Posted 5 months, 14 days ago in 
3 votes. Average 3.67/5
Loading ...
The following describes a Vietnam POW and Medal of Honor winner, shot down in 1967, and just some of the tortures he endured. He was put through a mock execution because he did not respond, after capture, and was pistol-whipped. Two days later he was hanged by his feet, all day. He escaped and was recaptured two weeks later, and shot in the process.
They put him in the “rope trick” and almost pulled his arms out of the sockets; beat him on the head with a wood rod until his eyes were swelled shut and the un-shot unbroken hand was a pulp. They then hanged him by the arms and re-broke the right wrist; wiped out the nerves in his arms that control the hands, which rolled his fingers into a ball. So he then answered with some incredible lies.
He was sent to Hanoi, strapped to a barrel of gas in a truck. There, he was back on his knees again with the “rope trick,” and beaten. He was put in leg irons on a bed in the Heartbreak Hotel. In the Zoo, more kneeling with hands up. He took a really bad beating for refusing to condemn Lyndon Johnson. More kneeling events followed, and he could see his knee bone through holes in the knees.
There was an escape attempt from the Zoo annex when he was senior officer of a large building. They then started a mass torture of all commanders. On July 7, 1969, they beat him with a car fan belt. The first two days he took over 300 strokes, and then stopped counting because he did not think he’d make it. This continued day and night, as his captors looked for a confession to knowing of the escape and implicate his roommates. This went on for three days, on his knees, fan belting, cutting open his scrotum and opening up the holes in his knees again. His fanny looked like hamburger and he could not lie on his back. He caved, but recanted the next day. From July 11 or 12 to October 14, 1969, he got the fan belt, with three, six or nine strokes every day, still refusing to implicate his roommates.
What’s the point of this? Our president has called us a nation of torturers, and if we “continued” then it would cause our enemies to torture us. What did I just describe? Hanging women’s panties on a man’s head or pouring water over someone’s face (with medical personnel standing by, and which has no lasting after effect) does not compare.
CREIGHTON BRICKER
Grand Junction
37 Responses to “U.S. is not a nation of torturers”
Posted June 10th, 2009 at 6:06 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Right on Creighton!
Liberals are just a bunch of whiners. Perhaps we can start waterboarding the libs in congress to make them Pro-American again.
Posted June 10th, 2009 at 7:29 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
duke, liberals are accused, fairly or unfairly, and I am sure you would say unfairly, of painting the United States in the worst possible light. Our globe trotting president appears to be following, to a certain extent, that characterization.
When he goes to Egypt and proclaims that HE will not allow the United States to torture again, he is telling the world that the United States has practiced torture and puts us, in the eyes of his listeners, in the same category as those who practice torture of the sort described in this letter. He puts us in the same category as that of the country hostng his speech. And that, is an exageration which, in my opinion, is wrong.
Posted June 10th, 2009 at 7:55 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
hey creighton,
how can you say the u.s. is not a nation fo torturers; haven’t you ever tuned to c-span or c-span 2 and listened to politicians drone on and on and on for hours about nothing?
Posted June 10th, 2009 at 8:11 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
bullishfrog,
Just because there are worse forms of torture doesn’t mean waterboarding doesn’t qualify.
People were tortured by US operatives while in US custody. The fact that no lasting harm was done does not justify the means. Some Americans feel that torture is wrong no matter the degree, whether it is shoving bamboo shoots under fingernails or listening to Barry Manilow sing Barney the Dinosaur songs.
Posted June 10th, 2009 at 8:23 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Mr. Bricker would turn us into something that is less than we should be. If others torture and we torture in turn, what is the difference between us and them? What is it then that those we sent there to “fight for us” actually fighting for?
This country, from prior to its founding, rejected torture. None other than George Washington forbade the practice in the treatment of prisoners taken during the Revolutionary war. So, is Mr. Bricker now saying that this long standing principle and policy was wrong?
Individuals such as Mr. Bricker are motivated, not through any high ideals, but through something actually quite “base.” That is fear. And that is fear for themselves, not for anyone else or even this country. Too many, just like Mr. Bricker, suffer from the same malady. Such is the consequence of one thing. “I am the center of the universe, and nothing and nobody else matters.”
It would appear that, like many, Mr. Bricker can be counted among the “terrorist” success stories. In his fear, he is reacting exactly as they wanted him to react.
Posted June 10th, 2009 at 8:29 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Scott, you and I can debate whether waterboarding, given the situation that existed when it took place, was justified or not. In my opinion it was totally justified.
But even if I was to agree with you that it wasn’t, it was done on three individuals and those individuals are very healthy today. What is wrong is for Obama to put us in the same category as countries, such as those in the Middle East, including Egypt, where torture is standard operating procedure.
Posted June 10th, 2009 at 8:52 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
bullishfrog,
Is someone less guilty of stealing if they only take a nickel as opposed to a million dollars?
The degree doesn’t matter. It’s the principle that is the issue. Whether it was three, three hundred or three thousand people, it is still torture. It’s great that they are healthy today, but they were still tortured, and the US is supposed to be above that.
The North Vietnamese felt the torture they inflicted was justified too. Does that make it right?
Posted June 10th, 2009 at 9:11 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Scott, I not not agree with you that what the US did to those three animals constitute torture. But even if I agreed with you, I would say yes, there is a vast difference between doing what was done, in the environment that we were in, to the individuals to whom it was done, and the use of totrture as standard operating procedure as continues to be carried out in many parts of the world.
And yes, there is a huge difference between waterboarding three murderers and deacapitating innocent civilians.
Posted June 10th, 2009 at 9:28 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Only in degree, not in principle.
And it is the principle that is the issue.
Posted June 10th, 2009 at 9:48 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Well Scott, while you stand on principle, I stand for saving American lives.
And getting back to the point of this discussion, I disagree with the president of the United States jetting around the world and speaking of actions taken by the United Staes in the pre-Obama era in the worst possible light under the assumption that this will make others like us.
Posted June 10th, 2009 at 10:05 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Scott says: “Is someone less guilty of stealing if they only take a nickel as opposed to a million dollars?
The degree doesn’t matter. It’s the principle that is the issue.”
Under US law the degree matters a great deal, especially when it comes to intent. Even for murder we have 1st and 2nd degree, manslaughter and accidental death. When it comes time to sentencing, the degree matters a great deal. Someone who illegally shoots and kills someone entering their property does not get the same sentence as a serial killer. A shoplifter doesn’t get the same sentence as an art thief. Charges against murderers are regularly reduced on technicalities. Degree matters.
The point people keep missing is that difference. The “torture” that was used was either authorized on a very limited scale by US legal authority during a time of war - or was not “approved” at all and was the action of individuals. In principle or practice, the US is simply not a “torture country” - but has been sentenced as such on the world stage. This is a dangerous game of self-destructive ‘foreign relations’.
The higher order question is…. what GOOD can possibly come from the incessant inaccurate labeling of the US by our own President? What’s the purpose? Does it actually improve foreign relations? Heck no. It just keeps stirring the pot of hatred for America. Those who hate us, hate us for entirely different reasons. Has it improved the treatment of our own soldiers? Heck no. Did it stop the sentencing of the 2 Americans in N. Korea to 12 years of torture? Heck no.
Enough is enough. It’s time to move on and stop undermining one of the most (if not the most) civilized country in the world. We are also a country where ‘principles’ give hardened criminals more rights and better living conditions than most of the world’s population living under truly tyrannical regimes. Let’s DO get back to talking about the principles that have actually made this country what it really is.
Posted June 10th, 2009 at 10:08 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
bullishfrog,
You misunderstand what I’m saying. All I’m doing is pointing out what was done does constitute torture. I’m not saying anything about whether it was justified or not.
These men are not prisoners of war. They are not entitled to the protections guaranteed under the Geneva Convention. The US has every legal right to do with them as we please. But legal right doesn’t always equal moral right.
Obama is completely correct in saying that the US has engaged in torture in the past. He is acknowledging that what was done was torture, no matter how some try to redefine it. Whether any American lives were saved as a result is debateable. I’ve heard evidence on both sides, but frankly the torture proponents seem to have the idea that the world works like an episode of “24″ which I disagree with.
Is waterboarding torture? Yes. Was it justified? Maybe. Did we lose the moral high ground by doing so? yes.
And I doubt that Obama is under any misconceptions that anyone’s opinion of the US will be changed simply by admitting the torture. But isn’t that better than continuing to try to convince them that it isn’t?
Posted June 10th, 2009 at 10:14 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Well Scott, we could keep going around and around on this. If you go back to my original post to duke(#3):
“liberals are accused, fairly or unfairly, and I am sure you would say unfairly, of painting the United States in the worst possible light. Our globe trotting president appears to be following, to a certain extent, that characterization.”
When my daughter graduated from CU, the keynote speaker, a retiring professor, told the audience that the United States deserved what it got on 911 and it has not yet learned its lesson.
And that remark got solid applause from the audience.
That is what I mean by my post and that is the attitude our president takes to his foreign audience.
Posted June 10th, 2009 at 10:14 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
JMH,
“Under US law the degree matters a great deal, especially when it comes to intent. Even for murder we have 1st and 2nd degree, manslaughter and accidental death. When it comes time to sentencing, the degree matters a great deal. Someone who illegally shoots and kills someone entering their property does not get the same sentence as a serial killer. A shoplifter doesn’t get the same sentence as an art thief. Charges against murderers are regularly reduced on technicalities. Degree matters.”
And it is still considered killing and stealing. The law doesn’t redefine the action as a result of the degree.
“The point people keep missing is that difference. The “torture” that was used was either authorized on a very limited scale by US legal authority during a time of war - or was not “approved” at all and was the action of individuals. In principle or practice, the US is simply not a “torture country” - but has been sentenced as such on the world stage. This is a dangerous game of self-destructive ‘foreign relations’.”
That difference is meaningless to the world at large. Obama recognizes this. You apparently don’t.
“The higher order question is…. what GOOD can possibly come from the incessant inaccurate labeling of the US by our own President? What’s the purpose? Does it actually improve foreign relations? Heck no. It just keeps stirring the pot of hatred for America. Those who hate us, hate us for entirely different reasons. Has it improved the treatment of our own soldiers? Heck no. Did it stop the sentencing of the 2 Americans in N. Korea to 12 years of torture? Heck no.”
Some people consider telling the truth to be the right thing to do, no matter the consequences rather than redefining the word to make it more palatable.
“Enough is enough. It’s time to move on and stop undermining one of the most (if not the most) civilized country in the world. We are also a country where ‘principles’ give hardened criminals more rights and better living conditions than most of the world’s population living under truly tyrannical regimes. Let’s DO get back to talking about the principles that have actually made this country what it really is.”
I agree with what you say here, but I’m willing to be we disagree on what those principles are. Isn’t America great?
Posted June 10th, 2009 at 10:16 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
JMH: “The higher order question is…. what GOOD can possibly come from the incessant inaccurate labeling of the US by our own President? What’s the purpose? Does it actually improve foreign relations? Heck no. It just keeps stirring the pot of hatred for America. Those who hate us, hate us for entirely different reasons. Has it improved the treatment of our own soldiers? Heck no. Did it stop the sentencing of the 2 Americans in N. Korea to 12 years of torture? Heck no.”
Exactly my point. Thanks for expressing it in a better way than I can.
Posted June 10th, 2009 at 10:17 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
bullishfrog,
Admitting that the US has tortured is not the same as claiming the US deserved 9/11. If you’re assuming that is the attitude that Obama has, I think you’re seriously underestimating him.
Posted June 10th, 2009 at 11:04 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Scott says, “I agree with what you say here, but I’m willing to be we disagree on what those principles are.”
Okaaaay… what principles do YOU think have made America ‘great’?
Posted June 10th, 2009 at 11:13 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
I really don’t have the time to get into that discussion. Besides, its off-topic for this thread.
Posted June 10th, 2009 at 11:19 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Going with scotts way of thinking then every country in the world bar none is involved in torture, even though some would only be done by a song.
Going with just the basic definition of torture; “The infliction of severe physical pain as punishment or coercion” I would say the U S has never been involved in torture.
And I still want to waterboard the un-american liberals in congress!
Posted June 10th, 2009 at 11:23 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Scott: “Admitting that the US has tortured is not the same as claiming the US deserved 9/11.”
If Obama believes that waterboarding is toture, and decides to ban it, that’s one thing. I disagree with him but that is NOT my point here.
“And getting back to the point of this discussion, I disagree with the president of the United States jetting around the world and speaking of actions taken by the United Staes in the pre-Obama era in the worst possible light under the assumption that this will make others like us.”
Posted June 10th, 2009 at 11:35 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Scott, Scott, Scott…. didn’t you say, “And it is the principle that is the issue.”
and then you said, “I agree with what you say here, but I’m willing to be we disagree on what those principles are.”
But when JMH says, “Okaaaay… what principles do YOU think have made America ‘great’?”
You cop out and say, “I really don’t have the time to get into that discussion. Besides, its off-topic for this thread.”
That is CLASSIC. You have all the time in the world to perseverate on ‘principle’ when it makes the US into the moral equivalent of countries where freedom and liberty don’t even exist. But when it comes to discussing American ‘principles’ that draw millions of refugees to our shores and have given YOU the right to exist with LIBERTY and FREEDOM, you suddenly clam up. Pffft! LOL. Classic.
Posted June 10th, 2009 at 11:48 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Rexall,
Yes, every country in the world, in one form or another, has probably engaged in torture. What is your point? And if you don’t think any US agents have been involved in inflicting pain, you have a lot to learn.
Bullishfrog,
And again, if you think that is why Obama is saying what he is saying, you are seriously underestimating him.
JMH,
“Scott, Scott, Scott…. didn’t you say, “And it is the principle that is the issue.”
and then you said, “I agree with what you say here, but I’m willing to be we disagree on what those principles are.””
You may not have noticed the “s” on the end of “principles” in my comment to you, and the lack of same on the word in my comment to bullishfrog. To bullishfrog, i was referring to one particular principle, rather than all the principles that make up the US. The one principle is relevant to the discussion at hand, all of them are not.
“But when JMH says, “Okaaaay… what principles do YOU think have made America ‘great’?”
You cop out and say, “I really don’t have the time to get into that discussion. Besides, its off-topic for this thread.””
Because it is. See above.
“That is CLASSIC. You have all the time in the world to perseverate on ‘principle’ when it makes the US into the moral equivalent of countries where freedom and liberty don’t even exist. But when it comes to discussing American ‘principles’ that draw millions of refugees to our shores and have given YOU the right to exist with LIBERTY and FREEDOM, you suddenly clam up. Pffft! LOL. Classic.”
It is classic. A classic case of you once again completely misunderstanding what I write. I’m beginning to think you can’t help it.
Posted June 10th, 2009 at 11:56 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
OK Scott, I will ammend my statement to the following:
“I disagree with the president of the United States jetting around the world and speaking of actions taken by the United Staes in the pre-Obama era in the worst possible light”
Posted June 10th, 2009 at 12:08 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Scott - we don’t live in a compartmentalized world, much as you’d like to engage in nitpicking singular and plural versions, I’ll pass on another tedious back-n-forth.
Let’s do stick with the topic. The topic is that the US is not a “torture country” and you’ve been arguing based on principle, rather than the reality of what actually took place and what defines a “torture country”. So let’s DO play by your rules. Stick with the topic.
In REALITY, is the US really a “nation of torturers” or a “torture country”?
Posted June 10th, 2009 at 12:25 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
bullishfrog,
Deal.
JMH,
It is a nation that has, on occasion, engaged in torture. Just like every other nation, as Rexall pointed out. That is simply reality. Waterboarding is torture, no matter how undamaging and ultimately harmless is is. It is a method to attempt to extract a certain behavior out of an unwilling person. I’m sure you’ll agree that the waterboardees were not willing participants, right? There was no “safe word” that could be used to stop the process, right?
My point is, and the only point I have been making here all day, is so what? The US tortured some people. We did it in a way that left no lasting physical effects, but that doesn’t make it “not” torture. Redefining it so we can claim that the US has never tortured anyone is disingenuous to say the least.
Posted June 10th, 2009 at 12:43 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Scott, good, glad we have a deal on the main issue.
Now, while you believe waterboarding is torture, you also said the following:
“Is waterboarding torture? Yes. Was it justified? Maybe”
“Whether any American lives were saved as a result is debateable. I’ve heard evidence on both sides”
So what is it that would justify waterboarding?
You say that you are not sure whether American lives were saved or not. If you had evidence that lives were saved, would you then agree that waterboarding was, in that case, justified?
Posted June 10th, 2009 at 1:08 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
If the information could not have been obtained any other way, then yes, it would be justified. The needs of the many, and all that.
The main problem I have with torture is that you cannot be sure the information obtained is accurate. Sure, you can check it out and if it is, great. If it isn’t, then what do you do? You’ve tortured the person for nothing. I guess what I’m saying is that it has it’s place, but it is not as useful as some seem to imagine.
Posted June 10th, 2009 at 1:21 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Scott, according to Dick Cheney, there are documents that show that one or more of the three terrorists who were waterboarded provided information which helped save American lives. He wants those documents released.
Do you think he would want the documents released if they didn’t show the information he claims?
The president has read said documents. He refuses to release them. But I have heard him say, on more than one occasion, that even if useful information was obtained, there is no reason to think that such information could not have been obtained by other means.
Huh?
Let me ask you this, Scott, if the documents show that NO useful information was received, why doesn’t he just say so and THEN say that for security reasons he won’t release them?
I believe that the president knows that useful information, that helped save American lives, was indeed obtained and that is why he won’t say otherwise and why he won’t release the documents.
Posted June 10th, 2009 at 1:52 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Or perhaps they say that there was useful information gained, but there are still security reasons for not releasing them. And there still may have been other ways for the information to be obtained.
You seem to be assuming the worst of President Obama - that he is refusing to release the documents to be contrary. There are other reasons why he is not releasing them.
Posted June 10th, 2009 at 2:16 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
“Or perhaps they say that there was useful information gained, but there are still security reasons for not releasing them.”
That’s exactly what I think. And he could have said that.
“And there still may have been other ways for the information to be obtained.”
I suspect that all other means were tried first.
We’ll know, eventually.
Posted June 10th, 2009 at 2:43 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Scott, you say “there still may have been other ways for the information to be obtained” and that “You seem to be assuming the worst of President Obama - that he is refusing to release the documents to be contrary. There are other reasons why he is not releasing them.”
And you are assuming the worst of the Bush administration despite documentation that proves other methods were tried to no avail. Then you assume BO has “other reasons” for not releasing docs that would put in better perspective the docs that were already released.
There are a multitude of security reasons not to have released ANY documents at all. But that didn’t seem to matter when it came to releasing details of our methods that could only serve to embolden those who already hate us. If it weren’t for a last minute call from the highest level military commanders in the field that releasing more photos would incite more violence and put our troops in great, BO would have released those photos too.
This has become a political football made worse by Obama’s promise to close Gitmo without a plan. It’s not an assumption that Obama has made some very bad decisions and his appeasement rhetoric is putting this country at greater risk. Just last week, a military recruiter was shot and killed in cold blood - you probably didn’t hear much about it in the MSM.
The first killing by an Islamic Jihadist on American soil since 9-11 has now happened on Obama’s watch. Coinicidence? I think not.
Posted June 10th, 2009 at 2:55 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
JMH,
You are assuming I am defending a position I am not. Not for the first time, I might add. That makes most of your tirade irrelevant.
Correction, make that all of it.
Have a nice day.
Posted June 10th, 2009 at 5:26 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
JMH “The first killing by an Islamic Jihadist on American soil since 9-11 has now happened on Obama’s watch. Coinicidence? I think not.”
That means it’s OK to torture terrorists. Hooray!
Scott Roeder has claimed there will be more assisinations.
Remember those Unitarians who were gunned down in Arkansas?
Now let’s see, where do we start . . . hmmm.
Posted June 10th, 2009 at 5:35 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Here are some candidates for harsh interrogation.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bxvunbIWNyI&feature=player_embedded
Posted June 10th, 2009 at 7:38 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
dgadbc - Stop drooling, I saw that report during the first hours of coverage of the shooting at the Holocaust Museum. Shep Smith had basically said that the controversial DHS report warning that returning American soldiers should have been taken more seriously. Only problem is that the suspect is an 89 year old WWII vet and a known white supremacist.
In reality, the emails he read were no “worse” than the smears against conservatives that are heard every day on the left-wing national news, network talk shows and the Daily Kos. Where was the outrage when the left-wingnut hung an effigy of Sara Palin on Halloween? Or the daily hate speech leveled against Bush for 8 years? Where was the outrage when ACORN drove busloads of hostile folks to protest in front of the homes of AIG execs - calling for their death? Where WAS the outrage at the assassination of the US Military recruiter by an admitted Islamic Jihadist calling for the death of more Americans?
This killing was horrible, but it shouldn’t be used to further degrade our troops (you know - the ones that protect us) or to paint all conservatives as potential killers. There are extremists on BOTH sides of the left-right divide. The only difference is that the left-wing mainstream media controls perceptions.
One reminder. It is conservatives who have been warning that the current liberal/progressive politics are the same progressive politics that allowed Hitler to come to power and allowed the original Holocaust to ever take place.
Posted June 11th, 2009 at 8:06 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
JMH: “It is conservatives who have been warning that the current liberal/progressive politics are the same progressive politics that allowed Hitler to come to power and allowed the original Holocaust to ever take place.”
Such a statement can only come from someone who takes individuals such as Jonah Goldberg seriously and those who know nothing of the Hitler and his Third Reich. As to Goldberg, in his book accusing “liberals” of being “fascists” it is obvious that he did not know what it was/is. So, he substituted his own definiton; i.e. a designer definition.
The truth be told, and knowing something of that period in German history, see the the so-called “coservatives” (actually reactionaries) as more attuned to fascism than anything to be found in political liberalism. Liberalism is really the antithesis of the political and “moral” purity now seen within the “rightist” fringe of the Republican Party, and by the same groups as was seen in the Germany of the 20’s, 30’s and 40’s, the industrialists and some religious organizations.
Posted June 11th, 2009 at 5:14 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Oh JMH, that’s just precious. Liberals = Nazis.
A brilliant theory that deserves to be considered along side Holocaust Denial, and with even less evidence to support it.
As far as the Smith report goes, it was Fox playing CYA for the law suite they know is coming from the Tiller family. No, I don’t blame Fox, and I hate lawyers, but I’ll giggle when Fox has to get the ACLU to defend them.
It’s always a good sign when discussion of the subject, torture, turns to name calling, Liberals = Nazis. It means I’ve made points you can’t argue so you must attack me. What’s that kids’ rhyme? I’m made of rubber and you’re made of glue. Whatever you say bounces of me and sticks to you.
So since I’ve clearly rattled you and won this argument, I bid you farewell.
I’ll be riding my high horse. See you again when Bricker spins another one of his letters.
I
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.