BS: Obama and Torture

Subject: RE: BS: Obama and Torture
From: pdq
Date: 18 May 10 - 11:45 AM

...from one of ichMael's links:

       "Readers may recall Abu Ghraib, the controversial prison run by the U.S. in Afghanistan. It was reported that American troops tortured prisoners there, but President Bush denied the allegations. President Obama has addressed the controversy by changing the topic."

Anybody who thinks that statement is true is a complete idiot.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama and Torture
From: ichMael
Date: 17 May 10 - 10:57 PM

Just typed in "torture" and came up with this thread.

Anyway, a website on which I was arguing against torture has shut down, and I'm sorting through the webpages I did in support of my arguments there. I think I'll shift the couple below to the "Mudcat Pages." Did them about the time Obama was taking over--when some people on this thread were saying Obama should be given a chance. He stopped all that stuff, right?:

Obama to end "Enemy Combatant" Designation

Will Bush Library add Reenactments?

Subject: RE: BS: Obama and Torture
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 14 Apr 09 - 12:15 AM

Well, i don't know who that was...but, really, I was not making a value judgment at all...just thought it was interesting

Subject: RE: BS: Obama and Torture
From: GUEST
Date: 13 Apr 09 - 10:15 PM

"No value judgment here...just interesting..... "

Bullshit!

Subject: RE: BS: Obama and Torture
From: Riginslinger
Date: 13 Apr 09 - 09:55 PM

"Obama and Torture"


                Obama is torture!

Subject: RE: BS: Obama and Torture
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 13 Apr 09 - 04:45 PM

"A caution is an admission of a criminal offence."

"Cautions" in the British system involve a kind of plea bargain, in which someone is offered by the police the alternative of being charged with a view to prosecution, or of making a formal admission of guilt and being given a caution, with no court proceedings. Typically this happens where the offence involved is relatively trivial, or where there is a good chance that the prosecution would not stand up in court, or that the Crown Prosecution Authority might decide not to go ahead with a prosecution.

As with all plea bargains, there is no particular reason to believe that an admission of guilt is genuine, since the accused person has been offered a very powerful inducement to make such an admission.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama and Torture
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 13 Apr 09 - 02:02 AM

Interesting. When this thread started, the torture bit was a big no no, for a terrorist, who may have had connection to 911, where over 3000 citizens from various countries were murdered, in the Twin Towers. But today, we all applaud the fine marksmanship of the SEALS, for their wonderful head shots. No value judgment here...just interesting.....

Subject: RE: BS: Obama and Torture
From: artbrooks
Date: 12 Apr 09 - 08:08 PM

Thank you, Emma - that is very different from the articles I read yesterday.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama and Torture
From: Emma B
Date: 12 Apr 09 - 07:46 PM

Art
"Samson Obama — one of the US President's 11 half-brothers and sisters — is alleged to have been living illegally in Britain when he was arrested in Berkshire last November

He was questioned by Thames Valley Police for several hours, during which his fingerprints and a DNA sample were taken.

He is alleged to have told detectives that he was Henry Aloo, a genuine asylum-seeker, but gave the address of his own mother, Kezia.

Mr Obama denied any sexual assault, but is reported to have accepted an official caution for a public order offence.

A caution is an admission of a criminal offence.

Police were reported to have also discovered that Mr Obama had been living illegally in Britain for seven years."

From the same report in the Times on line today

President Obama's stepbrother-in-law, Ian Manners said
"It seems he was drunk but I don't really know what the truth is,"
"Abo is not married but is in a relationship with a woman. He is a bit of a playboy but would not get involved with 13-year-old girls. It is unthinkable."

Subject: RE: BS: Obama and Torture
From: artbrooks
Date: 12 Apr 09 - 07:39 PM

I guess that it would depend on what the document was and...if it didn't exist at all...would he have been admitted? Nothing at all says that he was traveling on false documents. My point is much more that the articles (and I've seen several) all say that the reason the visa (for a day trip into town, while he was on the way to Obama's inauguration) was denied because of the "sex attack" accusations, and the reason that came up was because the fake document (whatever it was) led them to check on him. My question is, is an unsubstantiated accusation sufficient to deny a visa? He apparently had no trouble getting into the US.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama and Torture
From: Sorcha
Date: 12 Apr 09 - 07:23 PM

Or any OTHER false docs????? Even if it wasn't the actuall passport???? Come on Art...fake is fake

Subject: RE: BS: Obama and Torture
From: Sorcha
Date: 12 Apr 09 - 07:21 PM

Art....'false docmuents'.......does that not upset you????
Would YOU travel abroad with a fake passport?????

Subject: RE: BS: Obama and Torture
From: Emma B
Date: 12 Apr 09 - 07:06 PM

The BBC reported that -
"A Home Office spokesman said Samson Obama was denied a visa after immigration officers noticed one of his documents was false."

" That led them to further inquiries."

I guess that would suggest that the false documents were the problem?

Subject: RE: BS: Obama and Torture
From: artbrooks
Date: 12 Apr 09 - 07:03 PM

I saw that, Emma - but the question remains: were it not for the "alleged sex attack", would the false document itself been sufficient to deny him admission?

Subject: RE: BS: Obama and Torture
From: Emma B
Date: 12 Apr 09 - 06:39 PM

"Barack Obama's half-brother was refused entry to the UK after providing false documentation in a visa application, it was reported last night.

Immigration officers noticed that one of the documents supplied by Samson Obama with an application for a visitor's visa in February was false, leading them to make further inquiries and connect him with a police investigation into an alleged sex attack."

From todays Observer

Subject: RE: BS: Obama and Torture
From: artbrooks
Date: 12 Apr 09 - 06:34 PM

More to the point, why was he refused entry into the UK if there was insufficient evidence to charge him with any crime in the first place?

Subject: RE: BS: Obama and Torture
From: GUEST,Zach
Date: 12 Apr 09 - 05:43 PM

Wowwwwwwww ! Samson Obama refused entry into theUnited Kingdom for attacking a British girl, why has this story not hit the news over here ?

Subject: RE: BS: Obama and Torture
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 12 Apr 09 - 02:40 PM

AMEN STRINGSINGER!!! Good for you, to point that out!!! Not only that, but, as I pointed out during the 'campaign', Obama NEVER made mention of repealing the unconstitutional Executive Orders, that Bush put into place. Instead, he has only built on them!! Until he does, to me, (and everyone, who doesn't know it, yet), They are NOT OPPOSITES, but rather a continuation of the Same agenda!~!!! This is obvious, in policies, though Obama has a different 'style'....ONE IN THE SAME!!!!! The rest, is just illusion!

Subject: RE: BS: Obama and Torture
From: Stringsinger
Date: 12 Apr 09 - 12:04 PM

Gore Vidal mentioned on Bill Maher's program the other night that the thing that shocked him the most was the complete trashing of the Constitution by Bush gang and that no one
of authority or public approbation had the temerity to speak out against the denial of civil rights. Not one person on the media said anything except for perhaps Rachel and Keith.

The Constitution of the United States is becoming an endangered species.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama and Torture
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 12 Apr 09 - 11:09 AM

Frankly, I'm surprised Binyam Mohamed, didn't get a pardon, bailout money, and a post on his cabinet!

Subject: RE: BS: Obama and Torture
From: artbrooks
Date: 12 Apr 09 - 07:56 AM

Half brother, several months ago, allegations made, not charged.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama and Torture
From: GUEST,Eddie
Date: 12 Apr 09 - 03:11 AM

I see in today's News of the World that Obama's brother has been refused entry into the UK. Samson Obama, who lives in Kenya was refused entry because of his involvement in a sex attack on a young girl from Berkshire. Full story in today's paper.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama and Torture
From: ard mhacha
Date: 24 Feb 09 - 01:33 PM

In relation to the British Armys treatment of the Irish internees is the very important information gained from these torture methods and passed on to other countries, the following extract from John McGuffin`s book reveals a lot,

"Army training into 'psyops' (psychological operations), torture and sensory deprivation has, of course, continued, long after the British Government gave an 'assurance' that such methods would never be used again. From the British point of view one advantage of the Guinea pigs experiment has been that the British are now regarded as experts at this sort of thing and are regularly invited to give demonstrations and hold seminars, notably at Fort Bragg, Carolina, and Fort Huachuca, Arizona in the States and at Bad Tolz in West Germany."

Do not be fooled that this is no longer taking place, while so-called Democratic governments fail to be transparent about these methods it will continue.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama and Torture
From: Barry Finn
Date: 24 Feb 09 - 01:23 PM

Obama has already made the move by saying that all prisoners will be treated in accordance with the Geneva Conventions, which doesn't allow for tourture & I believe he's already made a stance on "reditions", extreme & otherwise. This was a statement made & reported on by NPR news a week or 2 ago.

Barry

Subject: RE: BS: Obama and Torture
From: CarolC
Date: 24 Feb 09 - 12:52 PM

Yes, progress has been made. And its entirely possible that that progress was made because of people pressuring Obama to correct this situation, even in spite of those who tried to silence them (even right here in this thread).

People who try to silence voices raised in protest of human rights abuses are guilty of aiding and abetting those abuses.

On the subject of Mohamed's treatment in the UK... he is not now being held captive anywhere. That certainly has to be an improvement over being held indefinitely in Guantanamo.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama and Torture
From: ard mhacha
Date: 24 Feb 09 - 11:17 AM

Peter Bridge come back to this Thread after you read John McGuffin`s two books. Lord Denning when asked about the Birmingham 6 stated that if they had been hanged it would have been all over and forgotten, as Paddy Hill one of the B`HAM 6 said, "British justice it stinks" he should know having spent 16 years experiencing it.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama and Torture
From: bald headed step child
Date: 24 Feb 09 - 11:13 AM

Richard, I went to the articles you linked, and commented on them.
Nothing I saw in them showed any FACTUAL evidence that Obama had renewed Bush's threat, only a statement from a lawyer to that effect.

The court said it was up to the US to publish US information.

The only thing I have been saying is to give them a chance to do something before comparing Obama to the idiot before him.

Torture is a bad thing, that has eroded our standing in the world, and has emboldened those who would do us harm. It has been used to radicalise even more people.

As for the whole "war on terror", I think the whole thing is a sick joke.
9/11 was not an act of war, it was a criminal act.

Using the military to prosecute a criminal organisation is ill advised at best. The military is being used for something it was not designed to do. That is why we end up with problems like this.

Criminal acts should only be prosecuted through the courts, as that is what they are designed to do.

Obama has a ton of shit on his plate, in case you haven't noticed.
Calm, thoughtful action is what is required to sort it all out, and I think he is doing a good job at that.

If you don't think my appeals for calmness and rationality are a good thing, I'm sorry, I don't know what to tell you.

Nervous irrationality was the trademark of the previous administration.

I see that since my previous post, Mohamed has been sent to the UK.

WOW, given a little time, some progress has been made, imagine that.

BHSC

Subject: RE: BS: Obama and Torture
From: Peter T.
Date: 24 Feb 09 - 07:43 AM

The crucial question in all of this is whether torture is an appropriate strategy for a democracy that prides itself on its committment to law. The answer has to be no -- NO MATTER WHAT THE CONSEQUENCES.

This is the tough part. It is easy to argue that torture is necessary to ferret out useful information or to prevent some tragedy. A counter-argument of course is that torture is generally known not to work. But some could argue that even if there is a chance of it working, it should be used.

The test of a strong democracy is in its willingness to say that in spite of the possibility of getting useful information, it is not worth it in terms of the erosion of the moral ground upon which we stand. That the moral ground is the most valuable thing we have. Even if it results in innocent deaths. This is the real test. From time to time during the IRA struggle, it was clear that the moral ground was to be able to say that a society is strong enough to face up to terrorists, to allow itself to be bombed rather than give that up. But the pressure against that is incredibly strong, and it requires every ounce of restraint and moral courage -- courage on an ordinary daily basis, not a military basis -- not to give in to it. Very, very few societies and people can manage it. The British and the French and now the Americans have succumbed to it.

yours,

Peter T.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama and Torture
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 24 Feb 09 - 07:34 AM

And are you arguing that that is worse than Guantanamo?

Equally, are you arguing that the British courts have not gradually been putting right their decisions that were wrong?

Subject: RE: BS: Obama and Torture
From: ard mhacha
Date: 24 Feb 09 - 05:37 AM

An extract from a review of McGuffins book by Eamon McCann.

BRIAN Faulkner made a mistake when he interned John McGuffin in August 1971. McGuffin, a Belfast Protestant who describes himself as an anarchist, was so outraged that since his release he has spent his spare time collecting and publishing the facts about internment His first book, a history of imprisonment without trial since the inception of the Northern Ireland state, was published in 1973. This, his second, is a detailed account of what happened to fourteen of the 342 men arrested in the August '71 swoop. It is hair-raising stuff .

Some of the internees were tortured. No-one denies that any longer and a few of them have been awarded substantial sums in compensation. But it has been widely assumed – and little has been published in Britain to contradict the assumption – that the torture consisted mainly of physical assault: unjustified perhaps, outrageous even, but hardly sinister. And, anyway, it was stopped after a wave of liberal indignation.

The facts themselves are horrific enough. The men were kicked and beaten, thrown into landrovers, lorries and helicopters and tossed out again. Taken to 'interrogation centres', separated from one another, stripped naked, some urinated on. Then black bags were put over their heads and they were made to lean spread-eagled against a wall, all their joints kept rigid and all their weight on flexed fingertips while white noise played into their ears. When they collapsed they were kicked and thrown up against the wall again. The 'wall treatment' lasted up to 43 hours.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama and Torture
From: ard mhacha
Date: 24 Feb 09 - 04:58 AM

Anyone naive enough to pin their faith in British justice should remember that Britain was brought before the European Court on two occasions in the 1970s and was found guilty of,"Cruel and Dergrading treatment" on Irish prisoners. For further information read " The Guinea Pigs" by John McGuffin free on the web.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama and Torture
From: CarolC
Date: 23 Feb 09 - 10:32 PM

(Time for me to send another email to the president to say thanks.)

Subject: RE: BS: Obama and Torture
From: CarolC
Date: 23 Feb 09 - 10:31 PM

He's back in the UK now. Well done, President Obama!

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article5792921.ece

Subject: RE: BS: Obama and Torture
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 23 Feb 09 - 06:55 PM

I will listen to what English judges say, before I listen to BHSC. Why don't you go to the source?

Subject: RE: BS: Obama and Torture
From: Riginslinger
Date: 23 Feb 09 - 04:19 PM

"Obama and Torture"


                That's what it is, torture. Obama is torturing the stock market.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama and Torture
From: CarolC
Date: 23 Feb 09 - 03:45 PM

It should be pointed out, however, that he admitted to those things after being tortured numerous times over a very lengthy period. So there's really no way of knowing if those things he admitted to are true or not. Torturing people to obtain confessions tends to produce false confessions.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama and Torture
From: CarolC
Date: 23 Feb 09 - 03:41 PM

If they have evidence against him, they can charge him with something and try him. Holding him indefinitely without charge and with no recourse to any kind of due process is criminal. And of course, so is torturing him. For that reason, if he dies because of a hunger strike, they are responsible.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama and Torture
From: pdq
Date: 23 Feb 09 - 03:18 PM

Binyam Mohamed

"Some press reports have repeated the claim that Mohamed went to Afghanistan before the September 11 attacks for the purpose of kicking his drug habit. This is a flimsy alibi, to say the least. Why would anyone go to the heroin capital of the world to get away from drugs? In fact, there is no doubt that Mohamed traveled to Afghanistan in June 2001 to receive training in an al Qaeda camp. Mohamed admitted this to the personal representative assigned to handle his case at Guantánamo. Mohamed did not testify at his hearing at Guantánamo, but his personal representative submitted a memo on his behalf. The memo indicates that Mohamed "admitted items 3A1-4 on the UNCLASS summary of evidence." That is a reference to the unclassified summary-of-evidence memo that was prepared by the US government for Mohamed's case.

The items Mohamed admitted include the following:
         
          1. The detainee is an Ethiopian who lived in the United States from 1992 to 1994, and in London, United Kingdom, until he departed for Pakistan in 2001.

          2. The detainee arrived in Islamabad, Pakistan, in June 2001, and traveled to the al Farouq training camp in Afghanistan, to receive paramilitary training.

          3. At the al Farouq camp, the detainee received 40 days of training in light arms handling, explosives, and principles of topography.

          4. The detainee was taught to falsify documents, and received instruction from a senior al Qaeda operative on how to encode telephone numbers before passing them to another individual.

At a minimum, therefore, we know that Mohamed has admitted being an al Qaeda-trained operative.

Mohamed claims that he was not going to use his skills against America. Mohamed told his personal representative that "he went for training to fight in Chechnya, which was not illegal." In 2005, Mohamed's lawyer echoed this explanation in an interview with CNN. "He wanted to see the Taliban with his own eyes," Mohamed's lawyer claimed. "I am not saying he never went to any Islamic camp," the lawyer conceded, but he "didn't go to any camp to blow up Americans."

There are obvious problems with this quasi-denial.

The al Farouq training camp was responsible for training numerous al Qaeda operatives, including some of the September 11 hijackers. Al Qaeda used the al Farouq camp to identify especially promising recruits who could take on sensitive missions. According to the 9/11 Commission Report, this is what happened with members of al Qaeda's infamous Hamburg cell. Some of the future 9/11 suicide pilots also first expressed an interest in fighting in Chechnya, but ended up being assigned a mission inside the United States."

{part of article only}

{blaming anything on Obama concerning this case is absurd, but George W. Bush has very little to do with it either}

Subject: RE: BS: Obama and Torture
From: CarolC
Date: 23 Feb 09 - 01:50 PM

If a person has been brutally tortured, including having his genitals sliced numerous times, and he is being held without charge indefinitely without access to any due process, and without any expectation that he will ever be set free and returned to his family, if that person goes on a hunger strike and dies, it sure as hell is because what his captors have done to him.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama and Torture
From: pdq
Date: 23 Feb 09 - 01:33 PM

"since they're saying that Mohamed is very close to death at this point"

Binyam Mohamed is in poor health do to a hunger strike, not from anything the US has done to him.

Cesar Chavez, Bobby Sands and Dick Gregory also went on hunger strikes. Eventually, the person gets a type of addiction to his starved condition, as well as to the attention it brings.

Dick Gregory was comedian and well-liked by most Americans, but he almost died. I heard an interview where he said that continuing the self-induced starvation was not rational.

Binyam Mohamed was judged OK to travel to Britain as of last Tuesday. Some people say he will leave today, 23FEB2009.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama and Torture
From: CarolC
Date: 23 Feb 09 - 12:59 PM

This thread is about Obama and about Torture. Hence the title.

The UK judges are saying that, so far, Obama has not yet withdrawn the threat against them should they release the information about Mohamed's torture. So I started this thread so people could write to Obama and put pressure on him to withdraw the threat against the UK. And I hope people will do that. There is nothing counterproductive about my having started this thread. Who knows? It might even help to save someone's life.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama and Torture
From: bald headed step child
Date: 23 Feb 09 - 12:15 PM

It may be a fact that Bush made a statement to that effect, but you still haven't given any evidence, other than the initial article you posted, that Obama holds the same position.

You titled the thread, "Obama and Torture", but haven't given any evidence that his position is any different than what he has himself stated.

If his position was as stated in the initial article, it would be all over the press, not just one magazine.

Mohamed's plight is deplorable, I know, but blaming Obama for it, without any real evidence, is counterproductive.

BHSC

Subject: RE: BS: Obama and Torture
From: CarolC
Date: 23 Feb 09 - 12:02 PM

According to the All Party Parliamentary Group on Extraordinary Rendition (House of Commons), in the first UK link above, what the lawyer said is fact...

"British court asks that President Obama
reconsider his predecessor's repeated "threats"
levelled against the judges who considered allowing
the public to learn the details of American torture of Binyam Mohamed

In an extraordinary ruling, two British judges sitting on the case of Binyam Mohamed have revealed how the US government has "threatened" the British government with reprisals should the British reveal evidence that American agents were involved in his rendition and torture. The judges end the decision with a plea to President Obama to reconsider President Bush's remarkable policy of retribution against anyone who might reveal American crimes:

If the information in the redacted paragraphs which we consider so important to the rule of law, free speech and democratic accountability is to be put into the public domain, it must now be for the United States Government to consider changing its position or itself putting that information into the public domain.

Mohamed v. Secretary of State, at ¶107.

No fewer than eight times, the judges refer to the American "threat" made against their closest ally, the British. Mohamed v. Secretary of State, at ¶¶62, 70, 73, 76, 76, 76, 77, 107). The British intelligence services have 42 documents that apparently demonstrate abuse of Binyam Mohamed a British resident."


However, it might all be moot in the not to distant future, since they're saying that Mohamed is very close to death at this point.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama and Torture
From: bald headed step child
Date: 23 Feb 09 - 11:40 AM

Thank you RB for posting those two articles.

From those two, it appears that statements made by a lawyer in an attempt to help his client, have been misconstrued as being fact.

I know what happened to this man, and all the other victims of torture, is horrendous and unconscionable, but I have yet to see any real evidence that President Obama has renewed GWB's threat to withhold intelligence from the UK, or any other allies.

As with any criminal prosecution, an investigation must be conducted, followed by the building of a case, then a trial.

All this doesn't happen in 1 month.

These investigations will take quite some time.

It may be decades before most of it comes to light. Hell, we are still finding out more about Nazi crimes that occurred in the 30's and 40's. The people who perpetrate these things don't generally leave the evidence sitting out on a table.

Give them some time to do something before saying they aren't doing anything.

BHSC

Subject: RE: BS: Obama and Torture
From: pdq
Date: 23 Feb 09 - 06:26 AM

"In order to raise revenue to fund the Civil War, the income tax was introduced in the United States with the Revenue Act of 1861. It was a flat rate tax of 3% on annual income above $800.

The following year, this was replaced with a graduated tax of 3-5% on income above $600 in the Revenue Act of 1862, which specified a termination of income taxation in 1866.

The Socialist Labor Party advocated for a graduated income tax in 1887.

The Populist Party 'demanded a graduated income tax' in their 1892 platform.

The Democratic Party, led by William Jennings Bryan, advocated the income tax law passed in 1894, and proposed an income tax in their 1908 platform.

Federal income tax was proposed by {president} William H. Taft in 1909 as a way to lower tariffs.

On June 16, 1909, President Taft proposed a constitutional amendment in an address to Congress to allow federal income taxes on individuals and an excise tax 'upon the privilege of doing business as an artificial entity and of freedom from a general partnership liability enjoyed by those who own the stock.'

On July 12, 1909, the resolution proposing the Sixteenth Amendment was passed by the Sixty-first Congress and submitted to the state legislatures. Support for the income tax was strongest in the western states and opposition was strongest in the northeastern states. The governor of New York, Charles Evans Hughes, who a few years later became a Supreme Court justice, opposed the income tax amendment because he believed 'from whatever source derived' implied that passage would confer the federal government with the power to tax state and municipal bonds and thus excessively centralize government power.

The presidential election of 1912 was contested between three advocates of an income tax. On February 25, 1913, the Secretary of State Philander Knox proclaimed that the amendment had been ratified by the necessary three-fourths of the states, and thus had become part of the Constitution. An income tax, the Revenue Act of 1913, was shortly passed by the Congress."

{The federal income tax was made official by the Revenue Act of 1913 as signed by Democrat Woodrow Wilson.

Theodore Roosevelt may have supported the federal income tax but had little to do with proposing it or imposing it.}

Subject: RE: BS: Obama and Torture
From: CarolC
Date: 23 Feb 09 - 04:35 AM

That's the whole point!!!

The UK government has the proof, and the Bush and now Obama administrations won't allow them to provide it to Mohamed's lawyers!

Pay attention please!!!!!

Subject: RE: BS: Obama and Torture
From: GUEST,Slag
Date: 23 Feb 09 - 04:10 AM

CarolC, you must have some amazing facts, proof of the torture of those innocent folks being illegally detained. No one else I know of claims to have the facts that you do. You really need to bring them forth and establish once and for all the truth of this situation.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama and Torture
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 23 Feb 09 - 03:20 AM

I know that the Guardian is anathema to some of the US knee-jerk right wing, but this Guardian article quotes some of the parts of the UK court judgments

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/feb/04/guantanamo-bay-torture

Subject: RE: BS: Obama and Torture
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 23 Feb 09 - 03:08 AM

The following will lead you to what the UK courts have had to say on the matter .

http://london.indymedia.org.uk/articles/620

Subject: RE: BS: Obama and Torture
From: CarolC
Date: 23 Feb 09 - 01:19 AM

By the way, it should also be noted that the information Mohamed's lawyers have requested for his case has absolutely nothing whatever to do with strategic military plans, methods of warfare, locations of high profile targets, sources of information, or any other information that would be sensitive from a national security standpoint. It has only to do with evidence that Mohamed was tortured and the nature of the torture. If the US Government feels a need to keep that information a secret, it's because they have something to hide that can get them into big trouble if it is revealed.