SENATE ARMED SERVICES COMMITTEE INQUIRY INTO THE TREATMENT OF DETAINEES IN US CUSTODY
 

I am suprised at the thoroughness and honesty.

PDF version
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&ct=res&cd=1&url=http%3A%2F%2Flevin.senate.gov%2Fnewsroom%2Fsupporting%2F2008%2FD etainees.121108.pdf&ei=k7wbSqSpMY3KM46L0JoP&rct=j&q=senate+armed+services+committee+inquiry+into+the +treatment+of+detainees+in+u.s.+custody&usg=AFQjCNFTtqGZLrAlNgIib1yk1RVJlxpqxw

HTML version
http://74.125.95.132/search?q=cache:pVH4vjQ0Ew4J:levin.senate.gov/newsroom/supporting/2008/Detainees.121108.pdf+senate+armed+services+committee+inquiry+into+the+treatment+of+detainees+in+u.s. +custody&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Senate Armed Services Committee Conclusions

Conclusion 1: On February 7, 2002, President George W. Bush made a written determination that Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions, which would have afforded minimum standards for humane treatment, did not apply to al Qaeda or Taliban detainees. Following the President’s determination, techniques such as waterboarding, nudity, and stress positions, used in SERE training to simulate tactics used by enemies that refuse to follow the Geneva Conventions,were authorized for use in interrogations of detainees in U.S. custody.

Conclusion 19: The abuse of detainees at Abu Ghraib in late 2003 was not simply the result of a few soldiers acting on their own. Interrogation techniques such as stripping detainees of their clothes, placing them in stress positions, and using military working dogs to intimidate them appeared in Iraq only after they had been approved for use in Afghanistan and at GTMO. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld’s December 2, 2002 authorization of aggressive interrogation techniques and subsequent interrogation policies and plans approved by senior military and civilian officials conveyed the message that physical pressures and degradation were appropriate treatment for detainees in U.S. military custody. What followed was an erosion in standards dictating that detainees be treated humanely

I must have missed the link where there was an investigation into the other side's actions towards detainees. The ones with the summary execution, beheading, etc, etc. Can you point me out to that one, please.

How does waterboarding even come close to beheading.

Now this isn't beheading by guillotine, this is beheading by grabbing a live person by the hair, and dragging a blade back and forth across the victim's neck, until the person passes out or dies. The head takes quite a while to hack off in this manner.

My question to you...How would you have handled the nation's military after the terror attacks of 9/11? What would you have done to extract information from the detainees?

You and others seem to love to criticize the past administration on tactics, but how would you have handled it all?

Whatever it takes. Follow the rules of the game and not the rules you bring. This is like an NFL player that transfers to the CFL who insists on playing the game with NFL rules. See what the rules of the game are first. Follow the rules. Don't bring your own rules and insist others follow them.

I have no idea. In that regard, I am probably a lot like Dick Cheney.

The main things I hope I would do would be to get advice from experts, follow the law, and tell the truth. That last one might not be feasible under the circumstances. I suspect that people in charge of national security can't always tell the truth.

Sort of like when the hooker asks the undercover officer, " Are you a cop?".
Incidentally, asking that question does not grant immunity.

So what is the best way to ask as to whether the person is a cop or not that gets you out of trouble? Lets say I want to find out of the hooker is really a hooker or a cop. Hypothetically speaking, that is. :D

Exactly!

I'd love to hear RichC's answer to my question...

If waterboarding is so acceptable, why don't we use it on all people suspected of a crime?

This is a whole different category of fish altogether. We are not talking about someone who was spitting on the sidewalk or ripping off a car. We are talking about someone who is using a whole different set of rules with the intent to harm us. We are talking about someone who is not even a citizen. Someone whose intent is to kill as many of us as they can. Way different than someone who is suspected of stealing.

You can score more touchdowns if you bring a gun and shoot people who try to tackle you.



Or how 'bout this? Who sets the rules?

Subjective, no?

Citizenship is a criteria? Constitution does not grant protections or limit the actions of the government when it comes to tourists . . . undocumented aliens . . tell me more.

Again, how does one know? How about those Chinese Uighur muslims we rounded up? How about the US citizens that wanted to start a jihad last week in NY?

And if nobody is there to stop me, why should you limit yourself?

Better yet, see what the rules are instead of bringing your rules and insisting the other side abides by them and forcing yourself to abide by them.

How is that subjective? What do you think they are there for? A tea party?

The point is that they are nobody significant.

One group inserted itself into a war zone for what? A band tour? As to the US citizens that wanted to start a jihad, since they wanted to harm us, maybe we should just toss them in that same pen and strip them of citizenship.