned. Water boarding does not come close to that.
Our own troops are water boarded during training.
Reporters have been water boarded.
At one point in time, leading Democrats in the House and Senate did not believe water boarding was torture.
US legislative law does not bar pain and suffering when used in interrogration by non-US military forces against non-state actors like captured terrorists.
It only bars severe pain and suffering that results in long term mental harm.
I have serious doubts that all 12 members of a jury could be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that water boarding is torture.
That is my opinion.
No. A person isn't guilty until he's convicted in a court of law. The laws against torture have been upheld and need nothing further. Here's an example: Murder is illegal. That's the law. It doesn't get a trial. The person accused of committing murder gets the trial. He gets a trial EVEN IF HE IS CAUGHT WITH THE SMOKING GUN STILL CLUTCHED TIGHTLY IN HIS HAND.
So all we can do is accuse Cheney, Rumsfield and Bush of breaking the law against torturing another human being, but they are innocent until found guilty by a jury of their peers.
I am pleased that you feel so strongly about presumed innocence. Do you suppose those people were tried and found guilty before we tortured them ... 83 times?
By the way, when I say "we", I do mean you and I and that is the problem. Since the people committing this atrocity did so under the "color of law", they were acting in our behalf. Approved by the administration, they brought shame and dishonor not only on themselves but on America.
Much better with the Obama policy of turning them over to other countries to interrogate. Bring back the redaction plan from the Clinton ears relys on the promise of countries like Egypt and Libya to treat the prisoners nice and just get us the information seems much better.
They should be given medals.
The information received after the harshed interrogration according to some reports lead to the breakup of an Asian terrorist cell that was previously tasked with a 9/11 style attack on the west coast and also lead to the capture of various terrorist leaders.
I say they did a dam good job.
We should be thankful.
On 5-21-2009 Obama tried to explain his Guantanamo and torture policies, but spend a large part of his speech with contrived indignation and phony moralization on 28 specific statements just attacking Bush again.
The actual Obama changes are marginal from the positions that Bush the day he left office. As an example Bush had aready changed the EIT protocols and had stated the intention to close GITMO (over 300 Terrorist have been released -- 17% of which returned to the fight), the the biggest no change the keep of the "prolonged detention" detainees the so called category 5
Where Obama said "We must have a thorough process of periodic review, so that any prolonged detention is carefully evaluated and justified."
" Finally, there remains the question of detainees at Guantanamo who cannot be prosecuted yet who pose a clear danger to the American people.
I want to be honest: this is the toughest issue we will face. We are going to exhaust every avenue that we have to prosecute those at Guantanamo who pose a danger to our country.
But even when this process is complete, there may be a number of people who cannot be prosecuted for past crimes, but who nonetheless pose a threat to the security of the United States. Examples of that threat include people who have received extensive explosives training at al Qaeda training camps, commanded Taliban troops in battle, expressed their allegiance to Osama bin Laden, or otherwise made it clear that they want to kill Americans. These are people who, in effect, remain at war with the United States."
Obama expressed his irritation with having to deal with the Bush war on terror and wasting his administration's resources. Whining Obama opined "We're cleaning up something that is quite simply, a mess". .
Obama opined ""the decisions that were made over the last eight years established an ad hoc legal approach for fighting terrorism that was neither effective nor sustainable - a [Bush]framework that failed""
""the problem of what to do with Guantanamo detainees was not caused by my decision to close the facility; the problem exists because of the [Bush] decision to open Guantanamo in the first place."
""I say that we need to focus on the future.
"I recognize that many still have a strong desire to focus on the past. When it comes to the actions of the last eight years, some Americans are angry; others want to re-fight debates that have been settled"The Congress can review abuses of our values, and there are ongoing inquiries by the Congress into matters like enhanced interrogation techniques. The Department of Justice and our courts can work through and punish any violations of our laws."
Obama can whine but he is just Bush lite on the issue.
How many times does this have to be rehashed? And jfnance32 just copies and pastes the same tired, irrelevant posts every time? This is what the fifth or sixth time this month?
Regardless -- Glazbrook, you're right on here.
KillerB,
While you and I have our disagreements, I think we could agree that jfnance32 is stupid because, if he were ignorant then all the times he has been corrected would sink in on some level. Instead he never learns and he makes the same stupid comments over and over again. For all other conservatives with some brainpower please see this:
http://blog.su-spectator.com/2009/05/con...
mschaffer.......your insults are at the 3rd grade level.
Keep working....you might get to the 4th grade one day.
killer8......once you re-establish your credibility by applying whatever principles that you have equally to your Democratic heros then I might listen to what you say.
Now, you are just one big hypocrite.
"killer8......once you re-establish your credibility by applying whatever principles that you have equally to your Democratic heros then I might listen to what you say."
Again you're just showing how you can't seem to produce an original opinion. As you are well aware, I am critical of both parties and maintain one of the biggest problems with government is the voting herd maintaining this absurd two-party system. I support good government and its instrumentalities, not idealogies, nor criminal/anti-Constitutional acts.
As to whether or not you "listen" to me, that's completely up to you.
Oh right.............Bush denies habeas corpus access to detainees and you say he is evil and breaking the Constitution.
Obama does it and you say.....Oh Well......he is my hero.
Zero Credibility............
The Dems just can't face facts: You and Pres. Clinton allowed terrorist attacks on U.S. persons/facilities around the world and made no substantive challenge. WTC 1, Khobar towers, Riyadh cafe, two East Africa embassies, USS Cole and the 9/11 attacks. It took two patriots, Bush and Cheney to take the offensive and take the fight to the terrorists. Weak, pathetic liberals
llanquihue,
Add all of those attacks up and you don't have as many American deaths as happened on one day of George W. Bush's watch. One day that President Bush and Vice President Cheney were warned - not once, but many times - was going to happen. Face that fact.
Bush and Cheney were never warned that 9/11 was about to happen.
They got the same vague warnings about possible hijackings that Clinton was getting. Much of the warnings were about oversees hijackings.
Bush took the exact same steps as Clinton did when he received those vague warnings which were to issue a high level alert to the FAA.
There were no warnings about terrorists hijacking planes in the US and plowing them into buildings.
If Clinton did his job in the first place then none of the terrorists would have sneaked into the USA, much less take flight lessons under his very nose.
Also, if he killed Bin Laden on the numerous chances that he had then this would have probably been stop too.
Lastly, he did nothing about the large terror army that was building up in the Afghanistan.
Nope....instead he focused on his girlfriend and his cigar tricks in the White House.
jfnance NO WARNINGS!!!!!!!!!!!!! THE WHOLE WORLD KNOWS THIS! WHY DON'T YOU????
June 2001: As he briefed the President every morning, CIA director George Tenent was saying, "a major al Qaeda attack is going to happen against the United States somewhere in the world in the weeks and months ahead.
June 2001: The CIA and other parts of the Government were warning of an almost certain terrorist attack. More than 40 presidential briefings presented to Bush included references to bin Laden. The warnings were going straight to President Bush each morning in his briefings by the CIA director, and in emails from the NSC's counter-terrorism director, Richard Clarke. Records show that Clarke had bombarded Rice with messages about terrorist threats.
NSC's counter-terrorism director Richard Clarke's memos to Rice;
April 20, 2001 "Bin Laden Planning Multiple Operations"
May 3, 2001 "Bin Laden Public Profile May Presage Attack"
May 23, 2001 "Terrorist Groups Said Co-operating on US Hostage Plot"
May 26, 2001 "Bin Laden's Networks' Plans Advancing"
June 30, 2001 "Bin Laden Threats Are Real"
June 23, 2001 "Bin Laden Attacks May Be Imminent"
June 25, 2001 "Bin Laden and Associates Making Near-Term Threats"
June 30, 2001 "Bin Laden Planning High-Profile Attacks"
July 2, 2001 "Planning for Bin Laden Attacks Continues, Despite Delays"
9/11 Commission Report - "Something really spectacular is going to happen here and it's going to happen soon", that's what the top counter-terrorism official, Richard C. Clarke, told officials from a dozen federal agencies two months before the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001. After the meeting, Clarke went on to place every American counter-terrorist office in America and overseas, on the highest level of alert for the next six weeks. But that status changed on August 6, when, Clarke has stated that the White House ignored warnings about bin Laden's terrorist organization. Clarke said the Bush administration officials, including Condoleezza Rice, were aware of al Qaeda threats but did not treat them as "urgent."
Even more worrying, the CIA's director George Tenet was extremely concerned about an impending Al Qaeda attack as early as June 2001.
jfnance NO WARNINGS!!!!!!!!!!!!! THE WHOLE WORLD KNOWS THIS! WHY DON'T YOU????
August 6, 2001 - The Presidential Daily Briefing titled "Bin Laden determined to strike in the U.S" is ignored by National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice and the President.
Sept 4, 2001 CNN.com - Frustrated by what he saw as an inadequate response to terrorism, Richard Clarke sent an email to national security adviser Rice; "Are we serious about dealing with the al-Qaeda threat? Decision makers should imagine themselves on a future day when the Counterterrorism Security Group has not succeeded in stopping al-Qaeda attacks and hundreds of Americans lay dead at home or abroad after a terrorist attack" and to ask themselves, what else they could have done?"
Rice; "I don't think anybody could have predicted that these people would take an airplane and slam it into the World Trade Center, take another one and slam it into the Pentagon"
Had no one had bothered to tell her that there were indeed several reports prepared within the CIA, the aviation administration, and elsewhere in the Government about the threat of planes as missiles. Had no one told her in all those months that the Department of Defense had conducted drills for the possibility of a plane-as-missile attack on the Pentagon?
GOT FACTS?
There was intelligence that we would be hit; that is a far cry from knowing when, how and where. You can't shut down the whole country. Maybe if Clinton in the 90s, in another Utopian moment, hadn't forbidden our intelligence agencies to recruit people who had unsavory backgrounds to include possible human rights abuses. Thanks Jennifer Harbury and Pres Clinton.
September 10, 2001 - Electronic eavesdropping machines of the NSA captured a conversation between two al-Qaeda operatives. "Tomorrow is zero hour," and "The match begins tomorrow". The conversation was not translated until September 12, according to Bush officials, due to a lack of arabic speaking employees.
(Hubris, copyright 2006 - Michael Isikoff - David Corn)
Had no one had bothered to tell her (Rice) that there were indeed several reports prepared within the CIA, the aviation administration, and elsewhere in the Government about the threat of planes as missiles. Had no one told her in all those months that the Department of Defense had conducted drills for the possibility of a plane-as-missile attack on the Pentagon?
There's the when and how!
If Bush was the least bit interested he would have alerted the where's!
"Bin Laden determined to strike in the U.S" Clinton often got the exact same titled reports.
He had several easy opportunities to kill the guy.
He punted.
You other post are lame, too.
Nance, the bottom line is that Bush was the president for 8-months, he was repeatedly warned about the OBL attacks, and they chose to ignore it. Now Clinton may or may not have done the same thing, but at the end of the day, Bush was the president for 8-months, and chose to do nothing about it. It happened on HIS watch. Not Clinton's. This is like Mike Sanford saying, well we didn't play defense under JROB, so the fact that my defense sucks is really his fault too.
You are deflecting the argument. By 9/11/01, if Clinton had screwed things up like you said, well then...it was Bush's job to fix it. You can bring up Clinton all you want, but it doesn't do a thing to answer why Bush ignored the warnings he got.
So basically your position is - it was okay for Bush to ignore all of the warnings, because Clinton did. Bush had no ability to control anything, he was just along for the ride and completely powerless to do anything about OBL. In 8-months. After more than a dozen warnings. Got it.
Fabulous argument, Nance.
The bottom line is that you guys are nuts.
Bush does bare some respondibility for letting 9/11 happen. He was the President. But the only warnings that 9/11 was going to happen were extremely vague. Where any specific intelligence that said that the terrorists were going to hijack planes and fly them into buildings into the USA. No, there were none. Both Bill Clinton's and Bush's adminstrations were guessing the next Bin Laden attack were going to be overseas. Both guessed wrong.
But giving Clinton a pass would be nuts. The terrorists entered the country on his watch. They took flight lessons on his watch. The terrorits army grew and grew under his watch. He had several opportunties to take out Bin Laden on his watch and declined for potential negative political risk involved at home if the mission failed.
The US embassies, the USS Cole and World Trade Center was attacked under his watch and Clinton responded in an Obama like fashion which is weak and in a policing oriented sytle instead of the proper war oriented style.
Ever since we went on the offensive the war has moved off the shores of the homeland. We are now fighting them on foreign lands with our high trained military troops as opposed for waiting to attack on our homeland where our families and friends would be at risk.
Uddeboda keep your head in that comoda so we don't have to listen to your scandanavian slant.
Hey nance if noone knew about 9-11 why were there millions of dollars made off of put options on the airlines which were involved in 9-11.
OK.....you got me there.
Be sure to sign up for the 1st seats on the daily UFO trip out of Area 51.
Seriously Uddeboda,
If you don't even live in the USA why so much interest in the crappy Las Vegas Sun? Aren't there any issues closer to home for you? No offense intended whatsoever, I'm just incredibly curious. There are much better papers in the US that I'm sure are more fair, informative, and accurate than the Sun!
if waterboarding keeps one american's head from being hacked off, i say we should have waterboarding parties at vegas nightclubs hosted by paris hilton. every person that buys a bottle of grey goose gets to waterboard someone.
that's hot.
Why do we go to war? To protect what is right, not to protect what is wrong. Republicans love war and guns, I guess waterboarding is a Godly thing, right? Bush made us safe, yet in my lifetime the attack on our homeland was under his watch. And North Korea today, evolved under his watch as well. Waterboarding sure made the rest of the world hate us more, is this a good thing? Make us safer??