Payson Roundup

Tom_Garrett (Tom Garrett) says…

I won't go into details because I think you all know most of them. I just want to ask the basic question:

Do you think it's appropriate for the Justice Department to seek out those who advocated that we break the Geneva Convention and engage in torture? Or do you think we should just let the whole mess fade away?

Ruby_Finney (Ruby Finney) says…

Absolutely not !!!!!!!!

This is a political action being taken without regard for the fallout which will result from this publicity ploy . Anyone who expects to gain stature from, this mess will end up a big loser.

I am tired of politics, really tired of Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid along with all the republican political hacks - all of whom are putting personal power ahead of our country's security. A pox on all their houses.

thechief (Chief Hinton) says…

Dean
If you are sick of both sides please come to our next Tea Party. We would love to have you

david_vaughn (David Vaughn) says…

As Al Qaeda is religious based without borders, would the Geneva Convention cover this band of terrorists? Or are our elected officials bloviating again?

Tom_Garrett (Tom Garrett) says…

David,

You ask an interesting question. It implies, of course, that we can torture people because the enemy does it. Do you really think that we should give up our principles because the people we are fighting don't agree with them? Isn't that what we are fighting for? To maintain our country as it is? If we join them, why fight them?

Torture is not just internationally illegal, it's a horrible thing, a wrong thing, and certainly an anti-Christian thing. Now I know that we are not a “Christian nation,” but one which welcomes all faiths, but a lot of the things we do are based on fundamental Christan beliefs.

Waterboarding, by the way, which is central to this issue has been recognized for well over half a century as a horrible, unacceptable means of torturing helpless prisoners. Those who approved it knew full well that it was used by the Japanese during WWII and that it is one of the crimes for which we so hated the Japanese at the time.

I am by no means politically motivated, but I think there should be a non-partisan (can there really be such a thing?) investigation into the matter by the Justice Department. If someone is knowingly guilty of a crime, he or she should be prosecuted. Personally, I would like to see the investigation handled without public fanfare until it is done, and there to be a full disclosure of the results.

You know what worries me more than anything? Dick Cheney's insistence that because it worked, torture is okay. That is the worst example of the “the end justifies the means” that I have ever seen. It horrifies me that the Vice President of our nation is such an immoral man that he is willing to do something which is so completely against our way of life.

If waterboarding, which makes a person feel like he is drowning, puts him into a state of panic and fear, is okay, then why not just go to a blowtorch under the armpits? Once you begin torturing people, giving up your beliefs, you may as well go the rest of the way.

Ruby_Finney (Ruby Finney) says…

Tom,

While I respect your opinion, I really feel like you are stretching pretty hard when you indicate that preventing the deaths of several thousand Americans is not worth giving up principles . The claim is made that the planned attack on the Los Angeles Library Tower was prevented by use of “strenuous devices” to get information after the Sept. 11 attack on the Twin Towers.

I understand you were in the service - wasn't it the Air Force? - and I have listened to interviews of several retired Air Force pilots who state that they were waterboarded before going into war zones to let them understand this might be used on them if captured. One of the Fox News field reporters asked to be (and was) waterboarded so he would understand the experience.

If it's good enough for our pilots, then it's Ok to use on terrorists.

Why isn't someone still complaining about our soldiers in the early days of Iraq war and Reporter Pearl, who were beheaded - not quickly, but in a slow and very painful way? How many of these events are known to have happened? The fact that they happened is not a reason to reciprocate in a like manner, but certainly tells us that no matter how principled we are, it will not make a difference in the treatment our men and women receive at the hands of the enemy.

Instilling panic and fear in a terrorist to save the lives of several thousand Americans really does seem justified to me.

david_vaughn (David Vaughn) says…

A little clarification if you please. When I mention the Geneva Convention, my inferred comment was that Al Qaeda is not a signer to that doctrine. If these terrorists are combatants without a country, they should not be accorded the benefits to this sacred trust between state combatants. Can we even call them military warriors, as they fly no flag of state? Their very operations are not military targets whatsoever. Their targets are the women and children who are of no strategic consequence; just a tool in which to instill their religious beliefs upon others, through the use of fear and fear alone.

I do not condone torture, but I will not turn my civil sensitivies from it either. Those who wish to beat down the Great Satan will do so, so long as their dictum gives them purpose, drive and attention.

War is an extremely ugly affair, not to be fought from the sidelines by someone not educated in military theorems or liberal viewpoints. Vietnam (and I'm quite certain other skirmishes) taught us that. Leave the business of war to those who understand it in its totality. I am a staunch supporter of tolerance, dusted with a reality based flavor of backbone.

I have taken an oath to protect the Constitution from enemies both foreign and domestic. During moments of temporary civil exigency, the lawful ability to circumvent our civil rights / freedoms is authorized, when there arises a need to protect our citizenry with immediate action.

Because Al Qaeda tortures our troops and allies, does that give us automatic line approval to reply in kind. Not knowing the whole environment, I would have to say no. Could there be a need in torturing another, during these exigent moments? That is a question only one educated in the art of war can answer, coupled with the knowledge in which the boots on the ground have. We can't. For the most part, our individual belief structures would preclude us from forming a supporting opinion.

And lastly, our Constitution works only here on American soil. If our soldiers violate the UCMJ and the laws in the host country they are in, then by all means, prosecute to the fullest.

Otherwise, let our soldiers be soldiers and fight the good fight. Don't let the bloviating politicos dictate who or where to strike in anger.

I agree with Ruby, by instilling fear into the heart / mind of our terrorist combatant…especially when our borders are openly porous and are known to leak foreign operatives; not just illegal aliens.

The next Tea Party is when?

Tom_Garrett (Tom Garrett) says…

Ruby,

“While I respect your opinion, I really feel like you are stretching pretty hard when you indicate that preventing the deaths of several thousand Americans is not worth giving up principles .”

Ruby, the simple truth is that if we don't live by our principles, we have no principles. There can be no compromises with torture. It cannot be condoned for any reason. To do so would turn the world into an even worse place than it is now.

From a practical viewpoint, by the way, the only protection that one of our captured soldiers has is the fact that we treat the captives from the other side with dignity and fairness. Would you deny our soldiers that protection? Let me tell you something: As someone who was one of those soldiers I would take it very hard if my country threw me to the wolves by refusing to abide by the rules of war. War is horrible enough without having to go into combat knowing that if you are captured you are going to be subjected to every horror that the enemy can dream up.

Even the Japanese, during WWII, adhered to a large extent to the Geneva Convention. Yes, they brutally murdered some prisoners, tortured others, and used others as forced laborers, but their official attitude was not all that much different from ours. Even they, some of the worst ever known, did not execute prisoners out of hand; they put them into prison camps. If we were to adopt your attitude there would be no prison camps, just places of torture where our soldiers suffered untold horrors, after which their maimed and broken bodies would be thrown onto a trash heap.

Please rethink what you said.

David,

I accept your correction on what you meant and am glad you oppose torture.

As to Al Queda, it doesn't matter whether or not they are part of a nation or organization which did or did not sign the Geneva Accords. The Geneva Accords require us to treat all combatants properly because WE signed them. And if the person captured is not a combatant he then comes under our civil laws, which are even more stringent in forbidding torture of any kind. That's why GW et al wanted them declared combatants and kept in Cuba.

As to your other comment, about who should run a war and who should stay out of it, I could not agree with you more. Leave the fighting to those who know something about it. Politicians are more interested in staying in office than in winning wars. And civilians who don't like war belong at home writing letters to their congressmen, not on the streets running down the troops who are putting their lives on the line for their country.

thechief (Chief Hinton) says…

David
We are talking about another Tea Party on JUly 4th but it has not been set yet. The national groups are also talking about July 4th. Of course Obama may cancel July 4th unless the United Nations and Iran give him permission to go a head and have it. :)

david_vaughn (David Vaughn) says…

Thanks, Chief.

Tom_Garrett (Tom Garrett) says…

Chief,

That would be easy to do. All you do is double May 1st. Then we can all dance around a maypole and get so dizzy we forget there ever was a 4th of July.

Shovelhead (Mike McLaughlin) says…

Isn't Independence day and cinco de mayo scheduled to be combined like Washington and Lincolns birhtdays?

david_vaughn (David Vaughn) says…

I wonder if Mexico has a 4th of July celebration; as certain among us celebrate Cinco del Mayo? Just a thought.

Tom_Garrett (Tom Garrett) says…

Mike,

Wouldn't surprise me.**

Here's a bit of interesting infornation: On July 4, 1826 both Thomas Jefferson and John Adams died.

** Actually, I was thinking of asking that they both be moved to Sep 17th, which is Jewish New Year's. Their year is 5770. They've had 3,761 more years to screw things up than we've had, and we must never forget that the majority of Jews in Palestine were illegal immigrants at the time the U.N. created Israel.

David,

We could sneak across the border and celebrate with some fireworks. What's good for the goose….

There's an old Ogden Nash poem I read 63 years ago in my sophomore year in high school. Let's see if I can remember it (more or less).

How courteous is the Japanese,
He always says excuse it please.
He climbs into his neighbor's garden,
And bows and says I beg your pardon.
He bows and grins a friendly grin,
And calls his hungry family in.
He grins and bows a friendly bow,
So sorrry, this my garden now.

If you post anywhere else, folks, pass that one along.

Tom_Garrett (Tom Garrett) says…

I forgot to ask the basic question.

First of all, though, let me say that I agree that a good part of the motivation for the suddent need for an investigation is political, and I am as disgusted with both sides in Washington as the rest of you.

But putting that aside, do you think that if they find people who, knowing that what we were doing was torture, advised that it still be done, do you think they should be prosecuted?

Think of it this way: If you were arrested by the police and tortured because they had a written policy that said what they were doing wasn't torture, would you want someone prosecuted, or do you think it should just be forgotten, handled as a screwup that just needs to be put aside?

Ruby_Finney (Ruby Finney) says…

Tom,

You are still convinced that someone is being tortured by water boarding. Why don't you accuse the armed forces of torturing our service men who enlist and then are subjected to the same treatment as part of their training.

Think about it - if it is torture, why are our own people given such treatment as a training routin

Tom_Garrett (Tom Garrett) says…

Ruby,

“Think about it - if it is torture, why are our own people given such treatment as a training routin”

Here's an authoritative answer.

Having been in the military as a drill instructor, I can guarantee you that if it occurred it was strictly voluntary. It's like going through the gas chamber in basic training. You are marched in as a group, with your gas masks on, and while you are in there they have you take off your gas mask, breathe a little of the tear gas, and then go out. It's to let you actually feel the effects so that you respect the need to carry your gas mask, which men often used to toss away as an impediment..

BUT….

Before you march the troops in you are required to tell them what's going to happen, and to explain that anyone who does not want to go through the gas chamber doesn't have to. I had a few troops that opted out. Nothing was ever said about it. It was their right to do it.

And waterboarding, by the way, has been classified as torture for 60 years, ever since the Japs used it during WWII. It was one of things that we bitterly criticized them for. How did it suddenly become non torture?

By the way, Ruby, let me get this straight. Are you saying you approve the use of it, or are you just opposed to the possible prosecutions?

Shovelhead (Mike McLaughlin) says…

“…and to explain that anyone who does not want to go through the gas chamber doesn't have to. I had a few troops that opted out. Nothing was ever said about it. It was their right to do it.”

“Opted out”? Are you pulling my leg?
You airdales really have it made.

MCRD Parris Island —

The room is dimly lit, the air is hazy and when light shines through the window crystals can be seen sparkling in the air. Though it only lasts a few minutes, it happens every year. Annual gas chamber training is something every Marine must complete.

“I was a little nervous until I got into the chamber,”said Lance Cpl. David Chun, company clerk, Service Company, Headquarters and Service Battalion. “The gas stung my eyes so bad I could hardly open them.”

The gas may sting Marines'eyes, but knowing how to use the gas mask it is what may save their lives.

“This training is important because if Marines are in this situation, they must know how to use the gear and carry out the mission,”said Cpl. Jessica L. Kelly, field training instructor, Chemical Biological Radiological Nuclear Defense Detachment, Parris Island. “Many Marines fear the chamber, but it is an important refresher course and it gets easier every time it's done.”


“If we train the right way, we'll be able to do the right thing when the time comes,”Kelly said.

Yes sir you read it right!
Annual gas chamber training is something every Marine must complete.

the whole article can be found here
http://www.marines.mil/units/hqmc/tec…

Tom_Garrett (Tom Garrett) says…

“You airdales really have it made.”

How true. How true.

Did you ever notice that we somehow managed to arrange it so that the officers are the one who get engaged in combat?

We pat them on the back as they climb into that jet, of course, and tell them that we'll be waiting for them breathlessly until they get back.

Strong union. Works every time.

You should have seen the time the gas chamber wasn't working right. They were supposed to put three “capsules” on each of two burners, but something went wrong and there wasn't enough gas in there, so some genius threw in a tear gas grenade.

Oh my! That was a bit different from the usual. I know. I took one of my flights of basics through the %$#@! thing (I always went through with the troops).

You could not see your hand in front of your face in there. Was pretty close to a panic until I opened a door and told the troops to get out. The range instructors had already bailed out, so there was no point in being in there. No training was going to take place with no instructors in there.

I could still smell tear gas in that uniform after three washings.

Tom_Garrett (Tom Garrett) says…

PS: Please note. I only asked questions. I didn't try to answer them.

That's your job.

Tom_Garrett (Tom Garrett) says…

Getting back to the actual subject of this thread, it finally dawned on me how to answer the question of whether or not waterboarding is torture. I just opened the dictionary sitting next to the chair where I read in the evening and looked up the definition.

Here it is.

Torture: The infliction of physical or mental pain to force information or confession.

I guess that answers the question. It is, beyond a shadow of a doubt, torture.

Frankly, I was surprised to see that part about “…to force information or confession” because it fits so perfectly, but I'm hanged if it isn't also in the big old half ton dictionary upstairs (Websters New International). So I guess that ends that part of the discussion.

The discussion, therefore, is not whether or not waterboarding is torture. By definition it is.

The question is: Should we use of torture as a matter of national policy?

If the answer to that is NO, then we have a second question to answer: Did the Bush administration have the authority to break the treaties we have signed?

And that brings up a third question.

Should anyone in the Bush administration be charged with a crime?

If the answer to the first question is YES, then the second question is irrelevant.

If the answer to the second question is YES, then the third question is irrelevant.

And if the answer to questions 1 and 2 is NO, and the answer to the third question is YES, then the question is WHO is guilty of a crime? And why?

And what should we do about it, if anything?