Torture memos

According to the CIA IG, there has never been an internal review to verify the claims made that the "harsh interrogations" provided any meaningful data or prevented any attack on the US (as has been asserted by Bush/Cheney). In act, suggestions for the necessity of such a review of interrogations tactics, because of their questionable nature, were ignored.

Kiriakou, the CIA analyst in question, by his words, was not present during the application of the "harsh interrogation techniques" and now acknowledges that waterboarding is torture and therefore, illegal.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...T2007121100844

Not too long, we had a president who said this, regarding treatment of prisoners:

“It's important for people to understand that in a democracy, there will be a full investigation. In other words, we want to know the truth. In our country, when there's an allegation of abuse ... there will be a full investigation, and justice will be delivered.”

-- George W. Bush

yes, Bush was talking specifically about abuses at Abu Ghraib....but why shouldnt it apply more broadly to any questionable treatment of prisoners?

[Undertoad]

But maybe the devil's in the details:

The New York Times reported last week that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the alleged mastermind of the Sept. 11 terror attacks, was waterboarded 183 times in one month by CIA interrogators. The "183 times" was widely circulated by news outlets throughout the world.

It was shocking. And it was highly misleading. The number is a vast inflation, according to information from a U.S. official and the testimony of the terrorists themselves.

A U.S. official with knowledge of the interrogation program told FOX News that the much-cited figure represents the number of times water was poured onto Mohammed's face -- not the number of times the CIA applied the simulated-drowning technique on the terror suspect. According to a 2007 Red Cross report, he was subjected a total of "five sessions of ill-treatment."

"The water was poured 183 times -- there were 183 pours," the official explained, adding that "each pour was a matter of seconds."

The Times and dozens of other outlets wrote that the CIA also waterboarded senior Al Qaeda member Abu Zubaydah 83 times, but Zubayda himself, a close associate of Usama bin Laden, told the Red Cross he was waterboarded no more than 10 times.

The confusion stems from language in the Justice Department legal memos that President Obama released on April 16. They contain the numbers, but they fail to explain exactly what they represent.

[classicman]

Not debating the waterboarding=torture issue, moreso the effectiveness which is also in question...

In an interview, Kiriakou said he did not witness Abu Zubaida's waterboarding but was part of the interrogation team that questioned him in a hospital in Pakistan for weeks after his capture in that country in the spring of 2002.

He described Abu Zubaida as ideologically zealous, defiant and uncooperative -- until the day in mid-summer when his captors strapped him to a board, wrapped his nose and mouth in cellophane and forced water into his throat in a technique that simulates drowning.

The waterboarding lasted about 35 seconds before Abu Zubaida broke down, The next day, Abu Zubaida told his captors he would tell them whatever they wanted.

After the hospital interviews bore no fruit, Abu Zubaida was flown to a secret CIA prison, where the interrogation duties fell to a team trained in aggressive tactics, including waterboarding.

FBI agents have opposed the use of coercive techniques as counterproductive and unreliable; intelligence officials have defended the tactics as valuable.

President Bush and others have portrayed Abu Zubaida as a crucial and highly placed terrorist, but some intelligence and law enforcement sources have said he did little more than help with logistics for al-Qaeda leaders and their associates.

Kiriakou said he now has mixed feelings about the use of waterboarding. He said that he thinks the technique provided a crucial break to the CIA and probably helped prevent attacks, but that he is now convinced that waterboarding is torture, and "Americans are better than that."

"Maybe that's inconsistent, but that's how I feel," he said. "It was an ugly little episode that was perhaps necessary at that time. But we've moved beyond that."

Originally Posted by classicman

Not debating the waterboarding=torture issue, moreso the effectiveness which is also in question...

IMO, that is a cop out.

BY the standards of international treaties that we have signed, water board is torture -> torture is illegal.

Moreover, there is no credible independent evidence anywhere that you can cite that torture is more effective than other means of interrogation. The only thing you have in the above are second hand reports citing agents who may or may not have a personal vested interest in justifying their actions, paticularly if they believe those actions may be questionable as to the law.

And in any case, the ends dont justify the means......never...ever....except in the TV land of saving America from terrorists.

Either we are a country that lives by the rule of law or not.

Either we do as Bush said:

“It's important for people to understand that in a democracy, there will be a full investigation. In other words, we want to know the truth. In our country, when there's an allegation of abuse ... there will be a full investigation, and justice will be delivered.”

Or we do as Bush did (unilaterally circumvent US treaty obligations and block investigations).

[classicman]

ok - fine call it a cop out but I offered some credible information from your post as to the effectiveness of waterboarding. I offered that disclaimer on my post specifically to challenge that point. There are two arguments going on here.
1) Waterboardings effectiveness aand
2) The legality of it.
Regarding, as you put it, "what Bush did" you better include a bunch of Democratic leaders like Pelosi in there also. At least be honest enough for that.
I have repeatedly posted my opinion on torture and its legal status.
You, however, have repeatedly dismissed citations by professionals and insiders that counter what you WANT to believe. That's fine too. Just so we are all clear.

Torture is illegal and immoral.

That is the bottom line for me.

I dont waffle over the issue or sugarcoat if with "what if" scenarios or second hand reports of its allegedl effectiveness as you have.

[classicman]

Its just a discussion - but another nice attempt at avoidance and criticism.

But along those lines - would you sacrifice thousands or even tens of thousands of lives by not "torturing" one man? Just curious.

LOl.....more waffles?

Either torture is acceptable or not....I have no fucking idea where you stand on the issue.

I have made my position as clear as can be.

Originally Posted by classicman

But along those lines - would you sacrifice thousands or even tens of thousands of lives by not "torturing" one man? Just curious.

If I wanted to play that game, I would audition to be Jack Bauer's replacement.

Its a bullshit scenario to justify an illegal action.

added:

IMO, It is appalling to see Scalia, a sitting US Supreme Court Justice, play that game:

The Supreme Court Justice cites Jack Bauer and the Hollywood torture show "24" as relevant background for constitutional jurisprudence:

Jack Bauer saved Los Angeles. ... He saved hundreds of thousands of lives," Judge Scalia said. Then, recalling Season 2, where the agent's rough interrogation tactics saved California from a terrorist nuke, the Supreme Court judge etched a line in the sand.
"Are you going to convict Jack Bauer?" Judge Scalia challenged his fellow judges. "Say that criminal law is against him? 'You have the right to a jury trial?' Is any jury going to convict Jack Bauer? I don't think so.

"So the question is really whether we believe in these absolutes. And ought we believe in these absolutes."

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.co..._and_tort.html

Relevant background for constitutional jurisprudence......WTF?

[classicman]

WOW! took you two posts to not answer - lol.

Originally Posted by classicman

WOW! took you two posts to not answer - lol.

WOW....how obtuse can you be not to understand what I posted?

[classicman]

Try answering it with a yes or no. Why is that so hard for you to do?
There now you have two questions.

Originally Posted by classicman

Try answering it with a yes or no. Why is that so hard for you to do?
There now you have two questions.

YES....it is a bullshit question.

NO...i'm not gonna play your game.

How's that?

Or just change my answers...you're good at changing others words for them.

[tw]

Originally Posted by classicman

Try answering it with a yes or no.

Only extremists see the world in terms of 'yes' and 'no'. The rest of the world has no answers if the answer does not come with the many reasons why.

Worse, the world is not binary. Everything is ternary. But to keep it simple - so that Rush can tell extremists how to think - everything is expressed only in binary terms: Yes and No.

[sugarpop]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

You have absolutely no evidence to support that claim. Absolutely nothing.

I am repeating what King Abdullah said in an interview on Sunday Merc, and I said as much. Take it up with him, 'K?