Comments on: Even Without Video, Evidence of CIA Torture Exists

By: Anoldguy1944

Anoldguy1944 — Tue, 29 Jan 2008 05:38:36 +0000

Ah, the Bush legacy… Discarding the Geneva Convention and the Constitution, and substituting policies and procedures that would doubtless have been approved of by the Nazis and the KGB, all in the name of “national security.”

We’ve heard that appeal before when it came to the treatment of prisoners, and in various countries. That’s why the Geneva Convention was devised in the first place. Should an American soldier be treated in the same way, listen for the howls of outrage, especially from Bush sympathizers and neofascists.

What goes around, comes around folks.

By: no idea

no idea — Tue, 29 Jan 2008 06:22:49 +0000

Jim,

This was a horrible incident. We need to do better and uphold the ideals that we believe in. I think most Americans are opposed to torture. I certainly am, and it saddens me that we have lowered ourselves at times.

Just once I’d like you to write a piece about the people who want to kill us and how animalistic that they are.

We aren’t the bad guys that you want us to be. But that wouldn’t get your guy/gal elected to further your domestic goals.

But just once write something that is positive about America in the world.

By: Keith two

Keith two — Tue, 29 Jan 2008 15:43:54 +0000

Jim,
The United States lost the high moral ground with the invasion of Iraq by the President. Since then it has been all down hill. The administration’s decisions in the area of human and civil rights for detainees and our own citizens in the name of homeland security has been a disaster.
If the CIA had acted properly these tapes would not have been destroyed. Funny how the White House e-mail system “lost” important information also.
This administration makes the Nixon era look like small timers. The sad thing is with the recent economy problems many people seem not to care.
Do you think any of the candidates ever stop and think what a mess they have to deal with if they are elected President?
Immigation, foreign policy, the economy, health care and the environment for starters. Hopefully help is on the way.

By: usersuz

usersuz — Tue, 29 Jan 2008 18:40:44 +0000

Whenever George and his cronies took the “honor” out of “duty, honor, country.”

I question the destruction of the “tapes.” C’mon, the CIA loves its gadgets and has an almost unlimited budget to acquire them. Does anybody really believe this was taped? It was digitized, I’d bet my passport, and there are probably some quiet little copies hanging around somewhere, just in case. Remember, they were using excerpts from interrogation scenes as “training” films before the scandal broke. It’ll all come out when our boy goes back to Crawford. History will have a heyday.

By: urthpigg

urthpigg — Tue, 29 Jan 2008 20:30:53 +0000

Both of Colorado’s U.S. Senators, Wayne Allard and Ken Salazar, voted to approve the use of torture in 2006. I guess they did not want to look like they were “soft on terror” or soft on those accused of being terrorists. Senators are supposed to represent the people. Both of our state’s senators apparently believed that a majority of people in Colorado either support torture or do not care how their senators vote. Maybe they were just voting their conscience.

By: rickweles

rickweles — Tue, 29 Jan 2008 21:10:02 +0000

I’m not a violent person, but I’d wish the very same treatment upon the perpetrators of this vile abomination in the name of “security” — and the perpetrators at ALL levels, right up to the Perp-in-Chief himself.

Then I DARE those bastards to say, as they blithely have for years, that it isn’t torture.

And I agree entirely with ArnoldGuy. What goes around DOES come around. And baby, it’s comin’ …

Thanks for digging into this, Jimbo. Too many news media organizations and (I detest the word) “outlets” give it short shrift, if any shrift.

By: LHKMAN

LHKMAN — Wed, 30 Jan 2008 00:25:34 +0000

Noidea, I haven’t tangled with you in a long time, so I guess it’s time to do so once again. We agree that the torture of Gen. Mowhoush was a terrible incident. It was, as others have said, the direct opposite of what this country is supposed to stand for.

And that is where you and I part company. I would let Jim Spencer speak for himself, but he doesn’t seem interested in participating in the comments to his blogs. So, I’ll offer a thought or two. He — and others — do not write about either the “bad guys” or what you call “positive” things about America for one reason: they are not in dispute, and they are not news. In my world, stories of the type you wish to saw are called Pablum. They are bland and do not really advance human knowledge, which is what most journalists seek to do. Sometimes, we (Jim and others) even succeed.

By: george_pramenko

george_pramenko — Wed, 30 Jan 2008 18:09:54 +0000

As a college-AFROTC cadet, I first heard the phrase, “strategic resources”. Now as a senior citizen and avocational historian, I realize that I have never read that George Washington or any of the Founding Fathers ever used the phrase: “strategic resources”. When did that phrase come into being?
I ask this because it appears that in more recent decades, especially since the Korean War, U.S. Defense Dept. U.S. policy-makers, the military, and the C.I.A. have all used this phrase in rhetorical efforts to justify the right of Presidents and U.S.military to make pre-emptive strikes upon other nations…and it became a premise for the C.I.A. to over-thrown duly elected officials in other countries.
It is also against International Law to invade another nation predicated upon it being a “potential threat”, as Japan and Germany did to other nations to start WW II…and to obtain their land, coal, iron ore, copper and their oil–e.g., similar in fashion to what the C.I.A. did in Chile and what the Bushies have now done now in Iraq!
Add a third element to the above, “the threat of terrorism” and the Executive Branch, C.I.A. and Defense Dept. all now believe that they have a carte blanche account to premptively attack anyone and even torture anyone who they decide to declare a threat to this nation by some creative “word-smithing” efforts.
And they’ve even put the writ of habeas corpus into moth balls…and they do wire tapes without a judge’s order!
Torture is merely last part of their current menu that they now use in dealing with other nations. To hell with Diplomacy. Diplomacy to them is too passe. So, what now makes us now any different from “governmental beasts of past generations” in other nations? Not Much…Thanks especially to Cheney, Wolfowitz,
Feith, Pearl, Gonzalas, the Bushies and as
far back as Nixon & Richard Helms.

By: no idea

no idea — Thu, 31 Jan 2008 01:03:33 +0000

LHKMAN,

I don’t disagree with you. But we, as Americans, are not the bad guys. Torture is wrong. But even Jim called this guy a “high value terrorist”. What does that mean? If I was handling a “high value terrorist” I would want to hurt him/her

Now we can all agree that communist leaders in the former U.S.S.R. (Joe Stalin et al torture) were wrong. We are not those guys. But during the cold war, was Jim really on our side when Reagan said “tear down this wall Mr. Gorbachev”? or did he think this was war mongering? I am sure that he thought Reagan was the war monger……

My question to Jim was, who are the good guys? I am hoping, and trusting, that it is us.

I am speculating about his thoughts then and he was wrong, and I know his thoughts now and he is wrong again.

By: no idea

no idea — Thu, 31 Jan 2008 01:22:40 +0000

…and I’ll head you off at the pass that individual torture accusations is different than “rattling the sword” towards the old Soviet Union..But is it really that different in blaming America first. I am certain that Jim Spencer hated Ronald Reagan and thought he was pond scum at the time. History corrected this.

By: Wildflower

Wildflower — Thu, 31 Jan 2008 05:19:12 +0000

no idea I’d guess if you ask the rest of the world they would now say that we ARE the bad guys. The USA no longer sets the high moral ground for the rest of the world, we are the low ground. We have thrown away any semblance of human rights, not just for war prisoners but for people in this country too. As George said we seem to feel we have carte blanche to attack or torture anyone.
What’s missing now is the Legislative and Judicial branches do not provide checks and balances for the Executive branch. Executive (and sometimes Judicial) override.
I’m sure torture is nothing new to the CIA, but the crudity of these tortures is surprising since they probably have more subtle ways to get answers.Perhaps they wish to cover their involvement so only the military will be blamed?
The sad part of this torture is that if our soldiers should get captured, they may get treated like we treated prisoners.

Reagan spoke regally, but don’t get me started on him. Taxing the poorest people such as the waitresses on tips they didn’t get, food they didn’t eat, had to get that last dime out of the little people. My daughter was a waitress while going to DU when Reagan’s tax laws went into effect, she made very little after Reagan’s laws went into effect. He eliminated the tax deduction for master charge on interest, but the wealthy could still deduct the interest on their 2nd and 3rd homes…ah yes Reagan’s trickle down theory..only it didn’t trickle down.

By: LHKMAN

LHKMAN — Thu, 31 Jan 2008 18:08:12 +0000

Noidea, I’m in substantial agreement with you, but am considerably more optimistic than either you or Wildflower, and I have a considerably higher regard for this country and its international policies, although admittidly, the current administration puts those beliefs under considerable stress. Self-flagellation results only in pain for the flagellator. I don’t know whether Jim Spencer hated Ronald Reagan or not, but that’s not the discussion we’re supposedly having. Actually, I considered Reagan’s “tear down this wall, Mr. Gorbachev” to be fine political rhetoric. I fail to see how it equates to any discussion of torture.

By the way, a “high value terrorist” differs from any other kind of terrorist by degree of importance, at least that’s my understanding of both the English language and the rhetoric used in Washington to sound like more than you really are.

Wildflower: Please do not fall into the rhetorical/political trap of ascribing to individuals that for which they really cannot claim credit or blame. Reagan did none of the things about interest deductions that you claim. Congress passed those laws; Reagan only signed them into law. All politicians of all persuasions are guilty of abuse of the English language and logic in that respect.

By: Wildflower

Wildflower — Thu, 31 Jan 2008 20:20:45 +0000

There’s no doubt Reagan was a masterful orator, and an admirable well-meaning man. Remember him hoisting a brew with the hardhats in Massachusetts when he first took office?
And his “Mr. Gorbavhov, tear down this wall” speech will go down in the annals..
But Reagan was duped, he should have used his vetoes…
Remember also the giant corporations, freezing the wages of all but the top CEOS? The beginning of the messes like we have now with Quest and other CEOS..laying the foundation for the Kravits, et.al hostile takeovers that have devasted the middle class? It all began during Reagan’s tenure. I have a good memory, Lhkman, and I lived through everyone of those crises of the middle class.

By: LHKMAN

LHKMAN — Fri, 01 Feb 2008 21:59:35 +0000

Well, Wildflower, I agree that Reagan was a superb orator — that shouldn’t be too surprising considering he as an actor above all. I also recall his regular drinks with Tip O’Neill on the assumption that the sun was over the yardarm somewhere in the world. I also do not credit or blame him for all the things you do. Greed is a concomitant part of our capitalistic society. I am unaware of anything Reagan did that would lead you to blame him for the Henry Kravis (cq) hostile takeovers. By the way, others played in that arena, too. The laws permitted the takeovers, just as they do today. The Antitrust Division of DOJ chose not to try to block them. You could blame Reagan for that, as DOJ reported to him, but there is no guarantee that under existing law, the trust-busters would have been successful. Example: The DoJ and the trustbusters tried to block the acquisition of Denver’s Southern Pacific by the Union Pacific. UP was a notorious GOP supporter, as was Phil Anschutz and SP. The White House was in Bill Clinton’s hands then. Justice failed to block the takeover. Do you really think that a woman who served on the Wal-Mart board of directors really stands for change in DC? If so, I’m sure you will want to buy the waterfront property in Arizona that I have for sale.

By: Wildflower

Wildflower — Mon, 04 Feb 2008 23:57:50 +0000

No, Lhk. I don’t really think she stands for change so I’m going to have to pass on your waterfront property in Arizona. But if you think any of the current candidates will be able to achieve significient change in DC there’s a bridge in Brooklyn you need to take a look at. Cheers.