The Cellar - Torture memos

The Cellar (http://cellar.org/index.php)

- Current Events (http://cellar.org/forumdisplay.php?f=4)

- - Torture memos (http://cellar.org/showthread.php?t=20093)

I would encourage you to look at the list of signitories of the UNCAT. The whole thing is a total joke and only goes to show how big a joke the whole UN is as an effective organization.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheMercenary (Post 559521)

I would encourage you to look at the list of signitories of the UNCAT. The whole thing is a total joke and only goes to show how big a joke the whole UN is as an effective organization.

Nearly every country in the world is a signatory...with the exceptions of Iran, North Korea, Myanmar, Zimbabwe and a few others.

Reagan signed for the US and when it was ratified a few years later..it became law and codified (see the US Code above)

The fact that some signatories may not abide by the treaty is not an excuse for the US to act in that manner.

Yeah...look at the signatories. It's the whole world. The whole world's a joke.

The whole world did not sign and many have not ratified it.

We can look into the recent history of many of those countries and it makes the whole act look like nothing more than a passion play.

I am not saying that the US should not have it's own standards, just don't hold up UNCAT as some standard that everyone is using, because obviously it means very little to most of the countries on that list. It is nothing more than a feel good document. Pretty typical of what comes out of the UN.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheMercenary (Post 559528)

The whole world did not sign and many have not ratified it.

It sure looks like most of the world to me:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...AT-members.PNG

As of December 2008, 146 nations are parties to the treaty, and another ten countries have signed but not ratified it.

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

IMO, the US should act as a model of the best of the signatories, not among the worst.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Redux (Post 559531)

It sure looks like most of the world to me

As of December 2008, 146 nations are parties to the treaty, and another ten countries have signed but not ratified it.

And as you go through the list how many have squeaky clean records and more importantly how many have absolutely terrible records?

Quote:

IMO, the US should act as a model of the best of the signatories, not the worst.

I can't completely disagree.

Pelosi, "I know nutting!"

Quote:

April 23, 2009
Categories: Pelosi

Pelosi: I didn't know about use of waterboarding

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is pushing back on GOP charges that she knew about waterboarding for years and did nothing.

Pelosi says she was briefed by Bush administration officials on the legal justification for using waterboarding — but that they never followed through on promises to inform her when they actually began using "enhanced" interrogation techniques

"In that or any other briefing…we were not, and I repeat, were not told that waterboarding or any of these other enhanced interrogation techniques were used. What they did tell us is that they had some legislative counsel ... opinions that they could be used," she told reporters today.

Earlier, House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) criticized Pelosi and other Democratic leaders for backing probes into the use of waterboarding — after reportedly failing to raise objections during a briefing on its potential use in 2002.

"Well, yesterday I saw a partial list of the number of members of the House and Senate, Democrats and Republicans, who were briefed on these interrogation methods and not a word was raised at the time, not one word," Boehner told reporters at his weekly news availability.

"And I think you're going to hear more and more about the bigger picture here, that what — the war on terror after 9/11 was done in a bipartisan basis on lots of fronts. And that bigger story will be coming out," he added.

Pelosi says members who receive classified intelligence briefings are powerless to act on them — or even discuss them with staff -- due to confidentiality requirements.

As a consequence, some members simply skip classified briefings to avoid being "hamstrung" by requirements they keep silent on the topics discussed.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/glennt...rboarding.html

Pelosi, "Ok, maybe I was fully informed. But it's Bush's fault!"

Quote:

Pelosi briefed on waterboarding in '02 [UPDATED]

Nancy Pelosi denies knowing U.S. officials used waterboarding — but GOP operatives are pointing to a 2007 Washington Post story which describes an hour-long 2002 briefing in which Pelosi was told about enhanced interrogation techniques in graphic detail.

Two unnamed officials told the paper that Pelosi, then a member of the Democratic minority, didn't raise substantial objections.

Joby Warrick and Dan Eggen wrote:

In September 2002, four members of Congress met in secret for a first look at a unique CIA program designed to wring vital information from reticent terrorism suspects in U.S. custody. For more than an hour, the bipartisan group, which included current House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), was given a virtual tour of the CIA's overseas detention sites and the harsh techniques interrogators had devised to try to make their prisoners talk.

Among the techniques described, said two officials present, was waterboarding, a practice that years later would be condemned as torture by Democrats and some Republicans on Capitol Hill. But on that day, no objections were raised. Instead, at least two lawmakers in the room asked the CIA to push harder, two U.S. officials said.

UPDATE: A Pelosi spokesman passes along her response to the article when it first appeared, claiming that Pelosi's successor on the intel committee -- Yep, Jane Harman -- lodged a protest with the CIA when she learned waterboarding was in use.

"On one occasion, in the fall of 2002, I was briefed on interrogation techniques the Administration was considering using in the future. The Administration advised that legal counsel for the both the CIA and the Department of Justice had concluded that the techniques were legal.

I had no further briefings on the techniques. Several months later, my successor as Ranking Member of the House Intelligence Committee, Jane Harman, was briefed more extensively and advised the techniques had in fact been employed. It was my understanding at that time that Congresswoman Harman filed a letter in early 2003 to the CIA to protest the use of such techniques, a protest with which I concurred."

Lower down in the article, the authors and their sources acknowledge Pelosi & Co. were severely constrained in what they could do with the information — and had no way of knowing how the techniques would ultimately used or abused in a pre-Abu Gharaib era.

Congressional officials say the groups' ability to challenge the practices was hampered by strict rules of secrecy that prohibited them from being able to take notes or consult legal experts or members of their own staffs. And while various officials have described the briefings as detailed and graphic, it is unclear precisely what members were told about waterboarding and how it is conducted. Several officials familiar with the briefings also recalled that the meetings were marked by an atmosphere of deep concern about the possibility of an imminent terrorist attack.

"In fairness, the environment was different then because we were closer to Sept. 11 and people were still in a panic," said one U.S. official present during the early briefings. "But there was no objecting, no hand-wringing. The attitude was, 'We don't care what you do to those guys as long as you get the information you need to protect the American people.'"

http://www.politico.com/blogs/glennt...ng_in_02_.html

Quote:

Originally Posted by Undertoad (Post 559386)

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.

UT.....from a speech by Bush in 2006:

Quote:

Since September the 11th, the United States and our coalition partners have disrupted a number of serious al Qaeda terrorist plots -- including plots to attack targets inside the United States. Let me give you an example. In the weeks after September the 11th, while Americans were still recovering from an unprecedented strike on our homeland, al Qaeda was already busy planning its next attack. We now know that in October 2001, Khalid Shaykh Muhammad -- the mastermind of the September the 11th attacks -- had already set in motion a plan to have terrorist operatives hijack an airplane using shoe bombs to breach the cockpit door, and fly the plane into the tallest building on the West Coast. We believe the intended target was Liberty [sic] Tower in Los Angeles, California.*

Rather than use Arab hijackers as he had on September the 11th, Khalid Shaykh Muhammad sought out young men from Southeast Asia -- whom he believed would not arouse as much suspicion. To help carry out this plan, he tapped a terrorist named Hambali, one of the leaders of an al Qaeda affiliated group in Southeast Asia called "J-I." JI terrorists were responsible for a series of deadly attacks in Southeast Asia, and members of the group had trained with al Qaeda. Hambali recruited several key operatives who had been training in Afghanistan. Once the operatives were recruited, they met with Osama bin Laden, and then began preparations for the West Coast attack.

Their plot was derailed in early 2002 when a Southeast Asian nation arrested a key al Qaeda operative. Subsequent debriefings and other intelligence operations made clear the intended target, and how al Qaeda hoped to execute it. This critical intelligence helped other allies capture the ringleaders and other known operatives who had been recruited for this plot. The West Coast plot had been thwarted.

http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archiv...0060209-2.html

The timeline for the asserting that it was the result of waterboarding KSM and Zubaydan just doesnt fit.

The plot was "derailed in early 2002...." when the Jemaah Islamiyah (J-I) guys were arrested in Malaysia.

KSM was not captured and waterboarded until 2003. Zubaydan was waterboarded in late summer of 2002.

Another example of the timeline not fitting the assertions that waterboarding worked:

Quote:

The Justice Department memorandums released last week illustrate how difficult it can be to assess claims of effectiveness. One 2005 memorandum, for example, asserts that “enhanced techniques” used on Abu Zubaydah and Mr. Mohammed “yielded critical information.”

But the memorandum then lists among Abu Zubaydah’s revelations the identification of Mr. Mohammed and of an alleged radiological bomb plot by Jose Padilla, the American Qaeda associate. Both those disclosures were made long before Abu Zubaydah was subjected to harsh treatment, according to multiple accounts.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/23/us...n.html?_r=2&hp

He may have been talking about these guys:

Quote:

June 5, 2002 Indonesian authorities arrest Kuwaiti Omar al-Faruq. Handed over to the U.S. authorities, he subsequently confesses he is a senior al-Qaeda operative sent to Southeast Asia to orchestrate attacks against US interests. He reveals to investigators detailed plans of a new terror spree in Southeast Asia.

You know Bush was never one known for keeping his facts straight.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheMercenary (Post 559678)

Pelosi, "I know nutting!"

http://www.politico.com/blogs/glennt...rboarding.html

Pelosi, "Ok, maybe I was fully informed. But it's Bush's fault!"

http://www.politico.com/blogs/glennt...ng_in_02_.html

Merc...there is no doubt that Pelosi and the other leaders of the Intel Committees were briefed. What is not clear is the extent of those briefings.

But assuming she and the others was fully briefed on the details.......what could they do?

Under security agreements with the CIA, they could not discuss the briefings....could not ask staff to review the legal opinions of the DoJ....could not raise public concerns (if she had any - and w/o knowing the facts, I agree she probably had no concerns) with other members of the Intel Committee....could not withhold funding w/o disrupting all CIA operations....

IMO, this is one of the greatest weaknesses of the current oversight of the CIA....the public policy issue that has the greatest potential for abuse has the least opportunity for Congress to fully review and take preventive or corrective action before the Executive Branch goes too far.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Redux (Post 559749)

Merc...there is no doubt that Pelosi and the other leaders of the Intel Committees were briefed. What is not clear is the extent of those briefings.

I guess that if she was briefed she needs to stand up now in the face of the recent releases of the memos and come clean as to what she knew. Instead she is acting like she had no part in any of this. If it truely was "torture" than she is culpable in any action that Congress wants to take against those in the know. She is standing by why others may get thrown under the bus.

Quote:

But assuming she and the others was fully briefed on the details.......what could they do?

Under security agreements with the CIA, they could not discuss the briefings....could not ask staff to review the legal opinions of the DoJ....could not raise public concerns (if she had any - and w/o knowing the facts, I agree she probably had no concerns) with other members of the Intel Committee....could not withhold funding w/o disrupting all CIA operations....

Where did they release what the security agreements were with the CIA. Maybe I just missed this but no one I know of has stood up and told us just what those were, or are you making an assumption here. This is not a personal attack. If you have the information as to what those specific security agreements were maybe you could point me to a link.

Quote:

IMO, this is one of the greatest weaknesses of the current oversight of the CIA....the public policy issue that has the greatest potential for abuse has the least opportunity for Congress to fully review and take preventive or corrective action before the Executive Branch goes too far.

You may be right. But IMO we are about to gut the CIA Operations Branch for years to come. And it would be more than a decade to get them back into the business of agressive gathering of intel. The world does not play by the Gentlemen’s Rules of Imbibage, and those that think it does will lose completely.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheMercenary (Post 559751)

Waterboarding truly is torture.

I agree that Pelosi is now talking out of both sides of her mouth....but the leaders of the Intel Committees could do nothing at the time to stop it or even public question it...so I dont know how they can be equally culpable.

Quote:

The security agreement between the CIA and the Intel Committee chairs/ranking members is probably classified but the non-disclsoure is SOP..and potentially subject to violations of the State Secrets Act or something comparable.

Quote:

IMO, the only thing that would be gutted would be illegal acts of torture (and possibly the more ambiguous Cruel/Degrading/Inhumane treatment)....and it is still highly contentious if these methods are really any more effective than legal means of interrogation. IMO, and according to many interrogation experts, they are not.

I am not out to gut the CIA....I just want better assurances, safeguards and checks and balances in the future that they comply with the law. As difficult as that balance may be, it should be the highest priority if we want to call ourselves and be recognized around the world as a nation that respects the law.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Redux (Post 559753)

IMO, the only thing that would be gutting would be illegal acts of torture (and possibly the more ambiguous Cruel/Degrading/Inhumane treatment)....and it is still highly contentious if these methods are really any more effective than legal means of interrogation. IMO, and according to many interrogation experts, they are not.

It is more than that. Cruel, degrading, and inhumane treatment is a highly subjective list which most will never agree on. If you have operators who are always looking over their shoulder and supers who do not have their back they will hesitate and will not be an effective force. They run the risk of gutting the soul of the Operations Branch. The world is not a fair place and those countries that allow the enemy to dictate the rules of engagement are setting themselves up for failure. It has happened before in the CIA and it is going to happen again. We are going to lose a valuable tool when that portion of our forces loses it's heart in the fight. Maybe some are ok with that. I have seen these people work. I am not willing to accept that.

An interesting opinion in today's NYT's:

Quote:

WHEN the Central Intelligence Agency obliterates a dozen suspected terrorists, along with assorted family members, with a missile from a drone, the news rarely stirs a strong reaction far beyond Pakistan.

Yet the waterboarding of three operatives from Al Qaeda — one of them the admitted murderer of 3,000 people as organizer of the 9/11 attacks — has stirred years of recriminations, calls for prosecution and national soul-searching.

What is it about the terrible intimacy of torture that so disturbs and captivates the public? Why has torture long been singled out for special condemnation in the law of war, when war brings death and suffering on a scale that dwarfs the torture chamber?

Those questions arose with new force last week, as President Obama settled a battle between the C.I.A. and the Justice Department by siding with the latter and releasing four excruciatingly detailed legal opinions from the department, written in 2002 and 2005, justifying brutal interrogations. But he also repeated his opposition to a lengthy inquiry into the program, saying that “nothing will be gained by spending our time and energy laying blame for the past.” The C.I.A. officers who were acting on the Justice Department’s legal advice would not be prosecuted, he said.

In their meticulousness, and even their elaborate rules intended to prevent death or permanent injury, the memos became the object of fascination and dread. Who knew that along with waterboarding and wall-slamming, cold cells and sleep deprivation up to 180 hours, the approved invasions of the prisoner’s space included the “facial hold” — essentially what grandma does to a visiting grandchild who misbehaves — with hands holding the sides of the head as questions are asked.

“The fingertips are kept well away from the individual’s eyes,” the memo helpfully adds.

continues:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/19/we...shane.html?hpw

Quote:

"What is it about the terrible intimacy of torture that so disturbs and captivates the public? Why has torture long been singled out for special condemnation in the law of war, when war brings death and suffering on a scale that dwarfs the torture chamber?"

War is hell. It's messy. Innocent people will die. Everyone expects that. The point of war is to kill your enemy. So bombing someone in a war really doesn't move me at all. It's part of the point of war. I don't support war easily. I've been opposed to most of the wars in my lifetime. But if you're gonna do war, you have to do it to win and show no mercy for the enemy. (Unless showing mercy gives you a strategic advantage.)

Once you have a prisoner in captivity however, the rules change. You are in complete control of the situation. It's no longer a messy war situation, but a prison situation. The rules of law should apply because you are back in civilization.