Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Bush knowingly ordered torture


Ashotep

Recommended Posts

A nonpartisan group led by a former top Bush administration official concluded a two-year review on Tuesday that finds the former president and his top advisers knowingly ordered interrogation techniques that U.S. officials have previously referred to as torture.

Nonpartisan review concludes Bush knowingly ordered torture

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

He was even known for war crimes. Yet nothing ever happens to the bad guys at the top

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Aren't there some countries that will arrest him if he goes there for war crimes?

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ha, the west ain't been the "good guys" since World War 2.

As apposed to who?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, I don't know how many other countries would get away with an illegal invasion, killing more civilians than so called terrorists, and actually get away with it - the best part of the story being that those people were killed because their puny existence got in the way of oil. It's not quite Hitler level of jackass but give it a couple more invasions (Iran, North Korea) and we're getting there.

As a sidenote: I'd be surprised if anybody was themselves surprised at this Bush revelation. No good scumbag.

Good point. Its also fair to say that the average citizen in the west is unaware of the west brutal impact to average citizens of affected countries.

Compare these two articles from CNN today. The first about "militant youths" in Pakistan, which dismisses the deaths of woman and children in a single sentance.

Ninety-nine percent of the boys, I am told, have never heard of Osama bin Laden, despite the fact he was killed by U.S. Navy SEALs in the next valley over from here. What has radicalized these boys instead, the school's director says, is what turns teenagers the world over to crime: poverty, poor education, limited prospects and often lack of parental control.

bttn_close.gif

130208133414-pkg-eitm-orig-cnn-explains-drones-00015903-story-body.jpg

It is in this setting that the boys have made ready recruits for Taliban scouts who wean them on tales of the U.S. drone strikes that have killed scores of Pakistani women and children over the past few years.

http://edition.cnn.com/2013/04/14/world/asia/pakistan-swat-valley-school/

Compared to this;

Monday's terror attack on the Boston Marathon killed an 8-year-old boy watching with his family, a 29-year-old woman loved by her family and friends and a Boston University graduate student near the finish line with two friends. More than 180 others were wounded, many losing limbs as a result of horrific twin blasts near the race's finish line, in the heart of the city

http://edition.cnn.com/2013/04/16/us/boston-marathon-explosions/index.html

Were the Pakistani woman and children not "loved by her family and friends"? Who is really "weened" on idiological "tales"?

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good point. Its also fair to say that the average citizen in the west is unaware of the west brutal impact to average citizens of affected countries.

Very true, and the media whitewashes everything like in the two articles you posted.

Check out:http://nopewar.wordpress.com/2012/12/01/us-drone-crashes-mount-at-civilian-airports/

According to this article, Bush's drone strikes killed 438 people, and Obama's have killed 2,152 people. This includes women and children. Most killed are civilians... :no:

An October report on the secret U.S. drone war in Pakistan says the attacks have killed far more civilians than acknowledged, traumatized a nation and undermined international law. In “Living Under Drones,” researchers conclude the drone strikes “terrorize men, women, and children, giving rise to anxiety and psychological trauma among civilian communities.”

Also: http://www.cnn.com/2012/09/25/world/asia/pakistan-us-drone-strikes/

U.S. drone strikes in Pakistan have killed far more people than the United States has acknowledged, have traumatized innocent residents and largely been ineffective, according to a new study released Tuesday.

The study by Stanford Law School and New York University's School of Law calls for a re-evaluation of the practice, saying the number of "high-level" targets killed as a percentage of total casualties is extremely low -- about 2%.

The report accuses Washington of misrepresenting drone strikes as "a surgically precise and effective tool that makes the U.S. safer," saying that in reality, "there is significant evidence that U.S. drone strikes have injured and killed civilians."

It also casts doubts on Washington's claims that drone strikes produce zero to few civilian casualties and alleges that the United States makes "efforts to shield the drone program from democratic accountability."

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Aren't there some countries that will arrest him if he goes there for war crimes?

Yes, I think Switerzerland is one such country. He had to change his travel plans a few summers ago for just that reason.

Further, I think it was Malaysia who tried him and Cheney in absentia for war crimes, and convicted them both.

Bush, Cheney, Yoo, and a host of others were responsible for the crimes of torture and more.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ha, the west ain't been the "good guys" since World War 2.

Maybe not necessarily the West but America has been the good guy since at least WWII. I suppose you were one of those that cheered when Margaret Thatcher died? American Hegemony has given the world relative peace in the nuclear age.

Well, I don't know how many other countries would get away with an illegal invasion,

Another misinformed stooge. The Iraq invasion was probably the most legal war in history. Bush did his homework and every “I” was dotted and every “T” crossed. The only thing you can really blame Bush for is that he over hyped the war and Phase IV of OPPlan 1003 was not very well thought out. But there’s an axiom that states that when the shooting starts, you can throw even the best laid plans out the window.

killing more civilians than so called terrorists,

That unfortunately happens in any and all conflicts. Between 80 and 100 thousand Iraqis died and most of them were insurgents or civilians that died from insurgent actions. Despite popular belief, our forces kept collateral damage down to an absolute minimum. From your statements, I can only conclude that all you have access to was the MSM. My brother experienced this stuff first hand. Almost everything he relayed to me was the exact opposite from what the MSM reported. Typical.

the best part of the story being that those innocent people were killed because their puny existence got in the way of oil.

Still quaffing the koolaid. This was not a conquest for oil but oil does play a part. Can you imagine what the price of oil would have been if Saddam stayed in power and was allowed to develop his WMDs even further? Why do you think Chirac pushed France to build up their nuclear plant infrastructure while supporting Saddam?

Of course, Bush had Cheney and Halliburton but think about it. If it wasn’t Halliburton, it would have been somebody else. The more curious thing to look into is the price fixing going on under the current Administration. He has said on several occasions that he wants the price of oil to go up so that we would have to deal with his pet green energy companies. Energy sources are pretty important to the entire world and those in power are going to manipulate it.

It's not quite Hitler level of jackass but give it a couple more invasions (Iran, North Korea) and we're getting there.

WoW! How totally unaware you are. You would compare the possible (if needed) invasion of Iran or NK to Hitler’s conquest of Europe? What is the British educational system teaching? I think you need to change halfpipe to bong.

As a sidenote: I'd be surprised if anybody was themselves surprised at this Bush revelation. No good scumbag.

I never was. But then I support torture. It is an integral part of war. Now to clarify, I support data mining as opposed to what most people are brainwashed to believe that torture only fulfills the sadistic fancy of a few.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

a suprise to no one. I bet our curret president does the same.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for making the assumption that I would celebrate the death of anybody. This is England, not America, we don't (in masses) celebrate the death of other people. Especially after getting dooped over by our own country that some man in a cave co-ordinated two planes to crash into the World Trade Centers. You really think America is the "good guy" in the world right now? You're off you're freaking rocker.

I'm perfectly informed as to how the Iraq war happened and I think you'll find it was an illegal invasion. We didn't hold a legal inquiry in Britain for nothing my friend. We had an inquiry because the British people are not sheep and know right and wrong when they see it and we demand justice.

I don't even know what the MSM is supposed to stand for so I guess you failed to discredit me there, too. You're not very good at these assumptions are you? I guess your brother is an authority on the entire conflict. He's just another pawn being used for unjustified wars and I pray he doesn't die for his blind loyalty to a terrorist state.

I actually said it wasn't quite Hitler level yet, perhaps your American education isn't all that good, but if you can't see all these invasions of middle eastern nations + potential Iran and NK as exactly what Hitler was doing having parallels, you might as well join the forces yourself and blindly serve your nation. Of course you support torture, it's okay so long as it's America who does it, right? But it's wrong when another nation does it.

You're just another pompous American who is going to one day realise your nation isn't as all powerful and mighty as you're taught it is. I really hope America doesn't come crying to Britain for help (again) with NK and Iran because I'm sick of my nation dragged into these little fights that you can't fight yourself. Your brother might serve but I know people who serve too and they deserve better than to have their lives thrown into jeopardy over the chess game of politics America likes to play with the world.

You got a problem with NK and Iran? Invade them yourself, don't expect others to help you. Though we both know the first place America is going to come begging.

God bless.

Just as your country came begging in WWI and WWII? Like France came begging in Vietnam? Like most of western Europe begged us to keep troops in Europe after WWII ended to help keep the Russians at bay? I see, it is OK for your country to ask us to help them in a war, but not ok for us to ask them to help us in a war.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The only reason the US wanted its Coalition Of The Willing, or whatever euphemism the politicians created, was for appearances.

They wanted it to APPEAR that everybody agreed that Saddam was a Bad Boy and deserved whatever he got. One man like Dubya might be wrong and illegal, but if Dubya, Tony and the Aussies all do it, well, 3 guys can't be wrong.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good job Mr. President. I fully support your decision.

I'm sorry their actions didn't fit some of your ideals of "the good guys", but their job was to save American lives and they did what they had to do.

I wonder if some of you would be so giddy on your high horses if enhanced interrogation could have stopped the Boston bombing this week?

And what happened to the whole "if it saves just one life" mantra that we've had shoved down our throats since Newtown?

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good job Mr. President. I fully support your decision.

I'm sorry their actions didn't fit some of your ideals of "the good guys", but their job was to save American lives and they did what they had to do.

I wonder if some of you would be so giddy on your high horses if enhanced interrogation could have stopped the Boston bombing this week?

And what happened to the whole "if it saves just one life" mantra that we've had shoved down our throats since Newtown?

Torture is ineffective at gaining useful information, this is widely understood - even in the CIA. The purpose of torture is to intimidate the civilian population so that they do not offer resistance.

Torture encourages recruitment to terrorist organizations because it justifies the rhetoric of extremists in claiming that they are victims of a criminal oppressor.

Torture is a military tactic - not a intelligence gathering exercise.

Br Cornelius

Edited by Guest
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good job Mr. President. I fully support your decision.

I'm sorry their actions didn't fit some of your ideals of "the good guys", but their job was to save American lives and they did what they had to do.

I wonder if some of you would be so giddy on your high horses if enhanced interrogation could have stopped the Boston bombing this week?

And what happened to the whole "if it saves just one life" mantra that we've had shoved down our throats since Newtown?

In a most perverse sense, I would like to 'thank you' for demonstrating complete disregard for the US Constitution and the rule of law in general. That your hero is John Yoo et al, Bush & Co, speaks volumes of your humanity.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Torture at will, just don't complain when the so called dictators of the world do the very same to their people, then try and justify it for war.

Has it crossed your mind that those who are tortured typically have no evidence against them? That they're plucked from their lives and put through that hell because they have the wrong skin colour? Whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty?

Some of you Americans bang on about how important your constitution is until it suits you to disregard it.

Bush and his comrades should rot in a prison cell but we know *they* won't allow that. It's only naughty when we're talking about the middle east or North Korea.

What is "the wrong skin color" in the Middle East?

Three people were waterboarded for approximately 45 seconds and thousands of lives were saved, OBL was killed (Obama sure liked shouting that from the rooftops even though it was EI that got the info to find him), and who knows what else was averted.

Again, no problems with that.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Torture is ineffective at gaining useful information, this is widely understood - even in the CIA. The purpose of torture is to intimidate the civilian population so that they do not offer resistance.

Torture encourages recruitment to terrorist organizations because it justifies the rhetoric of extremists in claiming that they are victims of a criminal oppressor.

Torture is a military tactic - not a intelligence gathering exercise.

Br Cornelius

Which is exactly why EI is not torture. Pulling someone's finger nails off is counter productive. Playing mind games and creating discomfort does work. That's why the CIA does it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In a most perverse sense, I would like to 'thank you' for demonstrating complete disregard for the US Constitution and the rule of law in general. That your hero is John Yoo et al, Bush & Co, speaks volumes of your humanity.

The US Constitution doesn't apply to enemy combatants, neither does the Geneva Convention.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The US Constitution doesn't apply to enemy combatants, neither does the Geneva Convention.

Wiki;

Geneva Conventions

The four Geneva Conventions provide protection for people who fall into enemy hands. The conventions do not clearly divide people into combatant and non-combatant roles. The conventions refer to:

  • "wounded and sick combatants or non-combatants"
  • "civilian persons who take no part in hostilities, and who, while they reside in the zones, perform no work of a military character"[54]
  • "Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces"
  • "Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements"
  • "Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power"
  • "Persons who accompany the armed forces without actually being members thereof, such as civilian members of military aircraft crews, war correspondents, supply contractors, members of labour units or of services responsible for the welfare of the armed forces"
  • "Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory"[55]

The third (GCIII) and fourth (GCIV) Geneva Conventions are the two most relevant for the treatment of the victims of conflicts. Both treaties state in Article 3, in similar wording, that in a non-international armed conflict, "Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms... shall in all circumstances be treated humanely." The treaty also states that there must not be any "violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture" or "outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment".[56][57]

GCIV covers most civilians in an international armed conflict, and says they are usually "Protected Persons" (see exemptions section immediately after this for those who are not). Under Article 32, protected persons have the right to protection from "murder, torture, corporal punishments, mutilation and medical or scientific experiments...but also to any other measures of brutality whether applied by non-combatant or military agents".

GCIII covers the treatment of prisoners of war (POWs) in an international armed conflict. In particular, Article 17 says that "No physical or mental torture, nor any other form of coercion, may be inflicted on prisoners of war to secure from them information of any kind whatever. Prisoners of war who refuse to answer may not be threatened, insulted or exposed to unpleasant or disadvantageous treatment of any kind." POW status under GCIII has far fewer exemptions than "Protected Person" status under GCIV. Captured enemy combatants in an international armed conflict automatically have the protection of GCIII and are POWs under GCIII unless they are determined by a competent tribunal to not be a POW (GCIII Article 5).

The Geneva convention clearly prohibits the use of torture against Civilians and enemy combatants. Its not really ambigious on the matter. George Bush attempted to side step the Geneva convention by using the term "unlawful combatant", a term with no legal standing in international law.

If you can be so ignorant of the Geneva convention its not surprising you would support the use of torture.

The USA has openly declared in its actions over the last decade that no international treaty is binding on itself. Maybe Americans should try to remember that when they consider travel abroad.

Br Cornelius

Edited by Guest
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think Japan attacking America had just a little something to do with America entering WWII... Quite frankly America was more than happy to see Britain fall to Nazi Germany until it wasn't in their best interests. Britain did pretty damn good defending itself against a power like Nazi Germany, not a single German soldier stepped foot on British soil and that was thanks to the British Army. I won't sit here and discredit America, obviously their part in WWII swung the power of balance but to suggest Britain came "begging" for help is a ludicrous suggestion. Don't act like you did us a favour, America realised Britain falling to Germany wouldn't be good for them.

Now, if I can cast your mind back to Iraq, George Bush's exact words to Britain and other nations was that they were either with him (aka go to war) or against him. It was a desperate plea and I've got no doubts that Obama will make the very same plea when the battle lines are drawn against North Korea and Iran. My point is, the British people are sick of being dragged into wars like that. We have no problem with Iran or North Korea, nor did we with Iraq, in fact there were many riots and protests over declaring war. We also have no problem in standing by America in wars when we believe that there is just cause to send our brothers, sisters, friends, fathers, sons etc into battle. There is no just cause here, not yet, nor do the majority think we have any right to tell another nation what it can and can't do when what we say it can't do, we do ourselves.

If America was more than happy to see England fall then explain lend lease. We certainly didn't offer lend lease to the Germans. How long would England have lasted without lend lease? Why did America extend the area patrolled by our warships to about halfway accross the Atlantic?

Are Jersey and Guernsey not considered part of England? Asking because I don't know. They were occupied by German forces so I am assuming they are like American territories.

I know Churchill tried very hard to get the US to join the war against Germany. Now don't get me wrong, I have every admiration for the way the British stood firm against Nazi Germany. It certainly was "their finest moment". And considering British history that is saying something.

I'm not getting into the debate on the latest wars. Just responding your post about pompous Americans etc.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for making the assumption that I would celebrate the death of anybody. This is England, not America, we don't (in masses) celebrate the death of other people.

I didn’t say all English did. But I know there are enough, we get the reports. The Socialists were dancing on her grave symbolically. But after reading your post, you strike me as being in that group. And your reply doesn’t do anything to persuade me otherwise. I seem to recall some riots in Luton last year and in London two years ago. Stabbings are rampant. I think that you are out of touch with world events and your own people.

Especially after getting dooped over by our own country that some man in a cave co-ordinated two planes to crash into the World Trade Centers. You really think America is the "good guy" in the world right now? You're off you're freaking rocker.

Wow! Talk about disconnect. First of all, he wasn’t hiding in a cave when the attack was planned and carried out. So you’re saying that there is a prerequisite that one can’t hide in a cave to plan an attack on this country (or any country)? No one is denying that Bin Laden is responsible, maybe except some conspiracy theorists. I wouldn’t talk about being “duped” in your case.

And what does that have anything to do with America being the “good guy”? If we aren’t the good guy, there certainly has been plenty of opportunity in the recent past for you to have learned German or even Russian. I guess that would have been ok with you.

I'm perfectly informed as to how the Iraq war happened and I think you'll find it was an illegal invasion.

You haven’t proved to anyone that you are *informed*. Quite the opposite. Do we really have to go through the history and timelines and such? Does UN Resolution 1441 ring a bell? It basically allowed any nation to invade Iraq if they could show that Saddam violated the cease fire. And he did, time and time again. It is well documented. This established the legal right to invade. And Bush properly made the case for war.

We didn't hold a legal inquiry in Britain for nothing my friend. We had an inquiry because the British people are not sheep and know right and wrong when they see it and we demand justice.

It’s true that I don’t know how you do everything there in England, but you really didn’t need a legal inquiry or much of one. The invasion was justice.

” I dare say you love him not so ill, to wish him here

alone, howsoever you speak this to feel other men's

minds: methinks I could not die any where so

contented as in the king's company; his cause being

just and his quarrel honourable.”

Now France got upset over the invasion but it wasn’t because it was illegal (which it wasn’t), it was because we cut off the cash cow that Chirac had with Saddam. The French had major interests in Iraq to build up his arsenal. France wanted Iraq to counter Iran. Companies like La Farge were heavily invested. But I believe we smoothed things over by contracting out to them for rebuilding infrastructure.

I don't even know what the MSM is supposed to stand for so I guess you failed to discredit me there, too. You're not very good at these assumptions are you?

You’re kidding right?? MSM = Main Stream Media. The state owned media in your case. Did you even bother to google it, if you didn’t know what it was? I haven’t failed at anything. If anything, you’ve helped out to discredit yourself. So far, my assumptions seem to be right on.

I guess your brother is an authority on the entire conflict. He's just another pawn being used for unjustified wars and I pray he doesn't die for his blind loyalty to a terrorist state.

Who is an authority of the entire conflict? But he is more of an authority than you or I and I know quite a bit myself. I had several contacts. I’m not pacified by what the MSM presents. He’s no pawn. He served his country with distinction. He lost men over there and he saw first hand how life for the indigenous was like under Saddam. I am aware of this, you are not.

So you’re in the crowd that believes that America is the terrorist state. Now, I don’t blame England for being the greatest colonial power the world has seen but you are in no position to compare America to a terrorist state. Did you even know that Saddam considered himself as the new Saladin? Do you even understand what that means? Or the Return of the Caliphate? You want to talk about terrorism and colonialism combined?

I actually said it wasn't quite Hitler level yet, perhaps your American education isn't all that good,

Just making the comparison is not even close. There’s no perhaps about it, your English education is wrong and lacking. When you compare something with Hitler, it needs to be pertinent and also a distinction between if it is pre “Final Solution” or post. In his early days, Hitler was a great statesman and he did well for his country, but it was all a façade to gain power. The people were fooled. The essence of this is what we see in our current POTUS.

but if you can't see all these invasions of middle eastern nations + potential Iran and NK as exactly what Hitler was doing having parallels,

I don’t know what you are seeing but it ain’t reality. There are no parallels here. The only thing in common is that “invasion” is part of it. Invasion in itself carries no value of good or bad. If England and France had invaded Germany during the Phony War, millions of lives would have been saved and hundreds of billions in dollars in property would still exist. Our invasion of Iraq has more parallels to that. Hitler was bent on conquest, the invasion of Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, and NK are to beat down belligerent states that threaten the stability of the region and/or planet.

you might as well join the forces yourself and blindly serve your nation.

I did and proudly!

Of course you support torture, it's okay so long as it's America who does it, right? But it's wrong when another nation does it.

Where did I say that it was wrong when another nation does it? I may not like it if the other side does it to my people, but what can I do about? That’s war. The goal is to win not be PC. You can’t legislate war.

Reading some of the other replies, I see some are confused on the application of torture. Torture or data mining on combatants has a wide spectrum of techniques not all are meant to utilize physical pain. This is the form I support which is very effective. Torture that is sadistic in nature as applied to the civilian populations to control them with fear is more mistreatment than anything else and this is what isn’t effective (but for a short period of time). This form will only cause more problems over time. Torturing a saboteur to death to find out his compatriots is understandable and part of the game. To torture and execute 10 civilians because one occupier was killed to instill fear doesn’t work. If we’re going to get into what torture is, let’s keep this in mind.

You're just another pompous American who is going to one day realise your nation isn't as all powerful and mighty as you're taught it is.

A little envy eh? I don’t realize, I know that someday this nation will fall but that day is not yet. We have our best days ahead and I prefer “arrogant”. The rise and fall of nations and empires is the way of Civilization. And while here, it is their duty to leave a mark. We have plenty of reason to be arrogant, you should know. England had its heyday. Great nations become great because they meet and overcome great challenges. From the very first, we confronted a great challenge and it was well documented (Declaration of Independence). Ever since then we have confronted and conquered each challenge. Our next challenge is the current one in which we are battling Socialism within and leadership more divisive than any that has come before. So how does one defeat such a great internal enemy? With faith and arrogance. And if we can defeat this threat when the other nations are still mired in slavery, then their perception of our arrogance will go off the scale. That is the true Audacity of Hope. But you’ll be looking to us for help unless other Thatcher rises from among your ranks. I really don’t see the Brits finding the courage of their own declaration of independence.

I really hope America doesn't come crying to Britain for help (again) with NK and Iran because I'm sick of my nation dragged into these little fights that you can't fight yourself. Your brother might serve but I know people who serve too and they deserve better than to have their lives thrown into jeopardy over the chess game of politics America likes to play with the world.

Bama has already covered this but who has gone to who for help? Expecting England to uphold its responsibilities is the very least. I really don’t like being the world’s policeman but if your attitude is typical of Europe (which I really doubt) it’s no wonder England has lost its way. We should just hire Gort and be done with it. Gort won’t beg before attacking belligerents. America won’t have to worry about doing it.

You got a problem with NK and Iran? Invade them yourself, don't expect others to help you. Though we both know the first place America is going to come begging.

Begging for England to uphold her responsibility? That’s pretty sad for England. I would think that England would have more respect for herself than that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The US Constitution doesn't apply to enemy combatants, neither does the Geneva Convention.

Kind of a 'blast from the past', eh Rafterman?

Kinda like reading a regurgitation of the Bush/Yoo sophistry. I'm impressed, in all the wrong ways. :td:

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for making the assumption that I would celebrate the death of anybody. This is England, not America, we don't (in masses) celebrate the death of other people.

Seems like the 'masses' were celebrating the death of Thatcher pretty well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From The Article :

stress positions, waterboarding, mock executions, sensory deprivation

So, am I to believe that the training US Army soldiers go through is to be tougher than the interrogation tactics (because thats what they are, not torture) used by the United States Armed forces to garner information that can/will save lives?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.