Corrupt Government
See other Corrupt Government Articles
Title: Doctors Group Says Bush Administration Conducted Medical Experiments On Detainees
Source:
RAW STORY
URL Source: http://rawstory.com/rs/2010/0607/do ... medical-experiments-detainees/
Published: Jun 7, 2010
Author: RAW STORY
Post Date: 2010-06-07 11:18:03 by Brian S
Keywords: None
Views: 9424
Comments: 59
A new report by the watchdog group Physicians for Human Rights alleges Monday that the Bush Administration experimented on terrorism suspects during their enhanced interrogation program put in force starting in 2002. The group's review, which examined Bush-era documentation, asserts that the administration violated laws set up in the wake of the Holocaust to prevent medical testing on prisoners of war. (Nazi doctors sometimes experimented on their prisoners.) The report states that, "Medical personnel were required to monitor all waterboarding practices and collect detailed medical information that was used to design, develop and deploy subsequent waterboarding procedures." Notes the Associated Press: For example, the report said, doctors recommended adding salt to the water used for waterboarding, so the patient wouldn't experience hyponatremia, "a condition of low sodium levels in the blood caused by free water intoxication." The report interpreted that doctor-recommended practice of using saline solution as "Waterboarding 2.0." It also said information was gathered on the pain inflicted when various techniques were used in combination. Raymond said the purpose was to see if the pain caused violated Bush administration definitions of torture, rather than as a safeguard of the detainees' health. Medical personnel, the report said, also monitored sleep deprivation, with sleepless stints from 48 hours to 180 hours — again to make sure it did not cause prolonged physical and mental suffering, as per those Bush administration definitions, rather than to watch out for harm to the detainee. "We're not writing the indictment here," author Nathaniel Raymond told the Associated Pres. "We're seeing there needs to be a search warrant. If the White House does not act on this, it's turning its back on something that could be perceived as a war crime." The CIA vehemently denied the allegations in the report. "The CIA did not, as part of its past detention program, conduct human subject research on any detainee or group of detainees," CIA spokesman Paul Gimigliano told a reporter. Mother Jones, the investigative liberal magazine, says that the Bush Administration may have -- ironically -- engaged in "experimentation" in an effort to shield it from accusations of torture. In the documents review by the watchdog group, a Bush Administration lawyer wrote, "Human experimentation without the consent of the subject is a violation of international human rights law to which the United States is subject; federal statutes; the Common Rule, which comprises the federal regulations for research on human subjects and applies to 17 federal agencies, including the Central Intelligence Agency and the Department of Defense; and universally accepted health professional ethics, including the Nuremberg Code... Human experimentation on detainees also can constitute a war crime and a crime against humanity in certain circumstances." "Ironically, one goal of the 'experimentation' seems to have been to immunize Bush administration officials and CIA interrogators from potential prosecution for torture," writes Mother Jones' Nick Baumann. "In the series of legal papers that are now popularly known as the 'torture memos,' Justice Department lawyers argued that medical monitoring would demonstrate that interrogators didn't intend to harm detainees; that 'lack of intent to cause harm' could then serve as the cornerstone of a legal defense should an interrogator be targeted for prosecution. In 2003, in an internal CIA memo cited in the PHR report, the CIA's general counsel, Scott Muller, argued that medical monitoring of interrogations and 'reviewing evidence gained from past experience where available (including experience gained in the course of U.S. interrogations of detainees)' would allow interrogators to inoculate themselves against claims of torture because it 'established' they didn't intend to cause harm to the detainees."
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-9) not displayed.
.
.
.
#10. To: Badeye (#8)
I am outraged at the torture and waterboarding is torture, as are a number of fellow veterans I know personally. Plus, over the years notable retired generals and below have taken similar outlooks as I've read in the print media. I'm not your file clerk. Look it up.
Ex-military officers take argument to presidential hopefuls During the Battle of Iwo Jima in March 1945, as American soldiers went cave to cave looking for enemy soldiers, a Japanese soldier emerged, wearing nothing but a loin cloth. The Americans took him into custody. They fed him and clothed him, and took him to a foxhole with them. A short time later, he asked if anyone spoke French. One soldier did, and all of a sudden, the Americans realized they had captured a high-ranking man -- with a lot of knowledge of Japanese plans -- who was willing to cooperate with them. He told them where other enemy soldiers were hiding in the area and eventually was taken to Washington, D.C. The intelligence he provided was invaluable. Conversely, it was bad intelligence that led to the current war in Iraq, said Don Guter, a retired rear admiral and former Navy judge advocate general. After capturing a Libyan trainer for al-Qaida shortly after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, the United States turned him over to Egypt. "They tortured him," said Mr. Guter, now the dean of Duquesne Law School. It was Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi who made the connection between Iraq and al-Qaida, a principal justification for the invasion of Iraq. "He later recanted, but it was too late," Mr. Guter said. Those two examples are being used by a group of 49 retired admirals and generals who want to meet with all the presidential candidates to discuss why they believe the United States cannot engage in torture. Not only does mistreatment of prisoners produce bad intelligence, it violates the rules of war and the Geneva Conventions, creates damaged soldiers and has ruined the United States' standing around the world, Mr. Guter said. Fifteen members of the group, organized by Human Rights First, met with seven presidential candidates last weekend in Des Moines, Iowa. The group says the program is designed simply to make sure the candidates are well-informed on the topic. "As far as we're concerned, this shouldn't be a point the United States should have to debate," Mr. Guter said. "Whoever is the next commander in chief, we want them to believe what we're telling them." The alliance of retired, high-ranking military officials and a group considered to be quite liberal may seem unusual, Mr. Guter admitted. But he doesn't think so. "To me, the values we're espousing are conservative," he said. "We're trying to come down on the side of American values that we see being eroded and destroyed." It was the staff at Human Rights First that noticed various admirals and generals speaking out individually on the issue. They then made the effort to pull the group together. The mission of the retired military leaders is not to endorse any particular person in the race. They have agreed they will not reveal any of the candidates' responses to the presentations, though Mr. Guter said he thought they've all been favorable. Of all the candidates they met with last week, only one -- Mike Huckabee -- was a Republican. "It is a little frustrating, because we do want to talk to everybody," he said. Matthew Freedus, an adviser to the National Institute of Military Justice, said he's not surprised that few Republicans want to meet with the panel. "There's potentially very little for the candidate to gain by sitting down with a group that has so much experience on this and that [has a viewpoint] that's so different from the position they can afford to take," Mr. Freedus said. "It's like going into combat without body armor." He noted that it's unusual for military personnel to be aligned on an issue with Democrats. "Having service members who are very familiar with the law of war is helpful for this discussion," Mr. Freedus said. "They're straight-talkers. They're going to say how they feel." The panel of speakers included experts on law, medicine, intelligence and combat operations. Together, Mr. Guter said, they had more than 400 years of military experience. Darius Rejali, a political science professor at Reed College in Oregon and an expert on torture, said that the message being sent by the generals reflects that of the American public. Opposition to torture since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks has consistently been between 55 and 65 percent in polls, Mr. Rejali said, even for what he calls the "ticking time-bomb question" (asking if torture is acceptable when a catastrophic event is at hand and the person being questioned is believed to have information that could prevent it). But most Americans have the perception that the majority of people support torture, when they do not. "We think the debate has been driven by fear," Mr. Guter said. "We've faced vicious enemies in every war. "But we've never had a policy of torture." For generations, the United States was looked upon from the outside as having the higher moral authority, Mr. Guter said. But because of recent policy changes, he continued, that is no longer the case. "The rule of law has suffered," he said. "In the past, we've held the high ground." Mr. Rejali, who recently published a book, "Torture & Democracy," called the war on terror a war on values. "You lose the war if you defend your values with barbaric methods," Mr. Rejali said. "If it's a moral cause, people will rally for it." Like the military panel, he agreed that torture disrupts public cooperation and will lead to increasing terrorism. "It certainly undermines trust, which is the critical thing here in gathering information," he said. More than that, Mr. Guter added, it can also harm our own soldiers, who must carry out the torture. When they return from war, they are more likely to face addiction, depression, low morale and what Mr. Rejali called "perpetrator- induced traumatic stress." "Usually, at the end of war, the torturers are dumped," he said. "Most people don't realize what happens out there comes home." All of those reasons are cited by Mr. Guter as explanation for why his group wants to have this dialogue with whoever is to lead the United States. "There's no disconnect between human rights and national security," Mr. Guter said. "They're synergistic. One doesn't work without the other for very long. "On Inauguration Day, we'd like to have a commander in chief who is a voice for courage." Read more: http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/07344/840476-84.stm#ixzz0qCBeYJSj
#67. To: war (#48) Keep hiding behind the bozo, bozo. (laughing) You've always been a world class pussy. Badeye posted on 2010-01-14 16:12:48 ET Reply Trace
Not only does mistreatment of prisoners produce bad intelligence, it violates the rules of war and the Geneva Conventions, creates damaged soldiers and has ruined the United States' standing around the world, Mr. Guter said. Thank you.
Bullshit. You can't support the assertion. Its okay....(laughing)
For approximately 72K, BP Oil bought Owe-bama. And as President, he let them Spill, Baby, Spill! Its documented.
No one believes that you have me on filter, Boofer. Everyone does believe that you're just a fucking pussy - as you claim all who use the bozo are.
#67. To: war (#48) Keep hiding behind the bozo, bozo. (laughing) You've always been a world class pussy. Badeye posted on 2010-01-14 16:12:48 ET Reply Trace
You forgot world class...
Waterboarding is not torture First and foremost, let us clarify the details of what this process actually entails. The technique itself involves an interrogation subject’s lying on his back in a reclining position (knees angled above the head). The subject is then restrained, a cloth is placed over his face (covering the nose, mouth, and eyes), and a constant stream of water is poured over the cloth for a maximum period of a few minutes. Water boarding is an enhanced interrogation technique that is only applied in the late stages of an interrogation; further, it can only be applied with approval and much deliberation from the highest level of the CIA (as confirmed by ex-CIA agent John Kiriakou). Much to the dismay of critics, waterboarding is not applied carelessly, recklessly, and without good reason. The United States Code of Law, specifically Title I, Chapter 113C, section 2340, defines torture as the following: (1) “torture” means an act committed by a person acting under the color of law specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions) upon another person within his custody or physical control; (2) “severe mental pain or suffering” means the prolonged mental harm caused by or resulting from— (A) the intentional infliction or threatened infliction of severe physical pain or suffering; (B) the administration or application, or threatened administration or application, of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or the personality; (C) the threat of imminent death; or (D) the threat that another person will imminently be subjected to death, severe physical pain or suffering, or the administration or application of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or personality. First and foremost, the technique of waterboarding is not intended to “inflict severe physical or mental suffering” with regards to provision 1; the point of an enhanced interrogation is to withdraw valuable information, not maliciously to inflict pain. Agents who employ the use of waterboarding do so with the intention of ultimately producing valuable intelligence, not unnecessary anguish. Logically, what incentive would agents have to inflict immense suffering anyway? Tortured subjects generally give false, misleading “confessions” that are intended immediately to stop the procedure, and to send agents on a “wildgoose chase.” Techniques that violate section 1 are actually against the interests of the CIA, and could never produce valuable intelligence. The practice of waterboarding, however repulsive, does not violate section 2. Like I previously stated, there is no exclusive intention of inflicting “severe physical pain or suffering.” Further, the interrogator never physically strikes or attacks the subject; the water is made to simulate the gag reflex of drowning, and there is no physical pain. The subject may certainly feel some discomfort, but “some discomfort” does not equate to “severe suffering.” Once again, if the subject endured severe suffering and prolonged mental harm was caused, the subject would not be mentally fit to withstand an interrogation, and could not provide legitimate intelligence. Remember, the CIA is not looking for a culprit; to date, the three individuals who have been waterboarded were known terrorists. Rather, the CIA is looking for new intelligence that it can use in order to prevent further acts of terrorism. The CIA does not benefit from measures that cause prolonged mental harm because the subject cannot provide the needed information. Your Ad Here My aforementioned statements deal primarily with sections A and B; sections C and D deal with the concept of “the threat of imminent death.” Many waterboarding critics liken the technique to a mock execution; for example, if an “executioner” were to trigger a gun filled with blanks in front of a panicking subject. These comparisons could not be more ludicrous; in a mock execution, much like the example I mentioned, the interrogator causes the subject undeniably to feel the threat of imminent death. There should be no question regarding whether the subject is going to die or the subject should believe he is going to die. With waterboarding, no such question exists; the subject is never verbally, nor physically threatened with imminent death. Waterboarding is a simulation, and is not actual drowning. When waterboarded by CIA professionals, the subject can never face nor expect a legitimate threat of imminent death; further, CIA professionals know the technique is not being used to murder the subject, and subsequently do not intend to kill the subject. Section 2, C and D, like A and B, do not apply to waterboarding because there is no imminent threat of death; it is a simulation designed to produce valuable intelligence, not maliciously to harm or kill terrorists. The last provision, found in the latter half of Section 2, D, which mentions “the administration or application of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or personality,” also does not apply to waterboarding. The only “substance” used in the technique is water; certainly, we can agree that water is not mind-altering like LSD, PCP, Cocaine, or any major hallucinogen or narcotic. Second, why would the CIA even want to use a mind-altering substance? Once again, the purpose of an enhanced interrogation is to produce valuable, legitimate, and trustworthy intelligence. By using substances to alter the normal thought processes of subjects, could the CIA honestly expect legitimate results? In order to understand whether or not the CIA should use waterboarding, we must examine their interests; torture renders the subject useless, and thus, cannot aid the CIA with any investigations. Further, only “illegal enemy combatants” are waterboarded by CIA officials; not soldiers, not civilians. Soldiers and civilians are protected by international accords, namely the famed Geneva Conventions. Illegal enemy combatants however, have no allegiances to countries, are not sufficiently recognized by international agreements, and have access to valuable intelligence regarding imminent terrorist threats. This has been proven by the CIA’s use of waterboarding with three prominent terrorists: Abu Zubaydah (Osama bin Laden’s chief of operations), Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri (the mastermind of the bombing of the USS Cole), and Khalid Sheik Mohammed (the mastermind of the 9/11 attacks). The results of Khalid Sheik Mohammed’s enhanced interrogation were brought to light during December 2007, when ex-CIA agent John Kiriakou admitted that he was present during Mohammed’s interrogation, and the technique yielded significant intelligence without rendering the subject useless. Thanks to this technique, we realized Mohammed was responsible for over thirty organized terror plots, including 9/11 for which he was accountable “A-Z.” In an age where our enemy is small in number but dangerous nonetheless, waterboarding is and should absolutely remain a lawful and legitimate enhanced interrogation technique. CIA interrogators do not waterboard recklessly or without deliberation; further, these interrogators are professionals, and can waterboard correctly. Lastly, it is against the interests of the CIA to torture their subjects; history has taught us (during the Spanish Inquisition, for instance) that torture is only useful if you want someone to admit being a witch, or to having had intercourse with the Devil. And to those who are still skeptical concerning whether or not waterboarding will cause “prolonged physical and mental suffering”, remember this: CIA agents are waterboarded during their training. Will they ever be able to work?
Oops...
#67. To: war (#48) Keep hiding behind the bozo, bozo. (laughing) You've always been a world class pussy. Badeye posted on 2010-01-14 16:12:48 ET Reply Trace
They prefer the Leftwingnut myth to the reality, as the above demonstrates. My view is pretty straight forward. If waterboarding can save one American life, do it.
For approximately 72K, BP Oil bought Owe-bama. And as President, he let them Spill, Baby, Spill! Its documented.
Reagan's DOJ Prosecuted Texas Sheriff For Waterboarding Prisoners
#67. To: war (#48) Keep hiding behind the bozo, bozo. (laughing) You've always been a world class pussy. Badeye posted on 2010-01-14 16:12:48 ET Reply Trace
Wrong answer.
The waterboarding performed by the CIA was careful and measured. When you moonbats bring up Japan or that Texas sheriff and other such comparisons, you are comparing apples to oranges.
On Jan. 21, 1968, The Washington Post ran a front-page photo of a U.S. soldier supervising the waterboarding of a captured North Vietnamese soldier near Da Nang. The caption said the technique induced "a flooding sense of suffocation and drowning, meant to make him talk." This picture led to an Army investigation and, two months later, the court martial of the soldier.
#67. To: war (#48) Keep hiding behind the bozo, bozo. (laughing) You've always been a world class pussy. Badeye posted on 2010-01-14 16:12:48 ET Reply Trace
How many did it get killed?
#67. To: war (#48) Keep hiding behind the bozo, bozo. (laughing) You've always been a world class pussy. Badeye posted on 2010-01-14 16:12:48 ET Reply Trace
Ya wohl, Herr Himmler!
Riiight...as we saw, Doctors were present taking notes and observing... Of course, that was against the law too...but oh well...
#67. To: war (#48) Keep hiding behind the bozo, bozo. (laughing) You've always been a world class pussy. Badeye posted on 2010-01-14 16:12:48 ET Reply Trace
Notice who fled this thread, btw? World class...
#67. To: war (#48) Keep hiding behind the bozo, bozo. (laughing) You've always been a world class pussy. Badeye posted on 2010-01-14 16:12:48 ET Reply Trace
Yep...I'm outie too....later
Fair enough. Any American life but yours. How's that? (laughing)
For approximately 72K, BP Oil bought Owe-bama. And as President, he let them Spill, Baby, Spill! Its documented.
How many new enemy/terrorists did torture help recruit? How many Americans did it kill? How's that?
How's that? Well, lets break this ridiculous post down, shall we? 1. How many enemy/terrorists did torture help recruit? Zero. The only people 'recruited' by it are found outside of Islamic fundementalists. Basically readers of the NY Times, Huffpuff, etc. YOU can't name ANYONE that was 'recruited' due to waterboarding. Nor can anyone elese. Its a Liberal Talking Point memo, that has no basis in truth, and no cooroboration. 2. How many Americans did it kill? Zero. Americans have been killed by Islamic Fundementalists for DECADES. Over 800 between the 72 Olympic Massacre and 9/10/01 as is documented. They don't scream 'Abu Ghraib!' when they self detonate, or go on a shooting rampage on an Army post, Freddie. This isn't about 'torture'. Its not even about Israel. Its about America guarantee's if you live here, you can worship as you choose, or not worship at all. The Islamic Fundementalists say this in every speech, every communication. You should actually listen to one some time. Have a nice day...and again, okay, waterboarding to save ANY American life but yours, or lets add somebody YOU care about. How's that?
For approximately 72K, BP Oil bought Owe-bama. And as President, he let them Spill, Baby, Spill! Its documented.
#67. To: war (#48) Keep hiding behind the bozo, bozo. (laughing) You've always been a world class pussy. Badeye posted on 2010-01-14 16:12:48 ET Reply Trace
The Great And Powerful Boofer Has Spoken!!!! Of course, it's all crap... Funny tho, how people like Boofer cited "torture rooms" as justification for invading Iraq. So is it your point, Boof, that allegations of torture work on recruiting Americans to support killing Ba'ath Party members but not on "Islamic Fundamentalists" because...they're smarter? And what was Hasan's issue about again...what was it again...US WAR CRIMES? You're a fucking asshole Boofer... World Clsss...
#67. To: war (#48) Keep hiding behind the bozo, bozo. (laughing) You've always been a world class pussy. Badeye posted on 2010-01-14 16:12:48 ET Reply Trace
World Clsss... But he owns three companies. He's a mogul.
LMAO. Medical monitoring is now experimentation to the Flotilla Party.
----------------------------------------------------------- During his time in the Senate and while running for president, Obama received a total of $77,051 Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories /0510/36783.html#ixzz0oyfhPrvS I will never understand why he believes he can get away with lying his ass off all the time. This isn't a difference of opinion, this is the promotion of absolute falsehoods in the face of what is a well established public record. First it was his claim to Fred that no vet or ex officer was against water boarding...now this...
#67. To: war (#48) Keep hiding behind the bozo, bozo. (laughing) You've always been a world class pussy. Badeye posted on 2010-01-14 16:12:48 ET Reply Trace
Paper: 'Bush intends to attack Iran before the end of his term' ----------------------------------------------------------- During his time in the Senate and while running for president, Obama received a total of $77,051 Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories /0510/36783.html#ixzz0oyfhPrvS It's "experimentation" to treaties and protocols to which the US is signatory. You're long on the record as being agsinst the WOT...but you're pro torture...
#67. To: war (#48) Keep hiding behind the bozo, bozo. (laughing) You've always been a world class pussy. Badeye posted on 2010-01-14 16:12:48 ET Reply Trace
Senior intel official: Pentagon moves to second-stage planning for Iran strike option
-----------------------------------------------------------
Had one died they need to know why. In the US, more time is spent on data recording and documentation than on care. Two medical Docs , along with 3 RN's in my immediate family .
-----------------------------------------------------------
Major investment bank issues warning on strike against Iran
-----------------------------------------------------------
Former UN weapons inspector says attack on Iran 'virtual guarantee'
-----------------------------------------------------------
Good for you cupcake... That doesn't change the facts or the law...
#67. To: war (#48) Keep hiding behind the bozo, bozo. (laughing) You've always been a world class pussy. Badeye posted on 2010-01-14 16:12:48 ET Reply Trace
Study: US preparing 'massive' military attack against Iran
-----------------------------------------------------------
The law doesn't change is 100% true. But they didn't experiment , Earl Of Long Isle. Your source has been proven fraudulent many times over.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Then I'd say that you a) lack a basic understanding of what the word "experiment" means, implies and entails and b) are ignorant of the law in question, Jack of Ass... The source, btw, is Physicians For Human Rights...
#67. To: war (#48) Keep hiding behind the bozo, bozo. (laughing) You've always been a world class pussy. Badeye posted on 2010-01-14 16:12:48 ET Reply Trace
You don't care if the new source is accurate or not. As long as it supports your views. You are an ideologue, as Mr O Reilly would say. Former CIA officer: US to attack Iran within 6 months -----------------------------------------------------------
You haven't even read their report. But I'm the one who doesn't care. There was a time when you were a fairly decent contributor to political forums. Then you started taking it up the ass for Boofer. But thanks for reminding me why I had you on bozo. Took all of three posts.
#67. To: war (#48) Keep hiding behind the bozo, bozo. (laughing) You've always been a world class pussy. Badeye posted on 2010-01-14 16:12:48 ET Reply Trace
DId you read the SECONDARY Source? Physicians For Human Rights. http://physiciansforhumanrights.org/library/news-2010-06-07.html
-----------------------------------------------------------
I read it, did you?
-----------------------------------------------------------
You did this with AZ's SB1070. Have you read that law yet?
-----------------------------------------------------------
Comments (51 - 59) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/LatestYou make an assertion you cannot back up
#11. To: Fred Mertz (#10)
Monday, December 10, 2007
By Paula Reed Ward, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
#12. To: war (#11)
Those two examples are being used by a group of 49 retired admirals and generals who want to meet with all the presidential candidates to discuss why they believe the United States cannot engage in torture.
#13. To: Fred Mertz (#10)
#14. To: Badeye (#13)
#15. To: war (#14)
#16. To: Fred Mertz (#10)
#17. To: Fred Mertz (#15)
#18. To: no gnu taxes (#16)
#19. To: Badeye (#18)
(Edited)
#20. To: Badeye (#18)
If waterboarding can save one American life, do it.
#21. To: war (#19)
#22. To: Fred Mertz, Boofer (#20)
#23. To: Fred Mertz (#20)
(Edited)
#24. To: no gnu taxes (#21)
The waterboarding performed by the CIA was careful and measured.
#25. To: Fred Mertz (#24)
#26. To: Fred Mertz (#24)
#27. To: war (#26)
#28. To: Fred Mertz (#20)
If waterboarding can save one American life, do it. Wrong answer.
#29. To: Badeye (#28)
#30. To: Fred Mertz (#29)
How many new enemy/terrorists did torture help recruit? How many Americans did it kill?
#31. To: Boofer, Fred Mertz (#30)
(Edited)
#32. To: Boofer, Fred Mertz (#30)
(Edited)
#33. To: war (#32)
You're a fucking asshole Boofer...
#34. To: Brian S, *Flotilla Party* (#0)
The report states that, "Medical personnel were required to monitor all waterboarding practices and collect detailed medical information that was used to design, develop and deploy subsequent waterboarding procedures." Notes the Associated Press:
Toss: ADL,CAIR and the Vatican into the pit they belong in.
from the oil giant and is the top recipient of BP PAC and individual money over the past 20 years,
according to financial disclosure records.
#35. To: Skip Intro (#33)
(Edited)
#36. To: Brian S (#0)
RAW Story Tuesday May 20, 2008
Toss: ADL,CAIR and the Vatican into the pit they belong in.
from the oil giant and is the top recipient of BP PAC and individual money over the past 20 years,
according to financial disclosure records.
#37. To: WhiteSands (#34)
Medical monitoring is now experimentation
#38. To: Brian S (#0)
Toss: ADL,CAIR and the Vatican into the pit they belong in.
#39. To: war (#37)
Toss: ADL,CAIR and the Vatican into the pit they belong in.
#40. To: Brian S (#0)
Toss: ADL,CAIR and the Vatican into the pit they belong in.
#41. To: Brian S (#0)
Toss: ADL,CAIR and the Vatican into the pit they belong in.
#42. To: WhiteSands (#39)
#43. To: Brian S (#0)
Toss: ADL,CAIR and the Vatican into the pit they belong in.
#44. To: war (#42)
(Edited)
Toss: ADL,CAIR and the Vatican into the pit they belong in.
#45. To: WhiteSands (#44)
(Edited)
But they didn't experiment...
#46. To: war (#45)
Toss: ADL,CAIR and the Vatican into the pit they belong in.
#47. To: WhiteSands (#46)
(Edited)
You don't care if the new source is accurate or not.
#48. To: war (#45)
Toss: ADL,CAIR and the Vatican into the pit they belong in.
#49. To: war (#47)
Toss: ADL,CAIR and the Vatican into the pit they belong in.
#50. To: war (#47)
Toss: ADL,CAIR and the Vatican into the pit they belong in.
.
.
.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]