Guantanamo Legal Adviser Refuses To Say Iranians Waterboarding Americans Would Be Torture
Guantanamo Legal Adviser Refuses To Say Iranians Waterboarding Americans Would Be Torture
During a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on “The Legal Rights of Guantanamo Detainees” this morning, Brigadier General Thomas W. Hartmann, the legal adviser at Guantanamo Bay, repeatedly refused to call the hypothetical waterboarding of an American pilot by the Iranian military torture. “I’m not equipped to answer that question,” said Hartmann.
Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), who asked the hypothetical, pushed Hartmann on his answer, asking him directly if it would be a “violation of the Geneva Convention”:
GRAHAM: You mean you’re not equipped to give a legal opinion as to whether or not Iranian military waterboarding, secret security agents waterboarding downed airmen is a violation of the Geneva Convention?
HARTMANN: I am not prepared to answer that question, Senator.
After Hartmann twice refused to answer, Graham dismissed him in disgust, saying he had “no further questions.” Watch it:
Hartmann’s non-answer is reminiscent of State Department Legal Adviser John Bellinger’s refusal in October to condemn “the use of water boarding on an American national by a foreign intelligence service.”
But not every lawyer who’s worked for the Bush administration has been so hesitant to call waterboarding torture.
In 2004, after then-acting assistant attorney general Daniel Levin had himself waterboarded, he concluded that the interrogation technique “could be illegal torture.” For his efforts, “Levin was forced out of the Justice Department when Alberto Gonzales became Attorney General.”
Sen. Graham, a former military judge advocate, has said before that someone doesn’t “have to have a lot of knowledge about the law to understand this technique violates Geneva Convention Common Article Three.”
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
88 Responses to “Guantanamo Legal Adviser Refuses To Say Iranians Waterboarding Americans Would Be Torture”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Think ProgressContact Us
Donate
Enough with the damn Iranians! Notice how they are the hypothetical boogeymen in this example? Now why would the Iranians have any of our soldiers captive, Sen. graham?
December 11th, 2007 at 2:20 pmWhen you’ve disgusted Lindsey Graham, you can be certain you’ve reached “the bottom”.
December 11th, 2007 at 2:20 pmgraham is nothing more than another war mongering bushie, he’s probably pissed because he didn’t 5 rugs for $.50.
December 11th, 2007 at 2:24 pmHARTMANN: I am not prepared to answer that question, Senator.*
*The White House told me to pull an Alberto and not answer any questions that might go against crimes that the White House is committing.
Bush/Cheney/Congress/Hartmann
Hague Trials ‘09
Buck Fush
December 11th, 2007 at 2:26 pmSo, in an impeachment trial, would Lindsey Graham vote to convict? From this, are you sure????
We’ll never know until we try.
Unless we try, we’ll never be able to hold him accountable, one way or the other.
December 11th, 2007 at 2:27 pmNo surprise there. In their sluggish little brains, it just may have occurred to them that if they condemn the IRANIANS for waterboarding…well, they may have to condemn our guys as well.
Uh…no can do. Can’t have that.
December 11th, 2007 at 2:28 pmHartmann: “I’m not equipped to answer that question,†- - Yeah, he doesn’t have any gonads.
December 11th, 2007 at 2:28 pm.
LOYALTY OATHS go a long way.
.
December 11th, 2007 at 2:29 pmSenator,
In all due Respect, I’m trying to get my 2nd Star so you will quit trying to get me fired? I’m covering up for our War Criminal President as best I can.
December 11th, 2007 at 2:31 pm.
#1 Comment by Menehune — December 11, 2007 @ 2:20 pm
Excellent point.
What if it were the Canadians doing this? Or how about Iceland, or say, I know, AMERICA?
.
December 11th, 2007 at 2:32 pmloyalty oaths? what is this, 1955?
December 11th, 2007 at 2:32 pm.
Since when
is torture …
… L E G A L ?
No one knows. Everyone is afraid to say. Yet many, many people have argued it’s necessity. Like there is some magic threshold of when torture becomes legal. In a society where laws and principles ARE supposed to be paramount, to even entertain such vulgarities and perversions of America is unamerican. It makes me have to ask, what does being America and an American mean?
.
December 11th, 2007 at 2:36 pmloyalty oaths? what is this, 1955? -Comment by tombaker
I don’t know, but I’m sure I saw Joe McCarthy at the mall Saturday.
December 11th, 2007 at 2:37 pmComment by tombaker — December 11, 2007 @ 2:32 pm
Don’t you mean H. R. 1955? Where essentially the Declaration of Independence would be subject to review for being a terrorist manifesto?
.
December 11th, 2007 at 2:37 pm10…An amazing rhetorical feat: simultaneously reinforcing the negative image of the ordained future foe, while professing to get to the bottom of your own conntry’s misdoings–and doing so by projeecting on them the very things that your own country is doing? Breathtaking.
December 11th, 2007 at 2:40 pmI’ll give him 24 hours to prepare himself to answer that question. In my military days a “no excuse, sir” answer got your ass in trouble.
This is a career soldier, a brigadier no less, and that (I wanted to say half assed answer, but that won’t work either) answer should end his career.
Save us from the PCd pussies of the world.
December 11th, 2007 at 2:40 pmSo this general is the legal advisor at Guantanamo, yet he’s “not prepared” to answer a question about the legality of certain acts?
Yep, he sounds like a Bush appointee, alright. I smell a Medal of Freedom…
December 11th, 2007 at 2:42 pmSo with these guys do the Geneva Convention apply anywhere anymore or is it just anything goes? Why did we have the 20th century if this is where the “lone superpower” was going to take us?
December 11th, 2007 at 2:46 pmTranslation: “Sir, I’ve been ordered not to respond to that question.”
December 11th, 2007 at 2:47 pmMore hand-wringing from members of the Senate. But none of them intends to do anything about this. Meanwhile, the U.S. Constitution circles the drain.
December 11th, 2007 at 2:48 pmPRAISE THE LORD! And pass the waterboard!
December 11th, 2007 at 2:49 pmEvery TJAG opposed the “enhanced” interrogation techniques because of the precendent and danger that this position would entail for our own troops in future conflicts. This administration doesn’t give a shit for our troops. These public positions will be used to justify the torture of our personnel whether the torture be to procure information or just to punish our soldiers who become captive. The definitions of torture are simple. If you have to split hairs over the definition, I can assure you that the action is torture.
December 11th, 2007 at 2:49 pm“I’m not equipped to answer that question,†said Hartmann.
The next question should have been, “Then who is?”
December 11th, 2007 at 2:53 pm14 - I wrote my Congressman and Senators about that one. There was a 1958(?) that went with it.
December 11th, 2007 at 2:53 pmif it’s ok for us to do, it’s ok for them to do… a subtlety that torture supporters seem to be unable to comprehend…
December 11th, 2007 at 2:53 pmWell, Frank, you can always leave the site if we’re boring you. I should think that being here would be TORTURE to you.
December 11th, 2007 at 2:54 pm23 - what does it say about you, that all you have to do is whine about us?
December 11th, 2007 at 2:54 pmLOYALTY OATHS go a long way.
Comment by Max-1
Unfortunately these people took a loyalty oath to George Bush and not to the Constitution.
December 11th, 2007 at 2:54 pmOh look, an administration/pentagon apologist! I’m sure he’s here because he’s concerned about accountability and this country’s reputation too.
December 11th, 2007 at 2:54 pmi love it…the irony…americans working very hard everyday to legalize torture for other countries…it’s going to be open season on americans very soon…i can’t wait to not be prosecuted for going yankee hunting.
just like bush has worked very hard for 7 years to hand over the most powerful presidency to Hillary. let’s hope Hill gets a taste of repuglican blood in her mouth
if you think the clintons disappeared people before….just wait.
December 11th, 2007 at 2:54 pmWhy don’t we round up all the prisoners we’ve been holding, ask them if they were waterboarded and then ask those that have been if they consider it torture. Then whatever the majority vote of those prisoners could be the final word on whether or not it’s torture. Because obviously this country isfull of cowards afraid they might at sometime be involved in an attack, even though they live in a shitkicker town nobody in their right mind would bother with. We’ve turned into the United States of Chicken Littles worrying about the sky falling.
December 11th, 2007 at 2:55 pmUnfortunately these people took a loyalty oath to George Bush and not to the Constitution.
Comment by bilbobaggins — December 11, 2007 @ 2:54 pm
Who needs the Constitution when you have Bush to “think” for you?
December 11th, 2007 at 2:57 pmFrank M,
“Don’t you people have anything more important to whine about?”
Perhaps you could suggest a topic. I’m curious why you think that people torturing other human beings in your name isn’t important.
December 11th, 2007 at 2:57 pmDon’t you people have anything more important to whine about?
Comment by Frank M — December 11, 2007 @ 2:51 pm
Yeah when you’re not here we whine about having to share a country with reich winged yellow bellied cowards who life in a trailer park and think that terrorist are on their way over there to get them. We were just trying to be polite.
December 11th, 2007 at 2:58 pmLook at this. The whole TP front page consists of nothing but rantings about this so called torture.
Don’t you people have anything more important to whine about?
Comment by Frank M — December 11, 2007 @ 2:51 pm
Like, so called “patriots” who cowardly torture prisoners on the orders of their superiors?
December 11th, 2007 at 2:58 pmShayne you said it. The only people attacking these small towns is their own crazed youth. Hey Red States–maybe you should waterboard your own kids to find out who’s thinking about popping off at the mall or post office.
December 11th, 2007 at 2:59 pmComment by tombaker: When you’ve disgusted Lindsey Graham, you can be certain you’ve reached “the bottomâ€.
I dunno, I’ve seen Graham get pretty pissed off at these hearings, beginning with those concerning Abu Graib. Not quite this pissed though. The way he interrupted Hartmann to say, “You are”, positively dripped with contempt. Trouble is he has never translated his anger into actual opposition to the Bushies and their crimes.
I truly hope that it’ll be different this time and that other Republicans of conscience, (I still hold out hope that they exist), will start to stand up to Bush/Cheney. It strikes me as the only thing that will put impeachment back on the table. That, after all, was what finally got the House off its collective ass with Nixon, when his own party began to desert him.
December 11th, 2007 at 3:02 pmI wonder if we will end up apologizing to Germany and Japan for convicting their soldiers of torture for water-boarding our troops back in WW II?
God Bless America
December 11th, 2007 at 3:03 pmReally it’s all these rural red staters who are worried about terrorist attacks while their kids are out making crystal meth and street racing exploding the neighborhood and running down grandma. Bunch of dumb rednecks, why are they allowed to vote?
December 11th, 2007 at 3:06 pmPretty soon we’ll have to show remorse for misunderstanding Hitler’s methodology because obviously rethugs think that fascism is the only way to keep this country safe.
December 11th, 2007 at 3:08 pm.
Comment by Frank M — December 11, 2007 @ 2:51 pm
AMAZING FRANK M…
A week ago I asked of you, SINCE WHEN IT TORTURE LEGAL?
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz from you and yet you defend it. Not only why is this, but implicitly so, it’s good enough to be used on you.
Does the word moron hold any meaning to you?
.
December 11th, 2007 at 3:11 pmComment by Max-1:
#1 Comment by Menehune
Excellent point.
What if it were the Canadians doing this? Or how about Iceland, or say, I know, AMERICA?
Maybe, just maybe Graham chose that particular hypothetical because it’s not exactly hypothetical. If Bush/Cheney get their way we very well might find ourselves faced with this exact situatuion.
Could it be that Graham is planting a seed here? Could he be saying to the American people and to his Republican colleagues that Bush/Cheney’s past and current actions, coupled with their future plans, could put us in that exact situation.
Sooner or later the Repubs with a conscience and with some stones are gonna start flipping. Maybe this is where it begins.
December 11th, 2007 at 3:12 pmComment by Frank M: Look at this. The whole TP front page consists of nothing but rantings about this so called torture.
Don’t you people have anything more important to whine about?
Yeah, next we’ll be talking about the so-called holocaust, right?
Creep!
December 11th, 2007 at 3:17 pmCheck this out guys and gals.
A Canadian judge has just ruled that the U.S. does “not meet the conditions required to be considered a ‘Safe Country’”. That the “U.S. does not meet the Refugee Convention requirements nor the Convention Against Torture prohibition.”
What that means is that:
“Canada will no longer have the right to turn back asylum seekers at the American border under a federal court ruling that deems the United States not a safe country for refugees – opening the door for a potential flood of northbound claimants.”
http://www.rabble.ca/ news_full_story.shtml?sh_itm=5764f99b85f84ac086aa782f30e411a6&rXn=1&
December 11th, 2007 at 3:20 pmComment by Pete Bogs: if it’s ok for us to do, it’s ok for them to do… a subtlety that torture supporters seem to be unable to comprehend…
Of course they comprehend. That’s why Gen. Hartmann was instructed not to answer.
There’s an old saying… no, not that one… which goes, “Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.” Sadly, we now live in a place and time where that saying is pretty lousy advice.
December 11th, 2007 at 3:23 pmI really wish that there was some way we could require every one of the Bushies who refuse to call waterboarding torture, to be waterboarded themselves.
December 11th, 2007 at 3:26 pmHerr Hartmann probably only confesses to his priest.
December 11th, 2007 at 3:28 pmComment by mary — December 11, 2007 @ 3:20 pm
Good to know I have some sane place to take my family if the 08 elections are cancelled due to a false flag attack…
December 11th, 2007 at 3:29 pm“Canada will no longer have the right to turn back asylum seekers at the American border under a federal court ruling that deems the United States not a safe country for refugees – opening the door for a potential flood of northbound claimants.â€
Woo Hoo, good on Canada!
I would love to see someone publish findings on how much this country’s tourism income has dropped since Bush took office. I read somewhere that tourism by Japanese and Chinese has dropped off dramatically. This is really hurting cities like San Francisco and New York. I know that if I lived outside the USA, I would be hesitant to come to the USA for a vacation. Especially if my skin was even slightly brown.
December 11th, 2007 at 3:30 pmwe are engaged in an existential struggle with an enemy that won’t understand anything else than means that are close to or exceed their own brutal ruthlessness
Francine, wasn’t that the war on drugs?
December 11th, 2007 at 3:30 pmExcuse me, I should have said, “Oberst” not “Herr.” I stand corrected.
December 11th, 2007 at 3:30 pmOooh Frank. there are ruthless jihadis under you bed! Scaaarrryy jihadis! Hey, we’re doing fu-k -all if this is an existential struggle. Shouldn’t we have three million troops in uniform? Shouldn’t you be saving string, cooking grease and tinfoil for the troops? Where is the gasoline rationing? Where’s our Manhattan project on energy so that we can tell the islamofascists that we don’t need to do business with them. You’ve been sold a bill of goods, Frank. Get a hold of yourself. Chin up chest out. You’re an American, not some sniveling whipped dog!
December 11th, 2007 at 3:31 pm#42: What makes you think I care if it is legal or not?
Comment by Frank M
What makes you think that we care one way or another what you think? You are an ignorant bore with no balls.
December 11th, 2007 at 3:31 pmComment by Frank M — December 11, 2007 @ 3:24 pm
####
So if American troops were to be waterboarded, as they were during WWII, would that be considered torture?
December 11th, 2007 at 3:32 pmComment by Frank M: I have explained many times that I believe that we are engaged in an existential struggle with an enemy that won’t understand anything else than means that are close to or exceed their own brutal ruthlessness. Legal, illegal - doesn’t matter as long as it produces results…..
And, in the process, we become them, or worse than them, thereby losing the existential struggle you’re concerned about.
December 11th, 2007 at 3:35 pmFrank M says legal, illegal doesn’t matter as long as it produces results.
I am thinking that Frank is really a terrorist planted here in the US. And I have this inkling that he is planning on bombing something. Somewhere. Sometime. Maybe…
So I think we should find this suspected criminal and cut his fingers off, one by one, until he tells us his nefarious plans. Oh, he will cry and tell you that he really is the innocent zit faced punk he appears to be but don’t believe him. When we run out of fingers we can do the toes. Someone bring the rose pruners, these kitchen knives are ok for fingers but we need something more solid for toe bones.
Ignore the piss running down his legs and the cries for Mommy, it’s all part of the subterfuge. In the end, if we don’t get anything of value out of the little puke, don’t despair. At least we can sleep comfortable tonight with the knowledge that little Frank won’t be blowing something up. Somewhere. Maybe….
December 11th, 2007 at 3:36 pmComment by Doc Rock: Excuse me, I should have said, “Oberst†not “Herr.†I stand corrected.
Actually, Herr Oberst….. except an oberst is a colonel. For Hartmann it would be Herr General.
December 11th, 2007 at 3:39 pmWhat makes you think I care if it is legal or not?
Comment by Frank M
We know, you neocon fckwits do not believe in Rule of Law.
December 11th, 2007 at 3:41 pmWhat makes you think I care if it is legal or not? I have explained many times that I believe that we are engaged in an existential struggle with an enemy that won’t understand anything else than means that are close to or exceed their own brutal ruthlessness. Legal, illegal - doesn’t matter as long as it produces results as was shown in the case of Abu Zubaydah.
Comment by Frank M — December 11, 2007 @ 3:24 pm
Do you have any proof that a terrorist plot was thwarted or are you just pulling more crap out of your ass you cowardly little prick.
December 11th, 2007 at 3:51 pmComment by Frank M: Not when the Rule of Law interferes with survival of our culture and children.
The rule of law is central to our culture. Without it our culture vanishes and our children are at increased risk.
You know, you really need to think this stuff through some.
December 11th, 2007 at 3:51 pmMemo to US pilots,
December 11th, 2007 at 3:52 pmReplace the text in your training manual from;
“If you are captured only give your name, rank and serial number”
with;
“If you are captured say you are not equipped to give a legal opinion.”
Isn’t Frank actually Jake? At 75 years old why don’t you stop hiding under your bed and try to live a little you coward. Back in the old days people your age would give themselves up to save the youngsters. Don’t let us stop you from sacrificing yourself yourself, obviously you have nothing to contribute to anybody anywhere.
December 11th, 2007 at 3:54 pmNot when the Rule of Law interferes with survival of our culture and children.
Comment by Frank M — December 11, 2007 @ 3:47 pm
There is no “our culture” since obviously you have no semblence of any culture whatsoever. And how many children does an old fart like you have. Or are they children because they’re your but other’s young children make no difference to you at all you egomaniacal a$$hole.
December 11th, 2007 at 3:56 pm#60: Not when the Rule of Law interferes with survival of our culture and children.
Comment by Frank M — December 11, 2007 @ 3:47 pm
#####
Frank, here are a few people who might disagree with you. They all believe that torture is wrong, ineffective, and not something we should engage in. But please feel free to contact them to tell them why you feel differently.
http://www.commondreams.org/news2007/1204-16.htm
General Joseph P. Hoar, USMC (Ret.)
General David M. Maddox, USA (Ret.)
Vice Admiral Lee F. Gunn, USN (Ret.)
Vice Admiral Albert H. Konetzni Jr. (Ret.)
Lieutenant General Charles P. Otstott, USA (Ret.)
Lieutenant General Harry E. Soyster, USA (Ret.)
Rear Admiral Don Guter, USN (Ret.)
Major General Fred E. Haynes, USMC (Ret.)
Major General Melvyn S. Montano, ANG (Ret.)
Major General William L. Nash, USA (Ret.)
Major General Antonio Taguba, USA (Ret.)
Brigadier General James Cullen, USA (Ret.)
Brigadier General David R. Irvine, USA (Ret.)
Brigadier General Murray G. Sagsveen, USA (Ret.)
Brigadier General Stephen N. Xenakis, USA (Ret.)
December 11th, 2007 at 3:59 pmHow in God’s name can General Hartmann live with himself after failing to support our troops against torture? How can this high-ranking representative of our military fail to defend enforcement of the Geneva Conventions on behalf of his own troops? This man should be stripped of his rank and thrown in the brig. How utterly shameful.
December 11th, 2007 at 4:02 pm#60: Not when the Rule of Law interferes with survival of our culture and children.
Comment by Frank M — December 11, 2007 @ 3:47 pm
The Rule of Law IS your culture.
Or at least it was, at any rate.
December 11th, 2007 at 4:03 pmNot when the Rule of Law interferes with survival of our culture and children.
Comment by Frank M — December 11, 2007 @ 3:47 pm
Easy there fella. Existential struggle? Cultural survival? What the hell do you think this is the Lord of the Rings Saga? Get a grip! You must have been one of the nuts who thought Satanic worship in the 80’s would destroy us and Commies during the Cold War, and the strong Japanese economy and all the other “existential” sturggles
December 11th, 2007 at 4:04 pmHARTMANN: “I am not prepared to answer that question, Senator.”
(Translation: “Answering that question would subject me to a paradigm shift without a clutch. Chances are my head would explode.”)
December 11th, 2007 at 4:05 pmComment by VerbalKint: How can this high-ranking representative of our military fail to defend enforcement of the Geneva Conventions on behalf of his own troops?
He was ordered not to.
December 11th, 2007 at 4:05 pmComment by Frank M — December 11, 2007 @ 4:18 pm
###
So you disagree with our military leaders, but you agree with the Japanese who waterboarded American troops during WWII. That makes sense.
December 11th, 2007 at 4:20 pmThis guy is the “legal advisor” at Gitmo, who’s not prepared to give a legal opinion on what is torture - makes him Exhibit A concerning the effects of torture on those who perpetrate it. This guy has completely lost his moral compass, and his ability to empathize with another human being, including his comrads-in-arms.
Maybe he could ask ex-Colonel Morris Davis about it…
December 11th, 2007 at 4:25 pmHave we opened the door to our enemies to torture Americans?
http://www.youpolls.com/details.asp?pid=1276
.
December 11th, 2007 at 4:31 pm“The Rule of Law is useless when you, your wife and/or kids have been killed in a terrorist strike.”
Comment by Frank M — December 11, 2007 @ 4:18 pm
Survival is useless when you, your wife and/or kids have become terrorists.
December 11th, 2007 at 4:39 pm#69: The Rule of Law is useless when you, your wife and/or kids have been killed in a terrorist strike.
Comment by Frank M — December 11, 2007 @ 4:18 pm
So does this same logic apply if they have been killed by a drunk driver, troubled teen, common crinimal, or any other potential threat? Who the hell are you Charles Bronson
December 11th, 2007 at 4:41 pmThat makes sense.
Comment by Chris L — December 11, 2007 @ 4:20 pm
Don’t forget… Frankie is proud to be a Fascist.
Wasn’t Mussolini a Fascist? Il Duce?
Mebbe we should start calling Frank “Tha Duch” fer short.
Oe just “Douch”…
December 11th, 2007 at 4:54 pm#69: The Rule of Law is useless when you, your wife and/or kids have been killed in a terrorist strike.
Comment by Frank M — December 11, 2007 @ 4:18 pm
So does this same logic apply if they have been killed by a drunk driver, troubled teen, common crinimal, or any other potential threat? Who the hell are you Charles Bronson
Comment by dbadass — December 11, 2007 @ 4:41 pm
Now, now — Frank has probably watched too many movies. His sense of reality is a little skewed.
December 11th, 2007 at 5:17 pm#69: The Rule of Law is useless when you, your wife and/or kids have been killed in a terrorist strike.
Comment by Frank M — December 11, 2007 @ 4:18 pm
So a terrorist strike is cause for anarchy — right?
This might explain why we are having so much trouble establishing order and quelling the violence in Iraq. Anybody over there who has lost a member of their family to the violence feels justified in ignoring the “useless” Rule of Law.
As for me, I would be mad as h*ll if someone I loved was killed in a terrorist strike. But I would be just as mad if that person was killed for any senseless reason.
December 11th, 2007 at 5:22 pmUSA=WAR CRIMES!
December 11th, 2007 at 5:24 pmInfo about Hartmann not mentioned so far:
*Someone above called him a “career soldier”. Actually, like Janis Karpinski, he is a reservist.
*Concerning what he has to do to get fired — Do you remember a couple of weeks ago, when Major Geoffrey Groharing, Omar Khadr’s prosecutor, claimed the reason he hadn’t honored his obligation to inform Khadr’s Defense counsel of the existence of a possibly exculpatory witness, was that Hartmann had ORDERED him to keep this evidence secret.
* Concerning Hartmann’s role — Colonel Morris Davis, the former Chief Prosecutor had a power struggle with Hartmann. Davis’s version was that, as Chief Prosecutor, he should be making decisions about how to allocate the Prosecutions resources; which evidence to use; which cases to bring to trial first. Davis pointed out that as “Legal Advisor”, he was supposed to remain IMPARTIAL, and had general oversight authority over both the Prosecution and the Defense. The senior brass backed up Hartmann — which I think should have proven quite embarrassing to him, when Hartmann’s role in burying exculpatory evidence broke.
December 11th, 2007 at 6:00 pmIn order to defend Bush the administration is not only willing to ignore the Geneva Convention as it applies to the dudes they capture, they’re willing to go even further & say that the Geneva convention doesn’t apply to U.S. soldiers. And Frank defends that. He feels that in order to protect your freedom it is necessary to give a pass to other govts that choose to torture U.S. troops. Because to condemn such torture would mean that the U.S. would have to stop torturing. So it’s all good now. The U.S. has officially joined the ranks of terrorist nations. I’d hate to be in the U.S. military. I’m sure when they signed up the soldiers thought that it would be a slam dunk that their country & countrymen would defend the troops the way the troops are defending the country. As it turns out the only person being defended is GWB.
December 11th, 2007 at 7:22 pmLindsey Graham and the Hypocrisy of the FACISTS STATE OF AMERICA (FORMER USA). When the US waterboard that is “harsh interrogation”, but when someone else do to american soldiers, he doesn’t have that face to say it is torture! Lindsey Graham is not a human being, he is a rat! WATERBOARD LINDSAY!!!!! THAN ASK THIS COWARD SCUMBAG HOW HE FEELS!
December 11th, 2007 at 10:46 pm“Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the boisterous sea of liberty” - Thomas Jefferson
December 12th, 2007 at 12:09 amI wonder if Spain and Great Briton torture their prisoners. They’ve suffered more recent terrorist attacks than we have
December 12th, 2007 at 12:21 am.
#47 Comment by Frank M — December 11, 2007 @ 3:24 pm
Frank,
So if it’s good enough for them, then it must be good enough for you too. Your definition, your terms. I’m just attempting to figure out how you think. By your logic, our prosecution of Japanese after WWII was a mistake, because a little torture is good enough? Or say the military Court Marshal of U.S. Service men in Vietnam was wrong too, because after all, a little torture is acceptable?
WHICH IS IT FRANK?
YOU CAN NOT BE AGAINST TORTURE AND BE FOR A LITTLE TORTURE.
It’s called being DUPLICITIOUS…
It’s called HYPOCRITICAL…
It’s called MORONIC…
.
December 12th, 2007 at 12:34 am#88 Comment by Max-1 — December 12, 2007 @ 12:34 am
WHICH IS IT FRANK?
YOU CAN NOT BE AGAINST TORTURE AND BE FOR A LITTLE TORTURE.
It’s called being DUPLICITIOUS…
It’s called HYPOCRITICAL…
It’s called MORONIC…
It’s called INSANE…
December 12th, 2007 at 1:10 amThe truly sad thing is the US has a long proven history of being complicit in torture. Going all the way back to the 60s at least in Latin and Central America. What is happening now under W is just pushing the envelope further. It used to be that torture was kept under wraps. Today the neocons openly advocate its use, while employing legal “scholars” like John Yoo who create the illusion of legality for those acts.
So now, we have reached the stage where it is not only permissable to torture, (under a bunch of euphamisms,) but it is “necessary” and “good” to “have a national discussion” about the merits of using torture! Truly, black has become white.
Just listen to Frank M here to see and understand the minds of those who advocate and justify torture. Max-1 wants to “figure out how you (Frank M) think”. I propose that there is no real “thinking” going on. Only acting out emotional fantasies while hoping to overcome some insuffurable inferiority feelings they suffer from. Their “reasons” and “justifications” have nothing to do with thought, other than that which will allow them to do what ever they want without the fear of punishment.
That our leaders in the legislature allow this to continue is a tragedy of major proporations. And that includes Democrats as well as republics!
December 12th, 2007 at 1:32 amIf the committee had any guts …
December 12th, 2007 at 10:35 am“You’re not prepared to answer it? That’s unfortunate, General. Because you are going to answer it, and you are going to stay here until you do. Security, remove this man’s chair. He will stand, and I mean stand, before this committee until he gives an answer, one way or another, whether such actions as waterboarding and stress positions constitute a violation of the Geneva Conventions.”
Actually, Graham is relatively sane on this issue. He certainly is an expert. You can certainly disagree with his stance, which tends to jump the rails occasionally so he can be a good party member, but he’s not crazy, by which I mean, you can definitely work with him on this issue. Jeff Sessions is the crazy one, spreading the lie that “30 of the detainees have returned to combat,” and every other wingnutty shouting point. Graham’s conservative, all right. Sessions is a principle-free right-wing nut.
December 12th, 2007 at 2:41 pm