The March 6, 2003 draft memo from the Defense Department, which was obtained in part by NEWSWEEK, is titled a ?WORKING GROUP REPORT ON DETAINEE INTERROGATIONS IN THE GLOBAL WAR ON TERRORISM? and explores numerous legal defenses for acts that might be construed as torture. It was first disclosed by The Wall Street Journal on Monday. Along with several other memos to come out of the Justice Department?s Office of Legal Counsel?two them previously disclosed by NEWSWEEK?the 56-page DoD memo is believed to form the main basis for legal arguments justifying intense interrogation methods used at Guantanamo Bay. Some of those methods were later believed to be adopted for use at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq.

 

Full Article

 

 

Torture Memo in full

Among these practices were the selective removal of clothes and food, limiting a prisoner?s access to light, and forcing a prisoner into ?stress? positions for long periods of time.

 

This doesn't strike me as terribly extreme treatment. Certainly no worse than prisoners in the US prison system who are slapped into solitary confinement. No, this is much, much worse. Remember that the way we treat prisoners in a war zone is much more important than the way we treat our own criminals.

 

Plus, the conditions you'd experience in a US county jail after stealing a TV should be much worse than some Ali-Hajii who takes a pot shot at an APC with an RPG and blows a couple of american kids away.

 

C'mon. The media tells you this is important, so you should be treating it as such!

I think the whole point we are missing is that the executive branch self asserted it's own power, expanding the constitution to the point of rewriting it (and this isn't the fisrt time in American history, this isn't a cheap shot at Bush.)

 

The executive said, "We can torture people in order to protect America, which stands for all of the things listed in the constitution."

 

Seems kind of hypocritical if you ask me, the executive shouldn't have this much power.

I think the whole point we are missing is that the executive branch self asserted it's own power, expanding the constitution to the point of rewriting it (and this isn't the fisrt time in American history, this isn't a cheap shot at Bush.)

 

The executive said, "We can torture people in order to protect America, which stands for all of the things listed in the constitution."

 

Seems kind of hypocritical if you ask me, the executive shouldn't have this much power.

You hit the nail on the head sorianofan. But theyll treat all of this as irrelevant just as long as the "ali-hajiis" are the ones taking the brunt of the torture and it comes in the name of percieved war on terror. I dont doubt in my mind that this administration can do no wrong for some people on this board in the war on terror.

However, what precedent is set when we start saying "we are fighting a war" and the enemies soldiers are no soldiers, but "Terrorists", and so standard war practice is then thrown out the window. Then what precedent does this set for Americans to be tried as terrorists without rights?

If an American is caught fighting overseas with a bunch of terrorists do you think its reasonable that they should be extended full protections?

 

An American commits a crime against America? We can kill traitors legally.

 

However, how about jose padilla?

What it boils down to is that for some people in this country, all "those people" over there are terrorists and torture to anyone, however suspicious they maybe(the perfectly innocent are no exceptions) is valid.

 

Do you I think we should be able to torture Khalid Shaikh Mohammed? Absolutley. But if you think for a second that some of the people being tortured are closer to him on the gradient, then youve gotta be in denial or in full compliance.

 

Do you think McVeigh would NOT have gotten the big sleep if he'd done his OKC bombing after 9/11 - when terrorist coddling became popular?

 

 

Terrorist coddling? Are you kidding me? What amazes me is that we cant move in any direction toward sanity without being accused of inane things like "terrorist coddling." Its the whole "unpatriotic" crap again.

 

 

1984. Not just a slippery slope.

What it boils down to is that for some people in this country, all "those people" over there are terrorists and torture to anyone, however suspicious they maybe(the perfectly innocent are no exceptions) is valid.

 

Do you I think we should be able to torture Khalid Shaikh Mohammed? Absolutley. But if you think for a second that some of the people being tortured are closer to him on the gradient, then youve gotta be in denial or in full compliance.

 

Do you think McVeigh would NOT have gotten the big sleep if he'd done his OKC bombing after 9/11 - when terrorist coddling became popular?

 

 

Terrorist coddling? Are you kidding me? What amazes me is that we cant move in any direction toward sanity without being accused of inane things like "terrorist coddling." Its the whole "unpatriotic" crap again.

 

 

1984. Not just a slippery slope. I find it absolutely ridiculous that we are offering ANY semblance of due process or rights to individuals who take up arms against the United States.

 

And yes, you are coddling.

 

You can take issue with the president and his war, you can take issue with the economy or any other political issue. But do not sit there leaking your liberal, fuzzy, give the benefit of the doubt to everyone mantra. It's sickening and it's wrong. Not everyone is misguided, or unelightened, has failed to see the positives of what Democracy can bring, or "just needs to be treated fairly."

 

They hate you, they want to kill you and they will not stop until you are dead and/or your country no longer exists. No compromise, no appeasement, no solution. They hate us.

 

Regardless of whether the war is just, unjust or anywhere in between the mistake of confusing your beliefs about the reason for the war should not be compounded by erronious beliefs about the execution of that war.

 

Pretty soon when some insurgent fires a weapon we'll have to capture him alive and send him to couseling instead of shooting back.

 

And BTW... The reason why we still have all these douchebags in Guantanamo is b/c the US government can't bring them back to the US, as flaming liberals will try to give them all fair and just treatment and all that crap. Sad.

Your problem is that the definition of "they" has gone beyond AQ. Who is defending those who take up arms? My problem is how you conveniently hide behind the scumbag terrorists to defend the more questionable angles.

 

Whether you like to admit it or not, the war on terror as carried out by flaming(wtf does that mean anyway?) conservatives has an undertone of a war on Islam. Face reality. Youve effecutated this silly white mans burden and now you defend it by saying we coddle terrorists. I am coddling terrorists? Why cant intelligent discussion on variant circumstanced every be allowed without you people resorting to such brainless tactics.

 

 

And BTW... The reason why we still have all these douchebags in Guantanamo is b/c the US government can't bring them back to the US, as flaming liberals will try to give them all fair and just treatment and all that crap. Sad.

 

Sorry fish_fillet. Its called the Geneva convention and thats what they are trying to avoid at all costs, not the liberals-hence the enemy combatants stuff and not prisoners of war.

 

 

Youre blatant spite for the fourth amendment offends me. And please please please dont call me a terrorist lover because this has nothing to do with terrorists and more to do with the undertones conservatives have against all individuals. Ill pray to the flag if you want me to. Some conservatives would destroy the bill of rights if you had the chance. Too bad those same ones come back to hide behind it like the convenient cowards they are-see Rush Limbaugh.

6th, not 4th amendment.