Who is Tw?

I am one who believes that if the US signs international treaties (Geneva, UNCAT) that define and set limits on torture and/or cruel and unusual punishment, then the US should live up to those treaty obligations or withdraw from the treaty (and become a rogue state like those countries that refused to sign -- Iran, Myanmar, North Korea, Zimbabwe)

Or at the very least, the executive branch should submit proposed changes in policy to the legislature (even if only in closed session to protect national security) rather than act unilaterally in secret and counter to the advice and recommendations of both the DoJ and CIA Inspectors General.

Checks and balances to limit abuses of power.

Geez Redux, you sound like my father...



and his father,
and his father,
and his father,
and his father,
and his father.;)

When we, the free societies, are the ones using those methods (torture) on the slavemaking ones, how does that make us "better?" I imagine to the people of those countries, it makes us just as bad, only in a different way.

Better is subjective. I don't really care if you think it is better or worse so long as we allow for effectiveness.

Torture has never been effective. We KNOW that. It didn't work during the inquisitions, and it doesn't work now. people will tell you whatever they think you want to hear just to make it stop. It is extremely unreliable.

You're correct, torture is not effective. Pulling someone's fingernails out is just as likely to produce lies as truth. The things described above aren't torture. They're discomfort. Keeping someone awake for days tends to screw with their determination. Sitting in uncomfortable temperatures can do the same. Anything that causes a person to lose focus can be useful in getting information. That information shouldn't be immediately believed without some verification, but it certainly is a start.

Ask any law enforcement officer.

I'd like to see the reports on what was gained, how effective or what was potentially stopped by the info gleaned. If this administration is going to release the info on what was done, why not what was gained, if anything from it? Right now we only have 1/2 the story. An obviously slanted one at that. This has nothing to do with whether we should or shouldn't, just that we don't have all the facts yet.

That is the subject of a WaPo editorial this morning, which details some of what was actually learned via enhanced techniques, one point of which I mentioned yesterday.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...042002818.html

The CIA's Questioning Worked
Why aren't they getting reported????
Hmm
Excellent article UT.

SOME of the things described most definitely ARE torture, according to the Geneva Conventions and also our own military laws.

That information was already out in the public domain. Everyone knew it, but some of the people here wouldn't believe until they saw proof. Well, now you have proof. I think it is imperative that the citizens of this country know what the ones in power are doing. Otherwise, we don't have a free society.

Any government that releases all it's secrets will not be around for very long. Regardless of what kind of gov it is.

Hell, ask John McCain.

After prolonged torture and cruel and degrading treatment, he lost focus and gave information.

He named names....the Green Bay Packer offensive line.

He named cities in Vietnam.....cities that were not targets of opportunity.


It is not an article, but an editorial by Bush's speechwriter so consider the spin.

Where is the verifiable information of stopping a "second wave attack on LA " when it has been reported just as much by other sources that no such wave was a serious threat. The FBI also walked away from the waterboarding of the two "big fish" when they thought the information was not credible.

it has been reported that no such wave was a serious threat

cite

Huh, funny thing is I seem to remember one of McCain's greatest sources of personal shame is that he did finally crack and give them what they wanted on at least one occasion.

But I should probably just ask you if you really equate going years malnourished, disfigured, and in solitude with preventing someone from sleeping for 48 hours? I see a difference. One = discomfort the other is permanently scarring.

This is what McCain wrote in his memoirs:

McCain explained that after refusing an offer of early release, North Vietnamese soldiers "worked me over harder than they ever had before. For a long time. And they broke me." While McCain did not go in to detail during his speech, he explained in his memoir Faith of my Fathers that the information he gave the Vietnamese after being "broken" was out of date, fabricated, or of little use to his captors:

Eventually, I gave them my ship's name and squadron number, and confirmed that my target had been the power plant. Pressed for more useful information, I gave the names of the Green Bay Packers' offensive line, and said they were members of my squadron. When asked to identify future targets, I simply recited the names of a number of North Vietnamese cities that had already been bombed.

McCain..."waterboarding is torture"

And the second part of my post?

McCain... "Sarah Palin is my choice for Vice President"

Cruel and degrading treatment is also prohibited under UNCAT.

Because it is often difficult to distinguish between cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment and torture, the Committee regards Article 16's prohibition of such treatment as similarly absolute and non-derogable.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_...ding_treatment

UNCAT text

We (Reagan) signed it, we (the US) should live by it.

I have no explanation for that decision.

lol - We all agree with that assessment!

There are a few facts associated with a interrogation situation. First it is not what you know as much as how long you can hold out. After 24 hours, and knowing that you are missing, all information that you know will be changed. You are trained to hold out for as long as possible within your means. Second is that every person can be broken. Every single person. Some sooner than others. And every person that you know who is read in knows this as well. There is no shame lost in it.

Obama Intel director: High-value info obtained

Which is why an extremist George Jr administration successfully saved the nation by repeatedly subverting the 911 Commission.

Honesty exposed that not one wacko extremist did anything to save America that day. A Secret Service agent finally had to push the president onto Air Force One (in FL) because nobody from George Jr on down could make a decision. Could not even decide to get on Air Force One. Good thing we saved America by keeping that secret hidden. Good thing we keep America from learning of incompetence everywhere in that administration that day - including the VP, Transportation Secretary, Sec of Defense, National Security advisor, FAA Commissioner, ...

Best way to save America – keep it dumb and uninformed.

And still some deny we were torturing people. How does that make America any different than Nazis? From the NY Times of 21 Apr 2009: But Americans don't torture? 30 years in future, expect extremists again to promote torture as if that somehow results in useful information ... when facts and examples routinely say otherwise.

Curious. Those who created the 'Saddam WMD' myths also advocated torture. Why? Because they could not find those WMDs, could not find Al Qaeda hiding everywhere to kill us all ... and could not find bin Laden because they did not want to. And yet these are honest people? With so much 'honesty' from advocates of torture, how does that make us any different than Nazis?

From the Washington Post: Lying was not limited to Saddam's WMDs.

As much of a douche bag I think Gonzales is, I think opening the door to investigations is a bad idea.

A disturbing revelation from the most Senate recent report goes beyond the authorization of the use of torture...to part of the motivation....to "prove" a link between al Queda and Saddam:
if that is the case, that political motivation makes the act even more egregious, IMO.

BUT....I am not ready to call for criminal investigations yet.

As to the torture memos, I would like to see the results of the DOJ Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) investigation of the attorneys who drafted the memos. It was held up in the last days of the Bush administration by the AG and is now evidently in the hands of the Obama AG.

If, in fact, as reported earlier this year, Newsweek and Newsweek, that the OPR found that the attorneys who drafted the torture memos violated professional legal standards by basing their opinions on political rather than legal considerations, then, IMO, at the very least, they should be disbarred.

At the same time, if that in fact, is the OPR finding, I think a broader inquiry should be conducted to determine if other top officials, particularly in the White House and DoD, knowingly and willfully participated in the "politicization" of these memos. (The DoJ-OPR internal investigation did not extend that far).

At some point, you have to ask, should top officials in the former Administration be above the law?

At no point.

I absolutely believe that further investigation in necessary, but for now I am leaning in the direction of a "truth commission" rather than a criminal investigation, with the results pointing to where ever it may.

If such an investigation points to the White House, Cheney and Bush could testify if they chose (they probably could not be compelled). If they chose not to tesitfy, then history will be left to judge their culpability.

The question for me is balancing the need for justice to be served with the adverse impact of criminal prosecutions of folks like Cheney (who probably deserves to be prosecuted).

Such a criminal investigation would rip the country apart. Is it worth it or is getting the truth out enough?

Of course it is worth getting the truth out. What kind of country do you think this is? This is not some dictatorship. As Obama keeps saying, we are a nation of laws. Well, we have very explicit laws regarding torture. We have prosecuted people before from other countries for waterboarding. What kind of message does it send to the world if we are willing to overlook our own leaders actions for those same crimes?

I am finding it very disturbing how many people are saying we should move on and forget about this. If we use this to set a precedent by not holding anyone accountable, and I go out an commit a crime, you can bet your ass off I will have my attorney arguing in court that I didn't mean it, and it is behind me, and can't we just move forward.

In addition, if we have laws in this country, but we aren't willing to make the big decisions and follow through because it will be uncomfortable or painful for us, what kind of message does that send to those in the future who might decide to commit crimes like this?

I am also finding it very distasteful the double standard we have going on here. Those underlings at Abu Ghraib went to prison. The people who wrote the laws and ordered the torture are apparently somehow above the law. It's the same with the economic crisis. The bankers are being held to a different standard than the automakers. Where are the investigations of what happened, and holding people who committed fraud accountable? It is laughable that Obama would say on the one hand, we are a nation of laws, and by the other one he just wants to move forward and forget about what happened, other than getting the information out there. THAT does NOT represent the principles on which this country was founded.

Sugar...I agree with everything you said.

But I am still not convinced that prosecution of Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld et al even if there is compelling evidence that they conspired in the authorization of torture is still in the best public interest.

An example of balancing public interest with criminal prosecution...perhaps a bit far fetched.....

The political and military leaders who led an insurrection against the US called the Civil War.

Would the public interest have been served by the execution of Jefferson Davis, Robert E Lee, and the millions of Confederate foot solders ?

They were all given amnesty, I believe, because it was more in the public interest to "move ahead" then prosecute there individuals for treason. There was also a provision in the 14th Amendment to the Constitution enacted as part of the post-Civil War amnesty that they could never engage in government service again:

Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disabilit

Who said anything about executing them? throw their asses in prison for a few years. Especially Cheney, with his big mouth badmouthing the president, and saying how is he is making the country less safe. NO you asshole, YOU made the country less safe by supplying al qeada with all-time high recruitment because of your actions.

Also, how do you explain to the rest of the world our inabilty to prosecute members of OUR government for things we would demand others be prosecuted for? If Iran or North Korea end up waterboarding the female journalists they have in custody, we would probably go to war over it. We have a double standard in this country when it comes to our own actions, versus the same actions by other countries.

She is being used as a pawn in a political game. See it for what it is - PLEASE.

Bullshit.

It is not a political game to expect the president/vice/president/attorney general/sec of defense to abide by their constitutional oath and uphold the law....not conspire to break the law.

The bastards all deserve to be prosecuted IF there is compelling evidence that they conspired to circumvent US laws and treaty obligations....and without pre-judging, it is looking more and more like that evidence is out there.

My only point is that I believe such prosecution might be counter-productive.

Another example.....Unlike Nixon, who when it was clear he broke the law and engaged in a criminal conspiracy, had maybe 10 people in the country who stood behind him....Cheney (probably more than Bush/Rumseld) has tens of millions of wingnuts who would still believe he did nothing wrong despite the facts and IMO, could potentially create such a destructive and disruptive environment that the country would suffer.

Sugar:
In terms of explaining to the rest of the world, Obama has made it clear to allies and adversaries alike that such practices are no longer the policy of the US....he authorized closing Gitmo, he issued an EO ending the authorization for such interrogation techniques, and restored the US commitment to the law and treaty obligations.

The release of the memos is further reaffirmation...by disclosing our illegal acts to the world and saying NO MORE.

Although I agree with your post, it has nothing to do with the intentions of Ahmajinidad.

Gotcha! My bad..I read sugar as the pawn.

Taking back the bullshit and agreeing about the pawn.

lol - I thought at first I posted it in the wrong thread. (re:Harman)

re: the torture... I dunno - I don't want anyone to endure that kind of shit, but they attacked us and that was a time when many were waiting for the next attack. Its difficult to know what really was going on "behind the scenes". The left wants to hang them by the balls and the right wants to thank them. I'm just glad I'm not sitting in the hot seat on this one.
I don't see the benefit of releasing this info, other than politically. Now its gonna drag on forever. I think Obama may have just released a huge albatross that will hang around the neck of the nation for a long time.
Much of what was done was not what I consider torture, some was.

Except that everyone in the world knew what was going on. If the information hadn't been released, people would have been left guessing for the next decade. Also, some of the techniques people imagined were not done. This is hard to prove unless you can point to what was done.

Not sure I'm reading that correctly - It seems like a contradiction.

They knew or they would be left guessing?

They knew that there was torture, but left guessing as to its limits. By admitting to the lower level torture, the administration has gained enough credibility to claim that what was released was the full extent of the torture and that more aggressive methods were not employed.

Who is "she?"

nvm. I see you meant Harmon.

Gotcha - That's if "they" believe us.

Redux, the only problem with that, is next time some country does something we don't like, we will apply that double standard again and demand people be held accountable. You get my point, right?

According to the source the administration used to justify sleep deprivation, here is the rebuttal FROM that source...

http://obsidianwings.blogs.com/obsid...the-memos.html

Have you never considered that we die by it, Redux? You want to volunteer to be the first casualty? I certainly wouldn't. When are you going to get it through your skull that if you want a good world, we should not lose to these people of unfreedom. The less unfreedom, the better the world. I have understood this for so long that I stand in opposition to your ideas, and all ideas like them. What then is there to say of your understanding? Is it truly profound?

"By any means necessary" is the cry of the fanatic, but are not our foes almost entirely fanatics? They are already doing the "by any means necessary." And they are a pack of damned fools, for they don't, as fanatics generally do not, calculate that a mirroring fanaticism rises in opposition to theirs

The Left has made it abundantly if tacitly clear that they do not want us to win. (The Left can't even call these latterday Fascists dirty names!) Frankly, this sets the American Left against the interest of all humankind, which lies along freedom's road -- and what a fucking stupid place to be. No, the sins of the Left are simply too appalling, when they're not merely risible.

Some of us here could be smart enough not to be leftists, but have not yet used this intelligence, and a shining few of us show our higher intelligence and great enlightenment in not accepting leftism.

I agree. I'd like to see the truth fully explored and names named of those responsible, but that said, I fear a politicized witch hunt.
Disgrace, maybe disbarment, but not prosecution.

Yes, they are fanatics that will do anything.
But the millions of people that support the fanatics stated goals, and sort of support the fanatics themselves, will throw themselves 100% into the fanatics camp, if you myopic imperialists are allowed to fuck things up.

They?
You have to get pretty general to build a "they" that includes the people who attacked us and the people we tortured.

Heck, even if we are 100% certain that everyone we "really" tortured (as opposed to what apologists dismiss as fraternity hazing) was captured in a battlefield and was actively fighting us, the chances that they were part of the "they" who attacked us before we attacked them are vanishingly small.

Oh, HM, I'm sure classic was talking about al Qaeda.

Do you have a cite that shows someone waterboarded that was not part of al Q?

citation request ignored over 24 hours, position fails.

WOW...that is the first I have heard of deadlines for cites.

My point earlie was that several FBI and CIA interorrogations questioned the validity of some of the claims.

Here is one FBI interrogator:
I wll cite former CIA interrogators when I have time...but I might not make your deadline.

Now can you cite anything that would prove that any information gathered by torture could NOT have been extracted by legal means of interrogation?

And beyond that....the issue for me remains....does the end justify the means?

Torture and cruel and degrading treatment is ILLEGAL.

You may believe its OK for the Pres/VP/AG etc to circumvent the law.

I dont.

What are their definitions? I gotta rethink this part.

Dux, to clarify, you said regarding the "Second Wave" attack plot on LA, the details of which we now know were learned using controversial techniques:

"... it has been reported just as much by other sources that no such wave was a serious threat."

That is the statement on which I am still waiting for a citation. Please, take your time to find one of those other sources.

Torture, yes.

Define cruel and degrading. You really can't because it differs for each person. And on that note I would suggest it is not illegal. If it was you can make a case for every single person arrested in the US under our law by any police officer.

:rolleyes:

UT...the reports I had read referred to the fact that the members of the Jemaah Islamiyah (the so-called Indonesian wing of al queda) who were reportedly recruited for the "second wave" against Los Angeles were captured in 2002 as a result of other intel (even before KSM was waterboarded).

But I cant find the report that I read...so I'll take an F on this one.

The larger point I was trying to make was that there is nothing to suggest that legal interrogation would not have accomplished the same or better results as noted by the former interrogator (and others) in the article I posted above.

Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment is illegal under UNCAT....the definitions in the treaty itself are not very specific, but under international law, under which the treaty is held accountable, that would include:

prolonged sleep deprivation - days not hours
excessive physical abuse - banging one's head against a wall
extremely painful stress positions - being shackled with arms above the head for days at a time
psychological abuse - threatening to inject AID virus
sensory deprivation
there are others

I agree it is subjective.

In the US Code, it refers to Constitutional protections as well as UNCAT protections:

TITLE 42 > CHAPTER 21D > § 2000dd–0

§ 2000dd–0. Additional prohibition on cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment

(1) In general
No individual in the custody or under the physical control of the United States Government, regardless of nationality or physical location, shall be subject to cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment.

(2) Cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment defined
In this section, the term “cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment” means cruel, unusual, and inhumane treatment or punishment prohibited by the Fifth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, as defined in the United States Reservations, Declarations and Understandings to the United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Forms of Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment done at New York, December 10, 1984.

(3) Compliance
The President shall take action to ensure compliance with this section, including through the establishment of administrative rules and procedures.

Again, IMO, determination of the limits of such treatments should not be made unilaterally by the executive branch but if questions arise, should be in consultation with either the legislative or judicial branch.

Even more so if there is any likelihood or possibility of political motivation....like as noted in the Senate report, Cheney/Rumsfeld directing interrogators to do whatever necessary and as harsh as necessary to find an al queda - Saddam connection.

Plese tell my you didn't actually write these.

So if a person bangs their head against the wall?

What is an AID virus?

I didnt write them.....international law

:rolleyes: You know what he meant. And banging someone's head against a wall could result in death. Just look what happened recently to that actress, who hit her head in a skiiing accident.

And yes, having your arms over your head for extended periods of time is very painful. Having to stay in any one position for extended periods of time (excessively extended) can be very painful.