Ok, while the media sat on their hands, the House Judiciary committee interrigated the author of the infamious torture memos. Here is a clip of that which will make you sick to your stomach. There is no doubt that what we have are war criminals...
32 comments on "Legal" to Torture a Detainee's Child; Bury people Alive.
Add a comment
To add comments without entering your email and image verification, you must be logged in. Login or Join Blogster
This does not make me sick to my stomach , other then we have commie terrorist loving slugs who try to pass themselves off as american congressmen and GIVE AID and COMFORT to our ENEMY such congressmen should be tried for TREASON !!!-
Unfortunately, we are talking about Iraqi citizens. A country which NEVER ATTACKED US, NEVER Supported Al Quaeda, and NEVER had WMDs. So these are not our "Enemies" as you claim, but innocents. NOW they attack us, because as we now know, Bush/Cheney lied us into the war as proven by the recent Senate Intelligence report.
The people who need tortured are the bloodthirsty B.astards in this administration, until they give us some straight answers before we send them to hang at the Hague.
By the way, I am not surprised you would justify torturing the INNOCENT CHILDREN OF THE DTAINEES and not the Detainees themselves.
I'm all for torturing anyone who can give us information to SAVE AMERICAN LIFES!
U.S. Army Generals have stated over and over again, Torture does not work. With hundreds having been tortured at Gitmo, more in Abu Gharib, And most of them RELEASED WITHOUT Charges, Don't you think they are a little "bitter". This policy itself dangers our people. So lets torture these freaks, get the answers to why THEY put us in danger.
Its a "box of Rocks" and a "Sack of Hammers"....
Yoo must have went to the same school as Gonzales! That is disgraceful!
eky is as wrong as he can be , with the amount of TRUTH in his statement and $1.00 you can buy a cup of coffee at Mickey "D"s , and anyone who agree's with him is as dumb as a sack of rocks !
its good to have fans
It's anything I want it to be , I went through prisoner torture training and I lived through things that would have had you crying "please stop I will tell you Lie's " and they would have seen your Lie's for what they were and kept turning up the wattage on the telephone , until you told the TRUTH , I held out a lot longer then most , but you............................
SACK of ROCKS
So you admit people being tortured will lie to make it stop. How many millions have been wasted on "wild goose chases" due to such policies? What about the troops punished for the torture we now know was directed as orders to them from their superiors? As mentioned in this congressional meeting, if these tortures are not considered tortures, does that mean when they are utilized against our own soldiers that you are OK with that?
That was the most rediculous waste of my time. Thisi is why I do not watch the videos. Come on James.
that was badgering a guy to try to get him to say what you wanted him to say. You can do better than that
They couldn't get him to say anything straight, and his complete contempt for the people asking the questions to me was stunning. I have already known for years now that they were torturing the children of detainees, that teenagers 14 and 15 were being held in Gitmo, that they would rape detainees with broom handles.
This was the first that they actually got these people in a hearing since the Republican controlled congress was never interested in holding their own accountable. I got the oppertunity to watch this in its entirety on CSPAN yesterday, and it was stunning. You didn't find it amazing that he wouldn't give a straight answer? If he had, they would have directly pointed the finger at themselves for giving the green light to allow unjust torture. Badgering, I say waterboard them (since they think it works so well...)
btw, did you not catch where they were reading direct quotes from these two saying that torturing a detainee's child would be ok? Their response was that the quote was "taken out of context". As someone else said,"IN What context would that statement be OK??"
I did not see them not being able to get him to answer "straight" what I saw was them not allowing him to answer the question and taking his statements out of context. That is what I saw and the fact that the original meeting was not included. Perhaps if they would have allowed him to answer I would have been down with that.
You do not know what he said, they would not allow it so how do you know what he said and in what way it may have been out of context?
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article11488.htm
This part of the exchange during the debate with Doug Cassel, reveals the logic of Yoo’s theories, adopted by the Administration as bedrock principles, in the real world.
Cassel: If the President deems that he’s got to torture somebody, including by crushing the testicles of the person’s child, there is no law that can stop him?
Yoo: No treaty.
Cassel: Also no law by Congress. That is what you wrote in the August 2002 memo.
Yoo: I think it depends on why the President thinks he needs to do that.
The audio of this exchange is available online at revcom.us
Yoo argues presidential powers on Constitutional grounds, but where in the Constitution does it say the President can order the torture of children ? As David Cole puts it, "Yoo reasoned that because the Constitution makes the President the 'Commander-in-Chief,’ no law can restrict the actions he may take in pursuit of war. On this reasoning, the President would be entitled by the Constitution to resort to genocide if he wished."
more?
The memo is 81 pages long (here's Part I and Part II). We've posted one of the more remarkable sections here.
In that section, Yoo explains how even if a particularly brutal interrogation might "arguably cross the line drawn" by the law, "certain justification defenses might be available." Those are "necessity" (the "choice of evils," the evils being torture and a terrorist attack) and "self-defense" ("If a government defendant were to harm an enemy combatant during an interrogation in a manner that might arguably violate a criminal prohibition, he would be doing so in order to prevent further attacks on the United States by the al Qaeda terrorist network. In that case, we believe that he could argue that the executive branch's constitutional authority to protect the nation from attack justified his actions.") Just about the only actions that were impermissible and indefensible in Yoo's eyes, it seems, were those motivated strictly by malice or sadism.
Will you ever stop torturing the rest of us with your torture idiocy? What is it with this fixation of yours? Torture - the real kind - has been a fact of life for ever. I'm against it 100% but for God's sake get a life.
Spoken like someone who's politicians they voted for allowed the CHILDREN of detainees to be tortured in a country that never attacked us...Does it help? saying you are against it but having supported the administration and helped promote their agenda the whole time? Just curious if that cleanses the by-proxy responsibility off your conscience?
I don't feel a bit responsible. Does your support of people who commit REAL atricities and torture bother you? It wouldn't even occur to you, would it? If it did you might on occasion write about REAL inhumanity.
Such as who and what. What could possibly be worse than the mockery these people have done to our reputation as a civilized nation?
Yoo reasoned that because the Constitution makes the President the 'Commander-in-Chief,’ no law can restrict the actions he may take in pursuit of war. On this reasoning, the President would be entitled by the Constitution to resort to genocide if he wished."
That is true
But could we, should we allow him to. To me that answer is hell no..
I still do not get why you are so abashed everyone knows this. Could he is different than has he or would he.
Spoken like someone who's politicians they voted for allowed the CHILDREN of detainees to be tortured in a country that never attacked us...Does it help? saying you are against it but having supported the administration and helped promote their agenda the whole time? Just curious if that cleanses the by-proxy responsibility off your conscience?
In nothing i watched or the trascripts has it said that has happened. I cannot say in honesty that I oppose it either. I do not beleive in war crimes. You cannot hold the other side to the same standards. Why should ours be differnt?
http://informationclearinghouse.info/article6492.htm
http://www.lookingglassnews.org/viewstory.php?storyid=1803
More than 107 child prisoners, some as young as 10, are being raped and tortured by U.S. occupation forces in Iraqi jails, the Sunday Herald reported, citing witnesses.
One witness, Kasim Mehaddi Hilas, detailed how a U.S. soldier raped a "little kid" aged about 15 in the Abu Ghraib jail in Iraq. “The kid was hurting very bad and they covered all the doors with sheets,” he told investigators probing prisoner abuse in Abu Ghraib.
In another witness statement, former detainee Thaar Salman Dawod said: “[I saw] two boys naked and they were cuffed together face to face and [a U.S. soldier] was beating them and a group of guards were watching and taking pictures and there was three female soldiers laughing at the prisoners.”
The Herald also said that evidence of the arrest and detention of Iraqi children by occupation forces was revealed in a classified Unicef report, released in June.
A key section on child protection says: “Information on the number, age, gender and conditions of incarceration is limited. In Basra and Karbala children arrested for alleged activities targeting the occupying forces are reported to be routinely transferred to an internee facility in Um Qasr. The categorisation of these children as ‘internees’ is worrying since it implies indefinite holding without contact with family, expectation of trial or due process.”
Another section reads: “A detention centre for children was established in Baghdad, where according to ICRC (International Committee of the Red Cross) a significant number of children were detained. Unicef was informed that the coalition forces were planning to transfer all children in adult facilities to this ‘specialised’ child detention centre. In July 2003, Unicef requested a visit to the centre but access was denied. Poor security in the area of the detention centre has prevented visits by independent observers like the ICRC since last December."
An Iraqi TV reporter Suhaib Badr-Addin al-Baz said he saw the children's wing at Abu Ghraib when he was detained by U.S. occupation forces while making a documentary. “I saw a camp for children there,” he said. “Boys, under the age of puberty. There were certainly hundreds of children in this camp.”
Between January and May this year, the Red Cross reported a total of 107 child detainees during 19 visits to six Iraqi jails. The aid organization's Rana Sidani said that they don’t know the exact ages of those detained or how they are being treated.
Like the Red Cross, Amnesty International is also outraged by the detention of children. It is aware of “numerous human rights violations against Iraqi juveniles, including detentions, torture and ill-treatment, and killings”. Amnesty has interviewed former prisoners who said they've seen boys as young as 10 in Abu Ghraib.
Alistair Hodgett, media director of Amnesty International USA, said that occupation forces must be “transparent” about their policy of child detentions, adding that “secrecy is one thing that rings alarm bells.” He added that even countries “which don’t have good records” allowed Amnesty to access their prisons. “Denying access just fuels the rumor mill,” he said.
Hodgett also said that occupation forces shouldn’t be holding any Iraqis, let alone children. “They should all be held by Iraqi authorities,” he said. “When the coalition handed over Saddam they should have handed over the other 3000 detainees.”
Moreover, senior Pentagon officials told the Sunday Herald that children as young as 14 are being held by the U.S. in Iraqi jails. “We do have juveniles detained,” one source said.
Officially, the Pentagon claims that it is holding “around 60 juvenile detainees primarily aged 16 and 17”. But when the Red Cross said the number is substantially higher, a source admitted “numbers may have gone up, we might have detained more kids”.
"Unacceptable"
The Norwegian government has slammed children detention and abuse by U.S. forces in Iraqi prisons. Odd Jostein Sæter, parliamentary secretary at the Norwegian PM's office, said: “Such assaults are unacceptable. It is against international laws… This is damaging the struggle for democracy and human rights in Iraq.”
In Denmark, Save the Children demanded its government to call for the release of child detainees.
And Human Rights Watch (HRW) said it was “extremely disturbed” that there were child prisoners in jails notorious for torture. HRW also criticized the policy of categorizing the children as “security detainees”, saying that doesn’t allow indefinite detention.
Unicef also said that it is “profoundly disturbed” by reports of children being abused and tortured in Iraqi jails. Alexandra Yuster, Unicef’s top adviser on child detention, said that under international law, children should be detained only as a last resort and only then for the shortest possible period.
Per your last comment ("More than 107 child prisoners..."). I am shocked at how far you have strayed from reality. I did not think you were quite as bad as this. There's just about nothing anymore that you will not believe so long as it bodes evil for America.
It's time for you to join the Taliban and put a$$ where your ideology sits.
You're flat out nuts!
its just the facts of the situation, that was from the Sunday Herald, from 2004. Today it is probably more, but that is actually a guess.
You apparently cannot handle the truth of what this administration has done to our nation. I haven't been calling them the "Bush Crime family" for nothing you know.
Why would I "join the taliban" I want them captured and tried for their crimes. Unfortunately we got Mr.."I don't know where he is, nor do I spend that much time on him" running the show, thanks to supporters like yourself. And soon, thanks to the torture of innocents and the rape and torture of their children, we will have a whole new generation who hates us, for the ideology the republican party has pushed.
My conscience is clean, I have been discussing this and telling people since I started blogging. I never once, voted in favor of any of this, or supported any of these people.
Sleep well...
When you accept the most slanderous propaganda as fact without hesitation you become nothing more than a useful idiot. You want to know why other countries have no respect for us? Because we have legions of goofs like you tearing down our image and repeating the most brutal propaganda against their own country. Dopes like you could do us much less damage carrying an AK47 in the Mts. of Afghanistan.
These stats come from the International Red Cross, And some from the U.N. Short of going over and counting them yourself, or having Rupert Murdoch count them for you, who would you believe? Now be a good little German, ignore what is happening and has happened in your name, because you will anyway.
http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/tortureindex.htm
US military holds more than 500 juveniles in detention centers in Iraq, according to the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child. The occupation force has held at least 2,500 children in detention centers since 2002, including eight in Guantanamo Bay. The author notes that the detention of children in adult detention centers violates US obligations under the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, as well as accepted international human rights norms. (Associated Press)
And I thought they had no respect for us because our leader is a moron, and we have broken nearly every international treaty printed!