<iframe src="http://mediamatters.org/research/2014/12/09/conservative-medias-celebration-of-torture/201805" width=800 height=1000></iframe>
Conservatives Laud Torture
- Thread starter thoughtone
- Start date
"I'LL BE RESPONDING SOON!"
The CIA should have setup a front company and release liberal documentaries showing how for-profit companies are to blame for detainees being tortured prior to the release of the report.
Then show prominently throughout the film that Catholic detainees were also waterboarded and tortured, even though it was Muslim. A Muslim viewer would feel that everybody is being affected, even though it is them being targeted.
Then show prominently throughout the film that Catholic detainees were also waterboarded and tortured, even though it was Muslim. A Muslim viewer would feel that everybody is being affected, even though it is them being targeted.
Last edited:
Senator Feinstein: "This is not what America is."
This is like a serial killer or rapist after committing multiple crimes saying this is not what they are. This is exactly what America is, quit deluding yourself. This behavior is consistent with my observations.
This is like a serial killer or rapist after committing multiple crimes saying this is not what they are. This is exactly what America is, quit deluding yourself. This behavior is consistent with my observations.
Senator Feinstein: "This is not what America is."
This is like a serial killer or rapist after committing multiple crimes saying this is not what they are. This is exactly what America is, quit deluding yourself. This behavior is consistent with my observations.
This is like a serial killer or rapist after committing multiple crimes saying this is not what they are. This is exactly what America is, quit deluding yourself. This behavior is consistent with my observations.
Cheney; A Throwback From Berlin 1939, Defends His Torture Program
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/e4wzVDC5VAM?rel=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/e4wzVDC5VAM?rel=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
This is part of a change in U.S. strategy to project themselves to the world as a force for good. By accepting and remediating your mistakes before the UN denounces these acts and take action which makes the situation look much worse.
It would be similar to Nazi Germany denouncing and holding trials about the Holocaust before the UN or ICC stepped in and held people accountable. Then you can project that this is not what we are about and that a few bad actors are to blame.
The U.S. is also acknowledging that advanced weaponry will not change the heart and minds of people who they want to subvert to white supremacy.
The U.S. want to better manipulate the minds of people by projecting the U.S. as a force for good with freedom and democracy when they invade their country for natural resources.
ISIS is also chopping heads off and seems to be bitter about Gitmo (orange jumpsuits) and other U.S. atrocities that were committed against Muslim.
It would be similar to Nazi Germany denouncing and holding trials about the Holocaust before the UN or ICC stepped in and held people accountable. Then you can project that this is not what we are about and that a few bad actors are to blame.
The U.S. is also acknowledging that advanced weaponry will not change the heart and minds of people who they want to subvert to white supremacy.
The U.S. want to better manipulate the minds of people by projecting the U.S. as a force for good with freedom and democracy when they invade their country for natural resources.
ISIS is also chopping heads off and seems to be bitter about Gitmo (orange jumpsuits) and other U.S. atrocities that were committed against Muslim.
Last edited:
is it just me or is anyone
tired of all this conservative, liberal, left wing, right wing..
bullshit...!!
its like a never ending tug of war for crumbs..
is that the only role we going to EVER play on this chess board??
tired of all this conservative, liberal, left wing, right wing..
bullshit...!!
its like a never ending tug of war for crumbs..
is that the only role we going to EVER play on this chess board??
Who generally supports torture, police brutality. Conservatives
Who generally supports a check on those. Liberals
Deal with reality as it is and don't run from it!
"I'LL BE RESPONDING SOON!"
Fox Catches Dick Cheney
Lying About Torture
The former vice president's defense of brutal CIA interrogations
is falling apart under scrutiny
Former Vice President Dick Cheney, the de-facto leader of the national-security team that failed to stop the most successful terrorist attack in U.S. history, is taking to the airwaves to defend the Bush Administration's subsequent torture of prisoners.
His Fox News interview rewards close scrutiny.
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/_r5A3Kwx22U" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
Early on, interviewer Bret Baier says, "The Feinstein report suggests that President Bush was not fully briefed on the program and deliberately kept in the dark by the CIA."
Dick Cheney denies this.
"Not true," he says. "Read his book. He talks about it extensively in his memoirs. He was, in fact, an integral part of he program. He had to approve it before we went forward .... We did discuss the techniques. There was no effort on our part to keep him from that." Cheney goes on to declare that "the men and women of the CIA did exactly what we wanted to have them do in terms of taking on this program."
Got that? Bush was fully briefed, and the CIA did exactly what Bush and Cheney asked. But attentive viewers would notice that Cheney subsequently contradicts himself.
Later in the interview, Baier notes a particularly depraved tactic. "At one point, this report describes interrogators pureeing food of one detainee and then serving it in his anus," he says, "something the agency called 'rectal rehydration.' I mean, is that torture?" (More to the point, did Bush and Cheney know about that? Is it "exactly" what they asked the CIA to do?) "I don't know anything about that specific instance," Cheney said. "I can't speak to that. I guess the question is, what are you prepared to do to get the truth about future attacks against the United States. Now, that was not one of the authorized or approved techniques. There were 12 of them, as I recall. They were all techniques we used in training on our own people."
So suddenly the White House wasn't fully briefed and the CIA went beyond what was authorized, using tactics that weren't "exactly what we wanted to have them do," and that Cheney implies he can't speak to and has never known about before.
Perhaps Cheney did know about "rectal rehydration," but is too ashamed or fearful of prosecution to admit it now. Explicitly defending the anal rape of prisoners is a bit much even for him. Or perhaps he really is just hearing about the tactic.
Either way, he story doesn't hold together. He can't have it both ways. Either the CIA hid depraved, unapproved tactics, or Cheney was perfectly okay with subjecting prisoners to anal rape. Perhaps Chuck Todd can ask him about this glaring discrepancy Sunday on Meet the Press. Until then, there is reason to suspect that, whatever Cheney knew, he doesn't have a moral problem with the anal rape of prisoners, a conclusion I draw from a succinct exchange later in the interview:
That's the guy Commentary magazine honored with a roast.
There are a couple other examples from the Fox News interview of Cheney answers that cannot withstand scrutiny. Andrew Sullivan flags one of those passages:
When Cheney tries to associate everyone tortured by the CIA with the people who perpetrated 9/11, he's using the same cheap misdirection that allowed him to respond to that attack by calling for America to wage war against Saddam Hussein.
Cheney is a capable bullshitter.
But the more we find out about the torture program, the more he is reduced to increasingly naked expressions of his actual "argument": terrorism 9/11 9/11!!!! Take the moment in the Fox News interview when Baier brings up Senator Mark Udall's statement about former CIA Director Leon Panetta's review of CIA torture, and the fact that it reaches some of the same conclusions as the Senate report.
Here is Cheney's actual retort: "Well, I don't know where he was on 9/11, but he wasn't in the bunker." Baier seemed stunned that Cheney doesn't have any substantive rebuttal. I'm not. Many of Cheney's positions on this subject have no basis in fact.
It's nice to see a Fox News anchor help to expose that.
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics...dick-cheney-dissembling-about-torture/383690/
For the most part, it's about making the masses think you are catering to them, but the true bottom line is the money and power that control politics.
Take 'liberal' politicians for example. After the 9/11 attacks, did they take a liberal approach to the problem? No, they took the money and power approach.
Police brutality has been a problem for decades, yet I don't recall it ever being a platform on the national level(even with a black president which is akin to having a black president in the 1960s not making Civil Rights a hot topic).
Some of the most draconian laws put in place for the prison industrial complex have come under liberal leadership.
Liberals and conservatives put police state shit in place like the Patriot Act.
U.S. Representative for California's 13th congressional district Barbara Jean Lee.Lee is notable as the only member of either house of Congress to vote against the authorization of use of force following the September 11, 2001 attacks
FINAL VOTE RESULTS FOR ROLL CALL 342
source: The Nation
Barbara Lee Was Right in 2001. She’s Still Right Now.
Congresswoman Barbara Lee
It has been thirteen years since Congresswoman Barbara Lee cast her lonely vote against authorizing President Bush to launch what she warned could be an ill-defined and endless war. Days after she cast that vote, the California Democrat appeared before hundreds of students at Mills College in Oakland and was greeted for the first time by the chant, “Barbara Lee speaks for me.”
At time when media and political elites said Lee had isolated herself politically, she was embraced by Americans who questioned why Congress was not living up to its constitutionally defined responsibility to check and balance the tendency of executives to “blank check” powers for continual warmaking.
So it was, once more, on Tuesday evening, as television screens were filled with reports of airstrikes by the United States and its allies against targets in Syria. Lee appeared at the 2014 convention of National Nurses United in Las Vegas, where she was honored for her championship of peace and justice during the course of her congressional career.
When Lee came to the stage, a thousand nurses spontaneously began to chant, “Barbara Lee speaks for me.”
Lee was moved by the recognition, yet during a conversation Tuesday evening she told me that she and other members of Congress should have been in session on Capitol Hill. Instead of debating and voting on issues of war and peace, as the the Constitution requires, Congress fled Washington for the 2014 campaign trail.
Lee is blunt in arguing that this is simply wrong.
As she has for more than a decade, with Republican presidents and Democratic presidents, the congresswoman argues that members of the House and Senate must debate and vote on whether to declare the wars that the United States wages. Along with a handful allies in Congress, some fellow Democratic members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus and some “old-right” conservative Republicans such as North Carolina Congressman Walter Jones, Lee rejects the argument that resolutions from years ago and votes on amendments to funding measures meet the standard for congressional authorization of new military strikes.
A “gravely concerned” Lee said in a statement that with the news of the expansion of US airstrikes into Syria, in continuation of airstrikes in Iraq, “it is clear we are rapidly becoming more involved in another war in the Middle East.”
“I have called and will continue to call for a full congressional debate and vote on any military action, as required by the Constitution,” Lee continued. “The American people deserve a public debate on all the options to dismantle ISIS, including their costs and consequences to our national security and domestic priorities.”
Lee has done this again and again. But this time she had a powerful media ally. In an editorial headlined, “Wrong Turn on Syria: No Convincing Plan,” The New York Times writes:
Mr. Obama has failed to ask for or receive congressional authorization for such military action. The White House claims that Mr. Obama has all the authority he needs under the 2001 law approving the use of force in Afghanistan and the 2002 law permitting the use of force in Iraq, but he does not. He has given Congress notification of the military action in Iraq and Syria under the 1973 War Powers Resolution, but that is not a substitute for congressional authorization.
The administration also claims that the airstrikes are legal under international law because they were done in defense of Iraq. In a Sept. 20 letter to the United Nations, Iraq complained that the Islamic State was attacking its territory and said American assistance was needed to repel the threat. But the United Nations Security Council should vote on the issue.
Meanwhile, Congress has utterly failed in its constitutional responsibilities. It has left Washington and gone into campaign fund-raising mode, shamelessly ducking a vote on this critical issue. That has deprived the country of a full and comprehensive debate over the mission in Syria and has shielded administration officials and military commanders from tough questions about every aspect of this operation—from its costs to its very obvious risks—that should be asked and answered publicly.
This is the point that Barbara Lee has been making over all these years. The congresswoman explains that she is not a pacifist, that she grew up in a military family and that she understands that there are times when conflicts will turn violent. She recognizes the genuine concerns that have been raised regarding with the rise of Islamic State militancy. She compliments President Obama for seeking to establish “a strong international and regional coalition to address the ISIS threat.”The administration also claims that the airstrikes are legal under international law because they were done in defense of Iraq. In a Sept. 20 letter to the United Nations, Iraq complained that the Islamic State was attacking its territory and said American assistance was needed to repel the threat. But the United Nations Security Council should vote on the issue.
Meanwhile, Congress has utterly failed in its constitutional responsibilities. It has left Washington and gone into campaign fund-raising mode, shamelessly ducking a vote on this critical issue. That has deprived the country of a full and comprehensive debate over the mission in Syria and has shielded administration officials and military commanders from tough questions about every aspect of this operation—from its costs to its very obvious risks—that should be asked and answered publicly.
But Lee says, “The rapid escalation of another war in the Middle East underscores the danger of the blank check for endless war passed by Congress in 2001. I could not support this blank check for endless war or the 2002 blank check for war in Iraq. I have introduced legislation to repeal the 2001 and 2002 authorizations for the use of military force and continue to build bipartisan support for their repeal.”
The member of Congress whom President Obama appointed as a representative of the United States to the United Nations General Assembly, and who has established a record as one of the most internationally focused and engaged members of the House, said, “There is no military solution to the crisis in Iraq and Syria. In fact, continued US military action will result in unintended consequences. We must remember the roots of ISIS—President Bush’s ill-begotten war. Congress needs to debate the political, economic, diplomatic and regionally led solutions that will ultimately be the tools for US and regional security.”
Extralegal violence by law enforcement officers has been a primary concern of the Congressional Black Caucus since its formation. The CBC has periodically held public hearing about police outrages across the country over the last thirty years. Yet, extra-legal violence persists as recent police killings of Richard L. Holtz (Fort Lee, New Jersey); Tyisha Miller (Riverside, California); and Amadou Diallo (New York City) attest.
Contemporary Police Brutality and Misconduct
You consider Clinton a liberal?
If you think there is no difference between so called liberal and so called conservatives then you are misinformed.
Is that really accurate Geno?
Some would argue that they took the "Fear Approach" -- i.e., they were scared as shit, as many, many people were in the immediate aftermath of 9-11; and in that immediate period they did less thinking and more fearing: afraid to go against the tide; afraid to think in the clutch; afraid to debate in the face of the Cheney/Dumsfeld et al., fear mongering -- and voted in favor of those war resolutions, without serious debate.
<iframe width="420" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/H-kA3UtBj4M" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
Spoken like a true marxist. The only people who are against torture are the ones being tortured. If someone kidnapped your wife or child and the only way to save their life was to torture the kidnapper to obtain the information to save them....what would you do? Say that is a white thing we don't do white things or would you skin the fucker alive until he told you where your loved one was. Enough of the faux hatred of conservatives and whitey.
If this was Jeopardy, would not the answer really would be: What is Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan ?
http://www.drugpolicy.org/new-solutions-drug-policy/brief-history-drug-war
Now I understand the IQ level I'm dealing with.
Take that garbage back to Sean Hannity.
source: History Commons
1947: Japanese Soldier Who Waterboarded US Civilian Convicted of War Crime
1947: Japanese Soldier Who Waterboarded US Civilian Convicted of War Crime
In the aftermath of World War II, Japanese officer Yukio Asano is charged by a US war crimes tribunal for torturing a US civilian. Asano had used the technique of “waterboarding” on the prisoner (see 1800 and After). The civilian was strapped to a stretcher with his feet in the air and head towards the floor, and water was poured over his face, causing him to gasp for air until he agreed to talk. Asano is convicted and sentenced to 15 years of hard labor. Other Japanese officers and soldiers are also tried and convicted of war crimes that include waterboarding US prisoners. “All of these trials elicited compelling descriptions of water torture from its victims, and resulted in severe punishment for its perpetrators,” reporter Evan Wallach will later write. In 2006, Senator Edward Kennedy (D-MA), discussing allegations of US waterboarding of terror suspects, will say in regards to the Asano case, “We punished people with 15 years of hard labor when waterboarding was used against Americans in World War II.” <cite></cite>
better yet, take your garbage back to sharpton. If you hate America so much, leave.
And i bet my dog can beat your dog in a race...who cares if yours or anyone's ancestors were here first. The problem is everyone who is a true citizen, are all working toward different community goals and there are those that keep trying to impose a separation between all citizens. There are cultures, subcultures and counter cultures. There are those that will work to their last breath to ensure that blacks do not assimilate into the American culture, i.e. the marxist Karenga when he INVENTED kwanza. The underlying purpose was to keep black males from assimilating into the American culture.
Personally, I don't give a shit about where my "ancestors" are from, even though i am told they are from Africa. I only care about my own family and the future. Every culture in history has had tragedy, how long will we harp on ours?
Personally, I don't give a shit about where my "ancestors" are from, even though i am told they are from Africa. I only care about my own family and the future. Every culture in history has had tragedy, how long will we harp on ours?
This is the problem with the right. They think they can decided who is a true citizen and who isn't. At the same time they break, subvert and pervert the same laws and moral codes they claim to live up to. Just like when they labeled Black people 3/5ths of a human.
The conservative/right wing modus operandi is consistent throughout the history of the United States.
Oh, here we go quoting the democrat labeling of blacks and insisting it is whites and here you go insisting those who do not agree with you are white.
It was the democrats who found black non human and forced them to slavery, not republicans. It is democrats who now want to keep blacks dependent on democrats for their "status". But wait, now the democrats are catering to the hispanics...so they are putting the blacks aside for the new folk, what are the black democrats going to do about that dwindling majority which is now a minority? Looks like the democrats sold us out to the illegals!
The right does not decide who is American, the law does. Subvert and pervert laws? I guess the conservative jessie jackson jr., marion barry, maxine waters, lee did not break laws and live up to the moral codes they took an oath too?
It was the democrats who found black non human and forced them to slavery, not republicans. It is democrats who now want to keep blacks dependent on democrats for their "status". But wait, now the democrats are catering to the hispanics...so they are putting the blacks aside for the new folk, what are the black democrats going to do about that dwindling majority which is now a minority? Looks like the democrats sold us out to the illegals!
The right does not decide who is American, the law does. Subvert and pervert laws? I guess the conservative jessie jackson jr., marion barry, maxine waters, lee did not break laws and live up to the moral codes they took an oath too?
I didn't say anything about republicans, I said Conservatives/Right Wing!
Nice exposing yourself! How much are you getting paid!
That's it? How much do i get paid, I get paid the exact amount i agreed to be employed for. Do you do the same or do you protest asking for more money and not contributing anything else at your job? Do you say the owner makes money and therefore I am entitled to a portion of the owner makes? Rather than respond you seem to always deflect...typical of those that cannot refute the truth.
Fool, if you are on a job, you got hired, which means the employer thinks you are contributing to the profit of the business. No bussiness person would or could afford to keep anyone who is not contributing to the business.
Don't waste valuable bytes posting on this board.
Thanks for econ 101 paraphrase but fool, you offer nothing different that blackie hate whitey everyday.
I'm sure we don't have to dig up the laws and the skyrocketing prison population that happened under Clinton....Janet Reno...also a democrat....
The correct answer would be, "Who are the democrats and republicans?"
Remember, black 'leaders'(liberals) automatically were for drug prohibition. Funny, since drug prohibition has very deep racial roots.
Republicans(conservatives) and Democrats(liberals) are passing the baton as if this were a relay race.
Setting up Guantanamo and torture shows you how racist whites are toward people in the Middle East that are Muslim. Germans they used soft gloves on them, paid them a wage, and even offered them work. They had them on American soil, and even treated them better than the black soldiers. Some of them could even leave and banged American women!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_prisoners_of_war_in_the_United_States
The Geneva Convention's mandate of equal treatment for prisoners also meant that they were paid American military wages. They could work on farms or elsewhere only if they were also paid for their labor, and officers could not be compelled to work. As the United States sent millions of soldiers overseas, the resulting shortage of labor eventually meant that German POWs worked toward the Allied war effort by helping out in canneries, mills, farms and other places deemed a minimal security risk.
Prisoners had friendly interaction with local civilians,sometimes were allowed outside the camps without guards on the honor system (Black American guards noted that German prisoners could visit segregated restaurants that they could not. luxuries such as beer and wine were sometimes available, and hobbies or sports were encouraged. Alex Funke, a former POW at Camp Algona wrote: "We all were positively impressed by the USA....We all had been won over to friendly relations with the USA." Indeed, unauthorized fraternization between American women and German prisoners was sometimes a problem. Several camps held social receptions with local American girls, and some Germans met their future wives as prisoners.
After repatriation about 5,000 Germans emigrated to the United States, and thousands of others returned later to visit. Funke reported that the visitors did so "as convinced democrats" due to their treatment.
Some them even came back to the U.S. to live!!!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_prisoners_of_war_in_the_United_States
The Geneva Convention's mandate of equal treatment for prisoners also meant that they were paid American military wages. They could work on farms or elsewhere only if they were also paid for their labor, and officers could not be compelled to work. As the United States sent millions of soldiers overseas, the resulting shortage of labor eventually meant that German POWs worked toward the Allied war effort by helping out in canneries, mills, farms and other places deemed a minimal security risk.
Prisoners had friendly interaction with local civilians,sometimes were allowed outside the camps without guards on the honor system (Black American guards noted that German prisoners could visit segregated restaurants that they could not. luxuries such as beer and wine were sometimes available, and hobbies or sports were encouraged. Alex Funke, a former POW at Camp Algona wrote: "We all were positively impressed by the USA....We all had been won over to friendly relations with the USA." Indeed, unauthorized fraternization between American women and German prisoners was sometimes a problem. Several camps held social receptions with local American girls, and some Germans met their future wives as prisoners.
After repatriation about 5,000 Germans emigrated to the United States, and thousands of others returned later to visit. Funke reported that the visitors did so "as convinced democrats" due to their treatment.
Some them even came back to the U.S. to live!!!
Last edited: