When the VP says torturing someone is a "no brainer" (besides having no brains to actually say something like that) yeah, it probably sends a message to the troops.

The US has been actively practicing torture of our captured enemies since our country began. All treaties and agreements claiming that we would not engage in torturing POWs have been a will remain lip-service and PR. Our country does what it feels like to anyone and everyone who stands between us and what "we" want because no other country has the balls to stop us and make us honest and scrupulous.

From what I've read so far in The Looming Tower, it seems as though torture probably isn't the best way to cut back on terrorism.

I think it definitely came from the top, from people who are such cowards they have no problem letting lower level troops be punished while they hide behind memos written by lawyers. I don't know how much more proof is needed.

I don't think this memo provides conclusive truth that torture was a directive that came from the top.

That being said, I don't think torture is effective in all cases, but it might be effective in some. However, I think we should absolutely shut down Gitmo, if for nothing else than to show the rest of the world that we are comitted to doing better.

Even if this does prove the authorization to torture, those at the top have not done anything to stop or even reduce the torture. That inaction is enough to condemn them in my book.

Well all I have to say is when you have former Attorney Genreal Goonzales scraping the bottom of the barrel for every legal nook and cranny to justify certain actions and then when seated before a congressional committee is extremely defensive and seemingly has nothing to say. There's something dodgy going on.

I'm not arguing that I don't think it came down from the top, at least SOME of it had to.

But the topic at hand is did the memo prove it, and I don't think it did. It could be a piece of a bigger puzzle though...

Cabaker, if I ever commit a crime I'm going to request you for my jury!

Damn cabaker27 you give me a handerin for some cup cakes. My trainer is going to kill me. LOL!

As for the disgusting activities that the troops themselves were involved in. I think are instances where the higher ups have there attention on something else and the kids are going to misbehave to amuse themselves.

Steph I'm pretty sure I'd get disqualified if you asked for me by name!!

Hypnotic - I'm making chocolate cupcakes with a mocha buttercream tomorrow... shall I send some over??

Nooo thanks sister. That was a form of torture right there.

come on... just one... they're soooo good

cine/syako will only torture with cupcakes

What this memo is is a definition of where the law is on questions that hadn't been confronted in generations, but were suddenly pressing in the aftermath of 9/11 and in the Iraq war. This is not a directive for torture. It explains what the law says is torture, and what it does not. It's about legal guidelines and frameworks. There was no directive FOR torture. But there were plenty of directives to gather intelligence and stop attacks. How to do it was the question. And it seems our intelligence community and military has done something right - we haven't been attacked in almost 7 years. Knock on wood. God bless those who serve our country and confront our enemies.

Yes. It's obvious this memo motivated torture and abuse and furthermore who the hell cares? These people want to kill every single American they can get their hands on. Some of them deserve to feel a little pain. I wonder when it started that citizens of this country care more about a bunch of terrorist than they do their own soliders.

Well said kh. How would the "great society" feel if we instituted the same forms of punishment that have been imposed on our troops, and support staff in Iraq?

Americans who respect the rule of law care about memos that motivate torture and abuse; Americans who care about the treatment our soldiers will receive if they are captured care about memos that motivate torture and abuse. Americans who care about the kind of nation we will become if we stop respecting rules that protect our own people care about memos that motivate torture and abuse.

Sorry UnDave, your point is unclear. Are you saying someone's torturing our people in Iraq or are you referring to them coming under attack? The Great Society would say bring them home and we never should have attacked a soverign nation under false pretenses.

"Americans who care about the treatment our soldiers will receive if they are captured care about memos that motivate torture and abuse"

This might be true if insurgents followed Geneva conventions... but they don't and they never will.

I'm referring to the people who are captured, and then beheaded.

How often does that happen? How many people have been randomly taken from the streets and beheaded versus the number that have ended up in Guantanamo or any of our other detention sites?
Is it worse to have your head cut off or to be tortured until you have a heart attack and die? Are we more civilized because we're more organized and have parsed the torture in memos?
Insurgents don't follow the Geneva Conventions but are trained, supplied and/or supported by governments that do at least tacitly; by breaking or ignoring them ourselves we risk losing an important protection.

Yes, they are to blame for everything wrong in the world.

Are you saying that the detainees in guantanamo are receiving the same kind of treatment as those American soldiers captured in Iraq? And one American beheading is too many. The insurgents we are fighting do not follow any portion of the Geneva convention. If they did, we would be able to pick them out, as they would be in some sort of uniform. The death toll in Iraq would be less, because intentionally bombing civilians is not allowed (according to the convention). Lastly, our soldiers have never intionally killed an enemy combatent while trying to attain information.

Stephley...beautifully put. I've nothing more to add. You said it all

I totally agree with you Stephley...very well said.

If you wanted an enemy in uniform, you should have picked a commander in chief who'd invade a country with an army ready to fight back - like Iran maybe. Most of the detainees aren't terrorists, and many were never guilty of any crime other than being in the wrong place at the wrong time - we'll never know how many because we're also thwarting our own judicial standards with their captivity and 'trials'. Any murder is one death too many - whether its an American victim or not.

stephley you have said everything that needs to be said. I totally agree with you.

"we'll never know how many" is right, so how can you say most?

I think that mistakes are made and it could be anyone who ends up in Guantanamo and if I was htere Lord knows I would not want to be tortured. Funny thing is people cry over animals being tortured or maimed, throw flour bombs and take out full page ads mocking celebs for wearing fur but we are content to let people get tortured, even if in some cases they have no clue what is going on. that is what I don't get about human nature.

What would you prefer we do with enemy combatents? Should we follow the preferred method of our enemy and execute them? I agree that they need to be sorted, given the opportunity to stand trail for their accused crimes, and those who are found not guilty released and given restitution for the time they were held. I'm against the indescriminate senseless demeaning of humans that happened at Abu Grab (sp), but if a detainee has information that could help our cause, I support any method of obtaining that information. Something else to keep in mind - the threat of torture is often more effective in getting someone to talk than actually using torture. If a detainee thinks he can keep quiet without fear of pain, then there is no reason for him to talk.

As far as I'm concerned torturing prisoners makes us no different from the monsters that roam the rest of the world. both sides are righteous in their anger and are convinced the other one is the once completely in the wrong. The only difference is one doesn't behead it's prisoners.

I am not even going to read other comment sright now because I am at work and don't hae time to respond, but here is my opinion:
i chose other. Because, regardless of what the memo says, if an enemy of the U.S. takes a member of our military or country hostage, they don't worry about memo's, they don't worry about laws; they hurt, maim, physically, emotionally, and psychologically as much as they want. I think that, allowing us to inflict pain, as long as there is no long term damage or death, evens the playing field. Why should we show respect for their troops and citizens when they show no respect for ours?

Very well said Cravin.

I think McC may just try Pres Bush when he gets to office.

Do we cut off people's heads too?

What would McC try Pres Bush for? He hasn't done anything that is illegal. If he had, the impeachment process would've begun two years ago. (If I misinterpreted your statement I'm sorry, please correct me)

What I find interesting is that people seem to be forgetting that we haven't just tortured insurgents, because those are far from the only people in Guantanamo.

Clear back in 2003 they admitted to having children as young as 13 in there. Considering many of them were captured immediately after we invaded Afghanistan, that means some of them were as young as 12 when captured. Of course, once this hit the public eye, they were released. And funny enough, they were released straight back to Afghanistan -- now, if they weren't part of the Jihad before, I'm willing to wager a guess that they certainly are now.

What I find most saddening is how many people here think that it doesn't matter if we torture people or not, because our enemies will torture our soldiers regardless.

Why does that make it right? Why does it make it okay to commit horrible acts against people and commit torture? Just because they do it, it's okay for us to commit unspeakable human rights violations and hold people without due process?

So, let's see, give the world MORE of a reason to hate us, while we commit unspeakable acts that our country outright condemns in it's Constitution, for absolutely NO reason. Because do you honestly think that if everyone of these people IS a part of the al-Qaeda or other group, they're just going to break and spill all under torture after a lifetime of conditioning?

Hell, some of them have been held there so long that they probably don't even KNOW what the hell is going on and wouldn't know about a terrorist attack even if it was on the 6 o'clock news here in America.

Torture is morally wrong, why does that seem to be up for debate?

And as for whether or not it came from the higher ups: Definitely. Cheney and Bush have been clear about their stance on torture and have gone to far as to make sure certain anti-torture legislation has been thrown out. Does this memo prove it? No. But it doesn't have to.

Matdredalia:

Our Constitution only applies to the U.S.A and it's legal citizens. no one else. It is a guide for our country, not how we are supposed to treat other countries. Try reading it sometime.

Charges against Bush in an impeachment trial could include lying to the American Congress and public in order to get us in to a war, illegal wiretapping, mishandling the war (rushing to war then not ensuring the troops had proper armored vehicles or bulletproof equipment), and detainee abuse. Interestingly, I've read that Bush could be guilty because he didn't fire Rumsfeld after Rumsfeld took responsibilty for Abu Ghraib - as president, he can be held responsible for Rumsfeld's lack of oversight.
If we impeach Bush for anything war or abuse related, that could open the possibility of Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Gonzalez and American soldiers facing war crimes charges - "just following orders" didn't keep German soldiers out of prison.

cravinsugar - I have a copy of the Bill of Rights hanging not two feet from my desk. I carry a copy of the entire constitution in my purse, and I'm currently homeschooling my brother on the founding of our country. I've read it, ya' know, just once or twice. But thanks for the advice!

I am well aware who it applies to. Read the Bill of Rights in it's entirety and show me where it states anything that says "These rights are given only to United States citizens." Go on. I'll wait.

It doesn't. It makes references to what the Federal Government is and is not allowed to do. Never once does it state that it only applies to United States citizens.

I think the problem is that we're comparing this to more tradional wars. This war is not traditional as undave commented, we're not fighting a uniformed military. We can argue all day about how we got here, but at the end of the day we're still fighting people in plain clothes who will strap bombs to children to kill innocent people and who won't think twice of capturing and beheading our soliers then dragging their bodies through the streets.

So while I understand that in THEORY we should be the bigger people and treat them better than us... in practice its a lot harder to believe in. Some would argue thats why its more important, and I say fine. But its pretty hard to explain to the wife or mother of a beheaded soldier that we need to be kind of detainees.

War is never clean, its ugly and dangerous. Torture is no one's first choice, which is probably why the times its successful don't get reported.

No warcrimes court is going to buy the this is an untraditional war argument - what the other side wears doesn't actually matter. The Palestinians don't all wear uniforms, does that allow Israel free rein with them?
And it is just as difficult to explain to the family of a detainee that their loved one has died as a prisoner of the U.S. - all families feel pain. And how many families of prisoners held by the U.S. have or will someday see the photographs taken of them at Abu Ghraib? Pictures of