Torture memos

[Undertoad]

Why?

Originally Posted by Undertoad

Why?

The law regarding torture vs military rules of engagement.

[Jill]

I've shown with cites that the activities our government and its agents participated in has been legally prosecuted as either a violation of international laws and treaties, as well as our Constitution, or violations of national and/or state laws. I've cited first-hand testimony from an FBI interrogator and a Naval serviceman who personally had experience with these techniques, and what they result in. And I've cited the results of studies done by historians and scientists, that show that these techniques do not provide reliable information.

And instead of reading my cites, studying the evidence and acknowledging that your "guesses" were inaccurate and unfounded, you ask a totally unrelated question in an apparent attempt at a "gotcha"?

Will you please do me the courtesy of not insulting me with allegations of not having exercised careful thought, while at the same time not exercising your own careful thought? I can't debate with someone who is unwilling to examine the expert evidence and admit when he is mistaken.

[classicman]

Originally Posted by Jill

I've cited the results of studies done by historians and scientists, that show that these techniques do not provide reliable information.

There were cites also posted by professionals that counter the opinion of your cites.
Why won't you answer his question?

[tw]

Originally Posted by classicman

There were cites also posted by professionals that counter the opinion of your cites.

Honest people routinely cite you for posting accusations without facts. You even lie (as caught doing so previously) to protect a political agenda. Stir the pot to create confusion. Never post supporting facts for your myths. Attack others with soundbyte accusations based only in a wacko extremist mantra. You would do it again to Jill? When do you post your research from a responsible source? Oh. classicman does not have any research - as any good extremist when knowledge comes only from Rush Limbaugh, et al. That justifies classicman's cheapshot post?

I can confirm that Jill's citations are the popular opinion among federal agents who do or did this stuff. This poster has personal statements from those who did real world work even on some famous cases. Have repeatedly said almost everything in Jill's citations.

Where is classicman's research - also known as vaporware. Knowledge based only in "I feel it is true" research.

Jill's citations introduce one concept that others never mentioned. Torture was once used not for information. Its purpose was criminal punishment. Numerous others who did this stuff - not one ever mentioned this criminal punishment aspect for torture.

So how does a disciple of Wingnut News know more than professionals? classicman again *knows* which explains numerous supporting facts in his every soundbyte accusation. classicman would take a cheap shot rather than contribute facts? I am not the only one who has accused him of doing this.

Professionals routinely state that torture only poisons the well. But those so extremists as to support Cheney still deny because Cheney, et al said so. Cheney is an professional? Well Cheney also thought he was a world class military strategist. When did Cheney become a god - to be blindly believed by wacko extremists?

When does classicman post anything but empty accusations? classicman is accused of doing to Jill what he does routinely - soundbyte accusations - cheap shots this time at Jill.

[Undertoad]

They were very good cites, Jill, and you have changed my opinion.

[Jill]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

They were very good cites, Jill, and you have changed my opinion.

Thank you, Undertoad. I respect you very much for that acknowledgment. I'm also glad to have changed your mind on this issue.

Don't think that I don't appreciate your gut reaction here. Some of these guys have perpetrated great evil against our citizens and our government, and some of them are or were involved in plots to do more of the same. I am against the death penalty, not because I don't believe the scum who find themselves facing that punishment don't deserve to die, but because I don't believe the government has the right to intentionally take a human life as a form of punishment. That doesn't stop me from fantasizing about being the one to pull the handle or press the plunger at some of these guys' executions. It's normal and natural to want to seek revenge. And it's normal and natural to sometimes very much want to beat the everlovin' fuck out of some asshole.

I would have a very hard time not shaking with rage if I were ever to be placed face-to-face with one of these pussbags. Restraining myself would not be easy, trust me.

But as a nation, subject to laws that we and the rest of westernized, civilized nations have adopted, we simply cannot resort to diminishing ourselves by behaving like barbarians. Here's another article with some interesting observations. It's worth reading the whole thing, but here's one of the more interesting bits:

. . .

Al Qaeda does not pose a threat to the United States' (or any of its allies') existence. Its real threat lies in provoking us to employ authoritarian measures that would weaken the fabric of our democracy, discredit the United States internationally, diminish our ability to utilize our soft power and undermine our claim to the moral higher ground in the fight against the terrorists.

In other words, the critical threat is not that the United States would fail to defend itself but that it would do so too well and in the process become less democratic and lose sight of its fundamental values. "Whoever fights monsters," warned Friedrich Nietzsche, "should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster. And if you gaze long enough into an abyss, the abyss will gaze back into you."

. . .

[Urbane Guerrilla]

Originally Posted by Jill

But as a nation, subject to laws that we and the rest of westernized, civilized nations have adopted, we simply cannot resort to diminishing ourselves by behaving like barbarians.

How exterminating the savage and the brutal diminishes us in any moral dimension quite escapes me, Jill. Performing damage control is simply sensible.

We won against Germany, Italy, and Japan by showing the hard visage of war and outfighting them -- outcontending them in the field they themselves chose. Did this turn us into fascists of any description? It did not. There is nothing that would do it now. As Hannity puts it, "Let not your heart be troubled" on that score. Countervailing violence is defensible violence, and I for one defend it, and I think I can overwhelm all your arguments against it. Don't mistake the distasteful for the unnecessary. Remember it is distasteful to be murdered.

The terrs have been choosing their field. It's one rather new to us in some ways, but not wholly new in others, for we remember Vietnam. In some measure, this is a war being fought by advertising, guerrilla theater, whatever you like, along with community services in tattered places, bombs, helicopters, bullets, beans, and bayonets.

I am happy to agree their ability to actually damage us is small in the grand scheme of things. Nonetheless, that does not mean they should be allowed to damage. They are the transgressors thereby.

Their transgressions must be kept bootless and fruitless, that they may cease to transgress. Or become too dead to manage a transgression. This is what those who are clear on the matter want.

[Undertoad]

You haven't convinced me, Dux, pretend I'm dumb. Surely there's a connection in the discussion between killing the enemy, versus capturing them and what you do with them once they've been captured. In the case of Pakistan, surely these "targets" could provide some interesting intelligence if captured and questioned. What is the moral basis for killing them, versus capturing them and putting them in a box with a bug? If it's a question of law, is the law correct?

[classicman]

[DanaC]

Jill. That was brilliant. Really interesting.

This, right here, that we are describing is the ragged edge. We cannot as peoples dictate which threats will occur and which dangers we will face. We can only dictate our response. It is up to us, whether or not that response robs us of our humanity, or proves it. .

[DanaC]

Just as an aside though; it's wrong to say torture isn't effective...look how many witches we managed to root out in the middle-ages.

[Jill]

Originally Posted by classicman

There were cites also posted by professionals that counter the opinion of your cites.

Would you mind pointing those out to me, please? I've read through this entire thread and I failed to find any cites that counter, not the "opinions" as you characterize them, but the first-hand testimony and scientific research that I provided.

In post #69, Undertoad provided a link to an editorial, written by the former speech writer to President Bush, that you quoted in the following post, that attempts to "decode" the memos that are the subject of this thread. The author goes on and on about what we all know now is false information about what interrogation techniques actually resulted in thwarting the planned attack in Los Angeles. It's been proven that that attack was uncovered nearly a year before waterboarding started being applied.

So since that cite was nothing more than an obviously politically biased editorial that has been thoroughly debunked, I feel no compunction to accept it as countering any cites I provided.

Then we have your post #82, with a link to an article alluding to a secret memo by President Obama's National Intelligence Director, wherein he allegedly says that "high value information . . . a deeper understanding of the al-Qaida network" [was obtained using the harsh interrogation methods]. That would seem to support your claim. However, we aren't made privy to the actual memo that allegedly went out. We have no way of determining context, intent, or even whether those quotes were pulled completely out of context, and don't mean what the author alleges they mean. And the clarification that was provided, was brushed aside as "hedging."

You will note, that in post #128, Redux provides a link that also mentions the private memo and the same allegations of its content as your cite. However, it goes on to expose a serious flaw in that allegation.

Interrogations’ Effectiveness May Prove Elusive

. . .

Many intelligence officials, including some opposed to the brutal methods, confirm that the program produced information of great value, including tips on early-stage schemes to attack tall buildings on the West Coast and buildings in New York’s financial district and Washington. Interrogation of one Qaeda operative led to tips on finding others, until the leadership of the organization was decimated. Removing from the scene such dedicated and skilled plotters as Mr. Mohammed, or the Indonesian terrorist known as Hambali, almost certainly prevented future attacks.

But which information came from which methods, and whether the same result might have been achieved without the political, legal and moral cost of the torture controversy, is hotly disputed, even inside the intelligence agency.

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.

. . .

Then we get to your post #192, wherein we get a nifty little biography of some of the bad guys, then this:

John Kiriakou, a former CIA officer who witnessed the interrogation, told ABC’s Brian Ross: “The threat information that he provided disrupted a number of attacks, maybe dozens of attacks.”

He divulged, according to Kiriakou, “al-Qaeda’s leadership structure” and identified high-level terrorists the CIA didn’t know much, if anything, about. It’s been suggested that Zubaydah and al-Nashiri’s confessions in turn led to the capture of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.

Ok, I'll accept this one as a cite that you believe provides evidence contrary to what I've provided. However, there are two distinct problems with it.

1.) John Kiriakou, as a former CIA officer who supposedly witnessed the interrogation, has a very personal vested interest in Covering His Ass. His testimony, therefore, should be weighed very lightly before we allow it any credence.

2.) It goes on to say that "It’s been suggested" that these interrogations led to the capture of another bad guy. Suggested by whom? Not to mention that a "suggestion" isn't remotely the same as a "proven connection."

Ironically, your next cited post, post #198, completely contradicts the cite in your previous post, saying "Kiriakou said he did not witness Abu Zubaida's waterboarding but was part of the interrogation team that questioned him in a hospital. . . " So which version of his story should I believe? He either witnessed the waterboarding as alleged in your cite in post 192, or he didn't, as he later claims in your cite in post #198.

I find Kiriakou to be an unreliable witness and feel comfortable dismissing any evidence provided by him until such time as he has to testify under oath.

There aren't any more referenced cites between there and when I re-entered the discussion in post #234.

Originally Posted by classicman

Why won't you answer his question?

Because it's completely irrelevant and off-topic in the scope of this discussion.

Originally Posted by sugarpop

I'm pretty sure Jill has careful thought. She certainly seems to, from her posts anyway.

Originally Posted by DanaC

Jill. That was brilliant. Really interesting.

Thank you sugarpop and DanaC. I appreciate the compliments and kind words.

[classicman]

Originally Posted by Jill

Would you mind pointing those out to me, please?

No I won't. I'm done with this discussion for now. As tw pointed out my opinions are irrelevant since they disagree with his.

[glatt]

I thought this was interesting. According to a recent poll, the more often Americans go to church, the more likely they are to support the torture of suspected terrorists.

Turn the other cheek. Ha!