Torture memos
Interrogation techniques approved in 2002 by the Justice Department and detailed in memos released Thursday:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2009-04-16-cia-waterboarding_N.htm
Attention grasp: "Grasping the individual with both hands, one hand on each side of the collar opening, in a controlled and quick motion."
Walling: A fake, flexible wall is built, and the suspect is pulled forward and "then quickly and firmly" pushed against the wall. "The idea is to create a sound that will make the impact seem far worse than it is."
Facial grasp: "Used to hold the head immobile. One open palm is placed on either side of the individual's face."
Insult slap: "The purpose of the facial slap is to induce shock, surprise and/or humiliation."
Cramped confinement: The suspect is placed in a confined space that "is usually dark." Some spaces allow a subject only to sit down; confinement in those spaces "lasts for no more than two hours."
Wall standing: Subjects are forced to lean with only their fingers for support against a wall 4 to 5 feet away from their bodies in a tactic "used to induce muscle fatigue."
Stress positions: They include "kneeling on the floor while leaning back at a 45-degree angle" and "sitting on the floor with legs extended out in front of him with his arms raised above his head."
Sleep deprivation: This is meant to "reduce the individual's ability to think on his feet and, through the discomfort associated with lack of sleep, to motivate him to cooperate."
Insects placed in a confinement box: The subject is placed in "a cramped confinement box" and told a stinging insect will be placed in the box with him. Instead, a harmless insect, "such as a caterpillar," is placed inside.
Waterboarding: The subject is placed on a board with a cloth covering his nose and mouth. The cloth is saturated with water to simulate drowning. It creates "the perception of 'suffocation and incipient panic.' "
- 28 CIA detainees were subject to some of these methods
- Caution was made that doing them in tandem would be a violation
- They put one guy in a box with a bug
- Sleep deprivation seems the worst to me - could last up to 180 hours
So I guess my question is, waitaminute, WTF? I'd cross off waterboarding and sleep deprivation, but you're not allowed to slap the guy now? Really? This is what it's going to come to? A known terrorist who has good information about other terrorists, and if you slap him you'll be put in jail?
If putting bugs near a guy is torture, I was brutally tortured regularly when I was 10.
While some of them are just goofy and would be difficult to use in reality, there is nothing on that list I have a problem with. Yeah, that includes waterboarding.
I dont have a problem with it if they are being used on a known terrorist. I wonder if we actually followed that guideline though.
I dunno about all of this. I mixed feelings/opinions. - What is acceptable as a means of interrogating an alleged or known terrorist now? If all posted above is removed, then what is left?
Half of them would fall under, "First you gotta get their attention". :rolleyes:
I dunno about all of this. I mixed feelings/opinions. - What is acceptable as a means of interrogating an alleged or known terrorist now? If all posted above is removed, then what is left?
Soft Cushions and The Comfy Chair! No one expects The Spanish Inquisition !
What worries me, is that in heightened situations and environments, there is often something of a gap between the details as they appear in the rules and the details as they are applied in the territory. An extra hour or three in a stress position. An extra night or three of sleep deprivation.
Very little of what I have seen, heard and read, suggests that these limitations were being vigorously applied, nor that interrogations were subject to sufficient oversight to ensure those limitations weren't 'stretched'.
Is 'slapping' allowed under the geneva convention? Is it allowed in police interrogations? Either these men are soldiers or they're criminals. If slapping and sleep deprivation are allowed for either military prisoners, or suspects in a crime then I see no reason not to allow it for alleged terrorists. If it isn't allowed in either of those situations then I see no reason to allow it in this.
Another point worth making is that these things may have a very different psychological effect on day 3 than they might on day 1003. Many of the men held in Guantanamo have spent years there. It's been suggested that interrogations may happen at any time throughout that internment. Bear in mind the entire system of internment there has been designed to destabilise and weaken the resolve of the inmate. After a couple of years of dehumanising imprisonment (without any end in sight, with no recourse to legal process, and the increasing suspicion that if you die there, nobody will be doing an autopsy to find out how...) sleep deprivation, slapping and confinement in small boxes, or physically stressful positions would more than likely take on a whole other level of meaning.
Now...given that we really cannot be sure of their guilt without some kind of trial, I am very uncomfortable about allowing a prisoner to be systematically broken across several years.
Very little of what I have seen, heard and read, suggests that these limitations were being vigorously applied, nor that interrogations were subject to sufficient oversight to ensure those limitations weren't 'stretched'.
But jeez, how would you know? It depends on the credibility of the terrorists'
lawyers.
I know one thing. If I was caught and guilty of such acts of whatever I would stand up and loudly exclaim that I was tortured and say whatever I could to discredit whom ever imprisoned me, esp if I know that much of the world was jumping on my band wagon, whether it was true or not. I would milk that for all it was worth, and a good lawyer would do the same. I mean think about it, the dude guilty of shooting some other dude for a rock of crack on the street corner certainly stands up in court and says, "Yes your honor, I am absolutely guilty." The advantage these guys have is they have never gone to court. Their court is the court of public opinion, half-truths, and outright lies by both parties.
Well. Except they didn't get to speak in that court for a fuck of a long time. They were busy living in x-ray cells for upwards of five years. I saw an interview with the guy they released recently and allowed to come back to Britain. Maybe he's a good actor. But he looked like he'd been well and truly shattered.
Well. Except they didn't get to speak in that court for a fuck of a long time. They were busy living in x-ray cells for upwards of five years. I saw an interview with the guy they released recently and allowed to come back to Britain. Maybe he's a good actor. But he looked like he'd been well and truly shattered.
I have no doubt. It was not designed to be a holiday. Some of them surely got what they deserved, some not so much. Because of the way it was handled from the outset we will never know the truth. I believe that some are being released becase the risk benifit ratio of releasing info the government wants to keep secret is not worth the risk of a public show trial. Who knows. I certainly am going to look at anyone who has been locked up there for 5 years with a certain degree of bias as a source of information as to what really went on there. Until people who were directly involved from the government side start to talk about it publically as in the form of some kind of expose I don't think we will ever know. In these situations we need a balance of information to make up our minds about what we are going to believe.
As I have said many times I am all for closing it up next week and sending every party back to their country of origin whether they want them or not and regardless of their eventual fate. Leave it.
Teabagging-the victim is made to lie on his back, with his mouth agape. the fattest smelliest, unbathed troll on base then dangles his bawls into the open mouth ...for no more than 2 hours.
Butt Cheek Taping: The victim's butt cheeks are taped together with high grade duct tape. the tape is left on for no more than 180 hours, and is then removed briskly.
I wonder if John McCain thinks he was tortured. Perhaps he was just put in "stress positions".
i just wanna know why beheading isnt on that list
Ok, the combination of my latest user title (Vivacious Vivisectionist) and your post is kind of funny. :D
I know one thing. If I was caught and guilty of such acts of whatever I would stand up and loudly exclaim that I was tortured and say whatever I could to discredit whom ever imprisoned me, esp if I know that much of the world was jumping on my band wagon, whether it was true or not. I would milk that for all it was worth, and a good lawyer would do the same.
I know that if I was held and NOT guilty of such acts of whatever, I would do that as well Merc.
I wonder if John McCain thinks he was tortured. Perhaps he was just put in "stress positions".
McCain considers himself tortured. However, according to later American redefinition of torture, McCain was not tortured.
These early recommendations morphed into definitions that said if the act does not leave permanent organ damage, then it is not torture. IOW, according to Gonzales rewrite, if skin layers were slowly removed, that was not torture because permanent organ damage did not result.
Consider the absurdity of this memo. First, the author did no research. It basically says you told us this and you plan to do that. Therefore these actions are acceptable.
Second, torture is being defined only because one man must have information: Abu Zubaydah. He must be severely interrogated because he trained the operatives for a1 Qaeda, the Egyptian Islamic Jihad, and terrorists in Afghanistan and Pakistan, was al Qaeda’s Deputy Camp Commander for training camps, personally approved selection and graduation of terrorists in 1999 and 2000, no one went in or out of Peshawar, Pakistan without his knowledge and approval, and he was Al Qaeda’s communication and coordinator for all international contacts including counterintelligence.
In short, Zubaydah was Superman and was not telling us all these things he *must* know. Therefore rules must be rewritten to extract information. Theory was that interrogation methods (that had worked best for hundreds of years and that were so successful even during WWII) were not sufficient. So rules must be rewritten. Forget that maybe he really did not know all this stuff.
Rules were changed to instill fear and pain. But these rule changes were OK because they did not create pain. How absurd.
Interrogation without pain is why the FBI broke the entire 1993 WTC bombing and the USS Cole bombing. Pain and fear was not used. Instead, intelligent interrogation causes the targets to talk with honesty. But that obviously cannot work on Superman. So we needed violence legitimized.
Slam him against a fake wall. He will be carefully wrapped in cloth first to not be harmed. Sound of crashing into the fake wall will cause so much fear as to cause him to tell all? Nonsense. Eventually, the fake wall was replaced by concrete. And then when someone noted slamming against a concrete wall was torture, then the wall was covered by a sheet of plywood. Plywood would cushion the blow. Examples of how these techniques morphed into acceptable interrogation methods years later. After all, the theory behind these methods demand that pain be inflicted.
Torture had to be expanded because Superman and others did not give up the facts. Why? Because there were no Al Qaeda sleeper cells, no Saddam WMDs. And no international Al Qaeda hiding all over the world waiting under our beds to kill us all. But these new interrogation methods had to be approved BECAUSE enemies MUST be hiding everywhere to kill us all. We knew these threats must exist. Therefore well proven interrogation without torture must be wrong. Clearly the enemy must be massing to kill us all. So violence must be approved.
Myths and wild speculation (created because the powers that be were wacko extremists) justified violence only because terrorists could not tell us what we wanted to hear. Meanwhile, Indonesia kept these same Americans away from Nasir Abbas because he knew so much about Jemaah Islamiya (who did the 2002 Bali bombing). Despite myths and lies promoted in America, Jemaah Islamiya was not Al Qaeda. Nasir Abbas gave up the entire Jemaah Islamiya network BECAUSE he was not tortured. See
Why does America need Secret Prisons? . But then what the Indonesians did is also how professional interrogators did it in WWII, 1993 WTC bombing, and the USS Cole. See the Washington Post of 6 Oct 2007:
Fort Hunt's Quiet Men Break Silence on WWII
Interrogators Fought 'Battle of Wits'
Indonesia needed to keep Americans away from Nasir Abbas because American methods of violence would have poisoned the well.
The memo approves of methods that do no pain when the new interrogation method required pain - because he was Superman. No wonder a fake wall was quickly replaced with a concrete one. Entire concept of interrogation by intimidation required inflicting pain – also called torture. The Spanish Inquisition was alive and well – and did not use cushy pillows as some (and Monty Python) claimed. This memo shows how torture was first approved and why it only got worse - even killing an Iraqi General in Abu Ghriad because he would not tell us where Saddam's WMDs were hidden.
According to the newer American definitions of torture, McCain was not tortured. Beheading is torture because it created permenant organ damage.
These early recommendations morphed into definitions that said if the act does not leave permanent organ damage, then it is not torture. IOW, according to Gonzales rewrite, if skin layers were slowly removed, that was not torture because permanent organ damage did not result. . .
What is the largest organ of the human body?
I'll give everyone a minute to think about it.
Your Skin: The Largest Organ of the Human Body
The skin is the largest organ of the human body. In the average adult it covers about 3000 square inches and weighs around six pounds, which is nearly twice the weight of the human brain or liver. The skin receives about one third of the blood that circulates through the body. It’s rugged, flexible and practically waterproof. The skin can regenerate and repair itself under most conditions. The skin also helps in the dissipation of sweat. The skin and its appendages are known as the integumentary system.
. . .
Just more evidence of the truly frightening thing about these anti-science, know-nothing fucktards being in power.
So do you think dermal abrasion is torture?
So do you think dermal abrasion is torture?
Dermal abrasion does not inflict pain. Torture is about pain to make him talk. Pealing skin in a painful manner so that skin grows back was (by their rewritten definition) not torture. Only fools believe pain gets useful intelligence. Which is why terrorists were planning attacks even on the Golden Gate Bridge and Newark’s Prudential Building?
How curious. They never found anybody planning those attacks - which is what happens when torture replaced intelligent interrogation.
If America had no secret CIA torture chambers all over the world, then why did Obama order them closed? Many who advocated torture also lied about secret CIA concentration camps. And still have problems admitting that some 600 of the 800 imprisoned in Guantanamo have been released – guilty of nothing. More *honesty* routinely found among those who also advocated torture – and even denied it was torture.
So do you think dermal abrasion is torture?
Only if you go to a dermal abrasion clinic and allow them to do it to you without protest.
Wait, that would be S&M.
i just wanna know why beheading isnt on that list
Because chopping off the head of someone you disagree with is totally acceptable if they disagree with your view on political situations or you support their right to chop off your head in the context of their societal norms. Hell, it is the norm. Stick around, you'll see.
I know one thing. If I was caught and guilty of such acts of whatever I would stand up and loudly exclaim that I was tortured and say whatever I could to discredit whom ever imprisoned me, esp if I know that much of the world was jumping on my band wagon, whether it was true or not. I would milk that for all it was worth, and a good lawyer would do the same. I mean think about it, the dude guilty of shooting some other dude for a rock of crack on the street corner certainly stands up in court and says, "Yes your honor, I am absolutely guilty." The advantage these guys have is they have never gone to court. Their court is the court of public opinion, half-truths, and outright lies by both parties.
:rolleyes:
You have a problem with that. Fuck, that is exactly what I would do. You are going to tell me that you, or any other scumbag who has hit our justice system guilty as hell has not done the same? Hell, I would?
Tell me who you want to believe?
Take a side now.
Who do you believe and why?
You can read the memos here...
http://www.aclu.org/safefree/general/olc_memos.html
This one defines torture and what they were allowed to do...
http://luxmedia.vo.llnwd.net/o10/clients/aclu/olc_08012002_bybee.pdf
It says they can deprive someone of sleep for 11 days. As someone who suffers from sleep disorders, I can tell you that sleep deprivation is bad. Very, very bad. I can't even imagine what would happen if I was completely deprived of sleep for 11 days, or even for 7 days. For one thing, you start hallucinating.
The stress positions, I don't know if any of you have ever tried to stay in one position, without moving, for long periods of time. When I took kundalini yoga, we used to stay in one position for about 15-20 minutes at a time. It's a lot harder than it sounds. Your muscles start aching really bad. It doesn't say how long they were allowed to do this, but I imagine it's a lot longer than 20 minutes.
The confinement with insects that you are afraid of, they were allowed to do that up to 18 hours. If I was locked inside a small container with cockroaches, I would have a freaking heart attack.
The waterboarding, that was allowed for as long as 20 hours at a time. Can you imagine feeling like you were drowing for 20 hours?
It goes on to explain the definition of torture...
Section 2340 makes it a criminal offense for any person "outside of the United States [to] commit or attempt to commit torture."
Section 2340(1) defines torture as:
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 of physical control.
18 USC. § 2340(1). As ·we outlined in our opinion on standards of conduct under Section 2340A, a violation of2340A requires a showing that: (1) the torture occurred outside the United States; (2) the defendant acted under the color of law; (3) the victim 'was within the defendant's custody or control; (4) the defendant specifically intended to inflict severe pain or suffering; and (5) that the acted inflicted severe pain or suffering...
You have asked us to assume that Zubayadah is being held outside the United States, Zubayadah is within U.S. custody, and the interrogators are acting under the color of law. At issue is whether the last two elements would be met by the use of the proposed procedures, namely, whether those using these procedures would have the requisite mental state and whether these procedures would inflict severe pain or suffering within the meaning of the statute.
Severe Pain or Suffering In order for pain or suffering to rise to the level of torture, the statute requires that it be severe. As we have previousty explained, this reaches only extreme acts. See id. at 13. Nonetheless, drawing upon cases under the Torture Victim Protection Act (TVPA), which has a definition of torture that is similar to Section 2340"s definition, we found that a single event of sufficiently intense pain may fall within this prohibition...
...We next consider whether the use of these techniques would inflict severe mental pain or suffering within the meaning of Section 2340. Section 2340 defines severe mental pain or suffering as "the prolonged mental harm caused by or resulting from" one of several predicate acts. 12 U.S.c. § 2340(2). predicate acts are: (1) the intentional infliction or threatened infliction of severe physical pain or suffering; (2) the administration or application, or threatened administration or application of mind-altering substances of other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or the personality; (3) the threat of imminent death; or (4) the threat that any of the preceding acts will be done to another person. See 18 U.S.C. § 2340(2)(AJ-{D). As we have explained, this list of predicate acts is exclusive. Sec Section 2340A Memorandum at 8. No other acts can support 2 charge under Section 2340 based on the infliction of severe mental pain or suffering. Thus, if the methods that you have described do not either in and of themselves constitute one of these acts or as a course of conduct fulfill the predicate act requiremcnt, the prohibition has not been violated. See ia. Before addressing these techniques, we note that it is plain that none of these proceedures involves a threat to any third party, the use of any kind of drugs, or for the reasons described above, the infliction of severe physical pain. Thus, the question is whether any of these acts, separately or as a course of conduct, constitutes a threat of severe physical pain or suffering, a procedure designed to disrupt profoundly the senses, or a threat of imminent death...
From that description, it seems pretty clear to me that what they did WAS most definitely torture.
You have a problem with that. Fuck, that is exactly what I would do. You are going to tell me that you, or any other scumbag who has hit our justice system guilty as hell has not done the same? Hell, I would?
Tell me who you want to believe?
Take a side now.
Who do you believe and why?
It is pretty well known that a lot of the people down there were not terrorists. We put them there anyway, and kept them there for YEARS, without a trial, or without even charging them with a crime. So why would I believe anything the last administration said about what they were doing? All they have done, from day 1, is LIE to the Emrican people, and the rest of world. From the memos, it's clear we used torture, even while Bush was going on TV insisting that "we do not torture." My God, after Abu Ghraib, it is ASTOUNDING to me that so many people were still in denial about our actions with regards to torture. Bush has done more to ruin our standing in the world than everyone who ever went before him, combined. How will ever wipe that stain from our heritage?
One of the most sickening things about that whole abu ghraib affair to my mind, was the way soldiers like that young woman carried the can for what was clearly a systemic problem.
A similar thing is happening here now with the police. For as long as I can recall, on demonstrations, it was a commonplace that if you saw police without their id numbers on their epaulettes, you knew were in for a kicking. It happened when I was at the poll tax demo in '90, and again at the big anti-nazi rally in '93. We all of us know that's what happens on demos. It also happened routinely throughout the miners' strike in the 80s. Now, I don't mean a handful of cops chose to go without their id...I am talking about a line of police, three men deep across critical areas, such as the one blocking the demonstrators from getting near Downing Street in '90. All the police along the sides of the march early on, were just ordinary police, with numbers on, keeping the peace. Then as we got near to more sensitive and potentially troubled areas, the police all as far as any of us could see, had no numbers. WE commented on it atthe time. AS we noticed the shift from friendly, professional, to aggressive and unaccountable, we actually said it, we said, 'shit....they've no id'. And they hadn't. And they were very violent. And they used same 'kettle', or corralling strategy that caused such violence the other week. There was even footage at the time, of police losing control and beating the shit out demonstrators (and a journalist). This is how our police force deal with demonstrations and deomstrators. Its the way it's been for a long long time.
At the summit in london recently, where a demo was (again) sparked into violence by the 'kettle' strategy of the demo police, a newspaper seller who wasn't even involved was shoved and hit by a policeman and then died of a heart attack (I think). There's footage of police hitting demonstrators with batons, shioving them to the ground. One cop smashed his shield into the face of a demonstrator, another is hitting a woman on her legs with a baton. One of the things clearly apparent in these days of instant mobile filming, was that the police involved werent wearing ID numbers.
The police are trying to treat this as a number of individuals breaking the rules. Again. Rather than the commonplace that it has been for as long as anybody can recall. Just like with the soldiers at abu Ghraib, they are going to be made to stand for the crimes of an institution. Yet again, the institution which (we all suspect) tacitly approved of their behaviour, and I suspect directly engaged with and either supported, or subtly directed that behaviour, stands aloof and untouched, whilst those that did its dirty work get to play guilty devil to the waiting media, and lose everything.
Because chopping off the head of someone you disagree with is totally acceptable if they disagree with your view on political situations or you support their right to chop off your head in the context of their societal norms. Hell, it is the norm. Stick around, you'll see.
I think you can safely assume that if any US administration starting beheading people everyone here would complain. Heck, one of our allies is Saudi Arabia, and they still practice
beheading. Of course, our recently departed president was a governor who presided over 152 executions in a state where the courts have held that it is not their responsibility to insure that public defenders in capital murder cases stay awake.
So if I was an accused gay man in Saudi Arabia or a poor innocent murder defendant in Texas, the outcome would pretty much be the same. Ask me which I would prefer, a lethal injection in Texas or a beheading in the Middle East?
It is pretty well known that a lot of the people down there were not terrorists.
Based on what source? That is part of the problem.
We put them there anyway, and kept them there for YEARS, without a trial, or without even charging them with a crime.
Also part of the problem as I stated earlier.
So why would I believe anything the last administration said about what they were doing?
So what makes you trust the current one any more than the last?
All they have done, from day 1, is LIE to the Emrican people, and the rest of world. From the memos, it's clear we used torture, even while Bush was going on TV insisting that "we do not torture." My God, after Abu Ghraib, it is ASTOUNDING to me that so many people were still in denial about our actions with regards to torture. Bush has done more to ruin our standing in the world than everyone who ever went before him, combined. How will ever wipe that stain from our heritage?
Don't mix events that happened at Abu Ghraib with Gitmo. There is no evidence that anything close to what happened in Iraq took place in Gitmo. The rest ot that is your opinion taking right from the left-wingnut talking points.
The evidence from the DoJ memos, In't Red Cross reports, comments by some interrogators and other sources is clear that we used techniques including water boarding, long term sleep deprivation, physical abuse, psychological abuse, etc that violated the international standards of torture under the Geneva Conventions and the UN Convention against Torture.
Not just at Gitmo, but at CIA black prisons around the world...far worse than anything that happened at Abu Ghraib. The DOJ memos attempt to rationalize these actions by unilaterally determining its own standards under those international treaty obligations of which the US is a signator.
That is not how a nation that promotes democracy and the rule of law should act.
Oh well, if you're going to take the word of the international red cross ... :P
The int'l red cross was not present to give testimony about what happened.
Oh well, if you're going to take the word of the international red cross ... :P
The ACORN of the world! A mafia-like organization with a hidden agenda!
The int'l red cross was not present to give testimony about what happened.
The International Red Cross report is based on first-hand accounts.
Unfortunately, the US had refused to sign the UNCAT optional protocol adopted by the UN General Assembly in 2002 that established "an international inspection system for places of detention" (signed by nearly all of our European allies)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optional_Protocol_to_the_Convention_against_Torture_and_other_Cruel,_Inhuman_or_Degrading_Treatment_or_Punishment
And one of the DOJ memos states that:
[INDENT]"The CIA used the waterboard "at least 83 times during August 2002" in the interrogation of Zubaydaydah... and 183 times during March 2003 in the interrogation of KSM (Khalid Sheikh Mohammed)"[/INDENT]
They can call it an "enhanced interrogation technique"..but it is torture by any other standard.
And one of the DOJ memos states that:
[INDENT]"The CIA used the waterboard "at least 83 times during August 2002" in the interrogation of Zubaydaydah... and 183 times during March 2003 in the interrogation of KSM (Khalid Sheikh Mohammed)"[/INDENT]
Why so many times? He was not telling them what they wanted to hear. Same reason the Iraqi General was murdered during torture. He also was not telling American extremists what they wanted to hear. Instead he was telling the truth.
Nobody expected the Spanish Inquisition. Monty Python was clairvoyant? Posted here repeatedly even in May 2004 because the problem was that obvious that long ago:
Image control...
And still, George Jr loyalists deny it - facts be damned.
Political extremists believe only what is good for the party line. Centrists instead use facts to know. Political extremists did then and still now deny what was that obvious even when Gen Miller left Guantanamo to instill the same torture techniques in Abu Ghraid. Why? We *knew* Saddam had WMDs. That *justifies* torture.
Just another lesson from history that we are expected to recite in another 30 years. Deja vue.
Why so many times? He was not telling them what they wanted to hear.
Nope.... because he
was telling them good stuff. The rest of
that same memo tells us that at least two out of the three waterboardings led to legitimate, and very important information, possibly preventing a "Second Wave" after 9/11.
With these caveats, we turn to specific examples that you have provides us. You have informed us that the interrogation of KSM -- once enhanced techniques were employed -- let to the discovery of a KSM plot, the "second wave," "to use East Asian operatives to crash a hijacked airliner into" a building in Los Angeles. You have informed us that information obtained from KSM also led to the capture of Riduan bin Isomuddin, better known as Hambali, and the discovery of the Guraba cell, a 17-member Jemaah Islamiyah cell tasked with executing the "Second Wave". More specifically, we understand that KSM admitted that he had tasked Majid Khan with delivering a large sum of money to an al Qaeda associate. Khan subsequently identifed the associate (Zubair), who was then captured. Zubair, in turn, provided information that led to the arrest of Hambali. The information from these captures allowed CIA interrogators to pose more specific questions to KSM, which led the CIA to Hambali's brother, al-Hadi. Using information from multiple sources, al-Hadi was captured, and he subsequently identified the Guraba cell. With the aid of this information, interrogations of Hambali confirmed much of what was learned from KSM.
...
More generally, the CIA has informed us that, since March 2002, the intelligence derived from CIA detainees has resulted in more than 6,000 intelligence reports, and, in 2004, accounted for approximately half of CTC's reportnig on al Qaeda... You have informed us that the substantial majority of this intelligence has come from detainees subjected to enhanced interrogation techniques. In addition, the CIA advises us that the program has been virtually indispensable to the task of deriving actionable intelligence from other forms of collection.
He would have given the same info if we'd just asked nicely. He'd have probably given it faster too.
Based on what source? That is part of the problem.
Also part of the problem as I stated earlier.
So what makes you trust the current one any more than the last?
Don't mix events that happened at Abu Ghraib with Gitmo. There is no evidence that anything close to what happened in Iraq took place in Gitmo. The rest ot that is your opinion taking right from the left-wingnut talking points.
Actually Merc, with the release of the report by the Red Cross and the torture memos, there most certainly IS evidence proving what they did. There are also videotapes of interrogations, or were. I believe it was reported that some of them were erased. Now why would they erase them if they had nothing to hide?
It has been reported for years that many of the people being held were not terrorists, but people who were swept up and held anyway, and never released based on nothing. I tend to believe investigative reporters. They deserve our respect, because they break stories that we would otherwise never know. I tend to believe the Red Cross, because they get access to places as long as they keep silent. Only
someone seemed to think that report was more important, and they released it. Whoever that was deserves some kind of world recognition for what they did.
Lastly, I trust this administration more because I believe I can. So far Obama has been pretty good about keeping campaign promises and keeping his word. I NEVER felt like I could trust Bush, because he was too secretive and sneaky. He
lied about things. He was a cowboy executing cowboy justice. He was arrogant. Obama is none of those things. I am extremely pissed off that they are refusing to prosecute anyone, because I think lots of people should be prosecuted, but that doesn't mean we can't trust him. In the end, I think he will
have to prosecute some people. when that day comes, I will cheer from the rooftops.
I believe it was reported that some of them were erased. Now why would they erase them if they had nothing to hide?
I hold here in my right hand a blank videotape! This is obvious and damning evidence proving the CIA's involvement in JFK's murder!I think the most compelling reason why we should not use these techniques is this... two female journalists were captured recently while reporting on a story from the Chinese - N Korean border. When asked about how the women were being treated, they replied, "we are not Gauntanamo." That was North Korea talking, for crying out loud!
Now a female journalist with dual citizenship in the United States and Iran has been tried (and I believe sentenced) in Iran for spying. I wonder how she will be treated?
This really goes to the heart of the matter. We should treat others the way WE OURSELVES want to be treated. We will not always agree on policy, or other governmental affairs, but that doesn't mean we should not show respect. If we abandon our principles and bring ourselves down to the level of terrorists, then why should we expect to be treated with any decency by anyone?
I hold here in my right hand a blank videotape! This is obvious and damning evidence proving the CIA's involvement in JFK's murder!
If that videotape was known to have evidence on it beforehand, then it does make you look guilty. but whatever. I don't expect you to come over to my way of thinking. We disagree about almost everything.
True. One of us lives in the real world and the other wants the real world to match a fantasy.
He would have given the same info if we'd just asked nicely. He'd have probably given it faster too.
Which is exactly what happens once we eliminate the extremist mantra.
Second wave? A claim from the same people who said Saddam had WMDs. That fired people who warned of pending terrorism. Who undermined the Oslo Accords. Who encourages war with N Korea. Who nearly created a war with China over a silly spy plane. Who said Reagan proved that deficits don't matter. Who had White House lawyers rewrite science papers they did not like (because science contradicted their political agenda). Who almost destroyed Hubble. Who unilaterally canceled international treaties only because they did not like them. Who advocated nuclear proliferation. Who said America does not do nation building - and therefore lost military victories in two wars.
These are people who can be trusted in saying torture stopped a second wave? What second wave? Nobody can find any evidence of a second wave.
When Clinton listened to law enforcement, then multiple terrorist attacks all over the world were averted. AND we know what those attacks were. We know those attacks were averted because we were told by honest people - not extremists. Where is even one fact that suggests a second wave was coming? Torture that routinely leads to lies and no useful intelligence proved a second wave was averted? Therefore we know attacks on the Golden Gate Bridge and Prudential Building were averted. Not!
At what point does this second wave myth become obvious even to the extremists? At what point was this second wave really only the Second Coming of Christ? We know this because the same person also told us that America does not do nation building? Fool me 1000 times; shame on you? Is that how it goes?
Learn reality folks. Those who promote torture routinely avoid reality. Such as: Jemaah Islamiya was destroyed completely and faster because
they just asked nicely. It contradicts extremist mantra. Extremists know that only torture gets answers. Why? Because they just know. Rush Limbaugh said so.
Asking nicely with a sharp wit is how interrogation always worked. Torture is how we proved that Saddam had WMDs. Reality and extremism are antonyms. First extremists deny we were torturing. Now extremists say we had to torture. How many times must extremists be caught lying before we stop believing them?
True. One of us lives in the real world and the other wants the real world to match a fantasy.
In the real world, the largest democracy in the world would abide by the international treaties it signs.
In the real world, when the CIA Inspector General reports that many of the agency's interrogation techniques would be considered torture under US treaty obligations, the CIA would investigate and take correction action.....instead of pursuing a political investigation of the Inspector General for doing his job of holding the agency accountable to the rule of law rather than political influence.
In the real world, DOJ attorneys would have drafted post-9/11 interrogation memos based on legal considerations and not political direction from the White House and would not be facing possible disbarment now for their alleged unethical actions.
In the real world, most interrogation experts (civilian and military) would agree that torture is rarely, if ever, as effective as other means of interrogation.
The fantasy world is the one that you have bought into...the Jack Bauer/24 world that only exists on TV, but that the Bush administration sold to the public as the real world.
added:
Nope.... because he was telling them good stuff. The rest of that same memo tells us that at least two out of the three waterboardings led to legitimate, and very important information, possibly preventing a "Second Wave" after 9/11.
IMO, the danger is believing everything the CIA tells you and discounting everything that the detainees attorneys or independent agencies like the IRC reports.
I recall Bush or Cheney telling us about an al queda plot to blow up the Brooklyn Bridge...it turns out it was one guy with a handheld blow torch.
Do you, or should we, really trust the government that completely? When they investigate their own IG for reporting his findings? or destroy nearly 100 tapes of interrogations?
Amazing how one chooses to believe what one wants to believe. No matter what side one is on. To discount that which doesn't fit one's desires is a choice that is almost always made.
Amazing how one chooses to believe what one wants to believe. No matter what side one is on. To discount that which doesn't fit one's desires is a choice that is almost always made.
There are facts that are not in dispute...most notably that the DoJ memos "justify" interrogation techniques including water boarding and physical/psychological abuses that go beyond the internationally recognized standards of torture.
It really doesnt matter if you or I agree or disagree if these interrogation techniques constitute torture....what matters is that the US signed an agreement to abide by the standards.
What is left to one's belief is if it is legitimate for the executive branch of the government to unilaterally redefine these techniques as "enhanced interrogation" but not torture and to ignore US international treaty obligations that have been recognized by all recent previous administrations.
IMO, if the Bush administration wanted to circumvent the UNCAT agreement negotiated and signed for the US by the Reagan administration as well as approx. 150 other nations, it should have gone to Congress to request approval to withdraw from the international agreement....and become a rogue nation like the few others in the world that do not recognize it.....Iran, Myanmar, North Korea, Zimbabwe to name a few.
I think the most compelling reason why we should not use these techniques is this... two female journalists were captured recently while reporting on a story from the Chinese - N Korean border. When asked about how the women were being treated, they replied, "we are not Gauntanamo." That was North Korea talking, for crying out loud!
Now a female journalist with dual citizenship in the United States and Iran has been tried (and I believe sentenced) in Iran for spying. I wonder how she will be treated?
This really goes to the heart of the matter. We should treat others the way WE OURSELVES want to be treated. We will not always agree on policy, or other governmental affairs, but that doesn't mean we should not show respect. If we abandon our principles and bring ourselves down to the level of terrorists, then why should we expect to be treated with any decency by anyone?
This bears repeating...
Amazing how one chooses to believe what one wants to believe.
Most old line Republicans are scared shitless of their future. After all, they would have to believe based in facts. They would have to learn how to ignore myths routinely promoted by their political handlers. Extremism cannot survive with honesty.
We are not torturing. When that lie was exposed, old line extremist Republicans then said we must torture to get intelligence. That lie was also exposed by 1993 WTC, USS Cole investigation, well proven techniques even used in WWII, the stopping of terrorism all over the world on Millennium eve, Jemaah Islamiya, and ...
So extremists must again lie – even ignore those facts - to continue preaching what their political handlers (Rush Limbaugh) tell them to think.
Wacko extremists even denied we had secret prisons. Obama ordered those *non-existent* prisons closed. How do wacko extremists deny that their lie? They don't. Wacko extremists defend themselves by replacing old lies with new lies. You are supposed to forget how often extremists lie. Need we again visit wacko extremism trying to impose their religion in Dover PA schools? Extremists then exposed as liars repeatedly by the judge?
No wonder there is a war ongoing in the Republican party to save it from extremists and a political agenda justified by lies. Extremists even still lie about torture. First deny it was ongoing. Then must lie again - that only torture gets facts. A war in the Republican party because extremist political agendas cannot exist without lies - even about torture.
Extremists will not even ask a question that any decent American was asking five years ago: when do we go after bin Laden? To ask that question is to admit to more extremist lies - including the one where Saddam and bin Laden were co-conspirators.
This bears repeating...
You will have to repeat it again. Extremists routinely ignore what contradicts their political agenda. Those who know torture work learned because they saw it proven with Jack Bauer/24 on Fox TV.
What is a greatest threat to every American soldier? That Americans routinely torture and then would even lie about it.
When caught posting lies, extremists respond with more lies. So yes, repeat it again because extremists had to ignore that reality.
Should we be surprised when extremists post more cheap shots and lies about Chavez and Obama shaking hands? Liars are not ethical or honest.
IRC got their information from detainees. Hardly a good source as I stated earlier.
Amazing how one chooses to believe what one wants to believe. No matter what side one is on. To discount that which doesn't fit one's desires is a choice that is almost always made.
It feeds and perpetuates the beliefs they already have based on limited sources of information. People are always going hear what they want to hear.
I recall Bush or Cheney telling us about an al queda plot to blow up the Brooklyn Bridge...it turns out it was one guy with a handheld blow torch.
Oh yea, completely harmless. :rolleyes:
http://www.nefafoundation.org/miscellaneous/BklynBridge_Plot.pdfthere are two examples of my post by Redux and Sugarpop. Please note that I NEVER agreed one way or the other in post #46, but both of you, plus 2 ignored posts (I'll assume at least one of which was in reference to me) show that you all very quickly jumped to validate your opinions when they were not challenged. (and most likely one attack) Interesting.
As far as what constitutes torture and whether we should have or not, again, I have mixed opinions.
On Rant/ I am not sure we should have released the memos to the world. I know I know transparency and all that, but it seems as though the assumption on the left is that we did these things to every prisoner. The truth is probably far from that. My limited understanding is that the interrogation techniques started at the least "intrusive" and stronger ones had to be authorized by superiors before they could be implemented.
Were there abuses? Probably. Were they widespread? Probably not, but who knows. The left will attack the right with their inhumanity and the right will say they were defending & protecting the country. Reality is most likely somewhere in the middle. /Off rant
I think the most compelling reason why we should not use these techniques is this... two female journalists were captured recently while reporting on a story from the Chinese - N Korean border. When asked about how the women were being treated, they replied, "we are not Gauntanamo." That was North Korea talking, for crying out loud!
That was nothing more than a PR move. Looks like it worked on you.
Now a female journalist with dual citizenship in the United States and Iran has been tried (and I believe sentenced) in Iran for spying. I wonder how she will be treated?
Probably not very well - Is there something that makes you think they would have treated her/them any differently a year or two ago? If so, you are kidding yourself.
As far as what constitutes torture and whether we should have or not, again, I have mixed opinions.
On Rant/ I am not sure we should have released the memos to the world. I know I know transparency and all that, but it seems as though the assumption on the left is that we did these things to every prisoner. The truth is probably far from that. My limited understanding is that the interrogation techniques started at the least "intrusive" and stronger ones had to be authorized by superiors before they could be implemented.
Were there abuses? Probably. Were they widespread? Probably not, but who knows. The left will attack the right with their inhumanity and the right will say they were defending & protecting the country. Reality is most likely somewhere in the middle. /Off rant
:thumb:
The ICRC findings were based on its access to the CIA's 14 "high-value" detainees who were held in secret CIA prisons. They were interviewed after being transferred to Guantanamo Bay in 2006.
http://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/news_digest/Red_Cross_report_reveals_torture_at_CIA_jails.htmlsiteSect=104&sid=10466816&cKey=1237801991000&ty=stIraq: ICRC explains position over detention report and treatment of prisoners
Introductory statement and summary of main points made by the ICRC's director of operations, Pierre Krähenbühl, at a press conference at the organization's headquarters, 7 May 2004, following the publication by the Wall Street Journal of excerpts of an ICRC report.
Iraq: ICRC explains position over detention report and treatment of prisoners
Introductory statement and summary of main points made by the ICRC's director of operations, Pierre Krähenbühl, at a press conference at the organization's headquarters, 7 May 2004, following the publication by the Wall Street Journal of excerpts of an ICRC report.
Thank you for joining us at this press conference that the ICRC has called following the publication today of articles in the Wall Street Journal that quote large excerpts from a confidential report on detention in Iraq dated January 2004 and submitted by the ICRC to the Coalition Forces in February 2004.
The ICRC's director of operations, Pierre Krähenbühl ©ICRC/T. Gassmann/Let me say that the President of the ICRC, Mr Jakob Kellenberger, is today in Brussels. Had he been in Geneva, he would have addressed you personally. As you are aware, President Kellenberger has been directly, regularly and recently dealing with issues related to detention of people in US hands. This Wednesday, he took the initiative of discussing the ICRC's observations and concerns related to Abu Ghraib prison with Secretary of State Colin Powell over the phone. You will have seen references in the media to this and to the fact that Secretary Powell indicated that the ICRC findings were taken very seriously.
In his absence, President Kellenberger has asked me to share the following ICRC position with you:
I would like to begin by underlining that the report (excerpts of the report) was made available to the public without the consent of the ICRC. The preparation and submission of such reports is part of the ICRC's standard procedures in the field of its visits to prisoners worldwide.
As a reminder, the ICRC last year visited 469,648 detainees, held in 1,923 places of detention, in about 80 countries.
These reports carry a specific mention that they are strictly confidential and intended only for the authorities to which they are presented. It adds that the reports may not be published, in full or in part, without the consent of the ICRC.
As already indicated this report was, however, released without our consent. In view of the fact that this notion of confidentiality is an element vital to obtaining access to prisoners world-wide and that access is in turn essential for us to carry out meaningful work for the persons detained, the ICRC is unhappy to see this report being made public.
A second point I would like to make is that this report includes observations and recommendations from visits that took place between March and November 2003. The report itself was handed over to the Coalition Forces (CF) in February of 2004.
It is important to understand that this report represents the summary of concerns that were regularly brought to the attention of the CF throughout 2003.
I should perhaps explain here briefly how these visits work:
ICRC delegates traditionally negotiate access to all persons deprived of their freedom in situations of armed conflict or internal violence. Upon obtaining such access they carry out detailed visits to a given prison, police station or any other type of detention place. They do this to review the overall functioning of the prisons and well-being of the prisoners.
They meet individually with the detainees for private talks, without the presence of witnesses. This allows them to ascertain the treatment and conditions of detention and enables the prisoner to write a message to his or her family.
The visits end with a formal talk with the detaining authority to share findings and concerns and to make recommendations for improvements.
This is important to understand in the sense that what appears in the report of February 2004 are observations consistent with those made earlier on several occasions orally and in writing throughout 2003. In that sense the ICRC has repeatedly made its concerns known to the Coalition Forces and requested corrective measures prior to the submission of this particular report.
Both for Abu Ghraib and for other places of detention in Iraq, oral and written interventions of the ICRC specifically recalled the laws and norms that States have committed themselves to respect by adhering to the Geneva Conventions.
You are well aware of the insistence of the ICRC, stated bilaterally and publicly for months now, on the importance of full respect for international humanitarian law (which includes the Geneva Conventions) that represents a crucial and relevant set of rules aimed at preserving the life and dignity, and the lawful treatment, of prisoners.
Thank you.
http://www.icrc.org/web/eng/siteeng0.nsf/htmlall/5yrmyc?opendocumentIRC got their information from detainees. Hardly a good source as I stated earlier.
For this post to have honesty, you must dispute the long list of accusations of torture by many separate and independent parties. You must dispute every one. You don't even try because the fact is America was torturing. The memo simply demonstrates in 2002 the first step in authorizing torture. And where was it being authorized? In the highest levels of the George Jr administration.
FBI interrogators left places like Iraq once the torture started. Why? First - once a prisoner is tortured, the well is poisoned. Nothing useful can be obtained. Second, FBI agents did not want to be party to obvious illegal activities. But extremists tell use torture did not exist because maybe one hundred separated prisoners (who had no contact with one another) all repeated the same stories. All described the same torture methods.
Amazing how those *enemies* are clairvoyant. Using mind telepathy, they shared the same stories before the IRC got to them. These many *enemies* who have since been released from American prisons because they were not guilty of anything – and yet tell similar stories of the torture methods used on them.
Who is most likely to torture? Prison keepers who are holding innocent men without even judicial review. How curious. That is the George Jr administration that has a long history of overt lying.
Fact is that Americans were torturing prisoners. Even FBI agents said so. Torture justified by the same 'we are good and they are evil' agenda that characterized wacko extremist politics. How do we know torture did not happen? Extremists denied it. That is the entire proof? Of course extremists deny it. The act of being an extremist requires lying even to one's self.
Reality is that the George Jr administration did authorize the use of torture and holding innocent people for years in prisons. Even secret torture prisons that Obama closed on day 2 … because those prisons did exist despite extremists denials.
The honest response is to admit Americans were torturing. And doing so because it was authorized inside the George Jr administration by people such as Gonzales.
No wonder these same people tried to get us into a war with China over a silly spy plane.
All posters should keep in mind that tw has never expressed the least interest in the free societies winning out over the slavemaking ones. Tw just can't think about human liberty, nor apparently give it its proper value. Tw really doesn't want totalitarianism to lose, anywhere. Instead, it's "we're so awful, because we're trying to win."
Can anyone show otherwise?
All posters should keep in mind that tw has never expressed the least interest in the free societies winning out over the slavemaking ones. Tw just can't think about human liberty, nor apparently give it its proper value. Tw really doesn't want totalitarianism to lose, anywhere. Instead, it's "we're so awful, because we're trying to win."
Can anyone show otherwise?
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/content/article/2009/04/20/AR2009042002818.html
Critics claim that enhanced techniques do not produce good intelligence because people will say anything to get the techniques to stop. But the memos note that, "as Abu Zubaydah himself explained with respect to enhanced techniques, 'brothers who are captured and interrogated are permitted by Allah to provide information when they believe they have reached the limit of their ability to withhold it in the face of psychological and physical hardship." In other words, the terrorists are called by their faith to resist as far as they can -- and once they have done so, they are free to tell everything they know.
[SIZE="4"]The CIA's Questioning Worked[/SIZE]
President Obama declared that the techniques used to question captured terrorists "did not make us safer." This is patently false. The proof is in the memos Obama made public -- in sections that have gone virtually unreported in the media.
Why aren't they getting reported????
Because they know that if the public could see the details of the techniques side by side with evidence that the program saved American lives, the vast majority would support continuing it.
" Once the techniques were applied, "interrogations have led to specific, actionable intelligence, as well as a general increase in the amount of intelligence regarding al Qaeda and its affiliates."
Specifically, interrogation with enhanced techniques "led to the discovery of a KSM plot, the 'Second Wave,' 'to use East Asian operatives to crash a hijacked airliner into' a building in Los Angeles." KSM later acknowledged before a military commission at Guantanamo Bay that the target was the Library Tower. "information obtained from KSM also led to the capture of Riduan bin Isomuddin, better known as Hambali, and the discovery of the Guraba Cell, a 17-member Jemmah Islamiyah cell tasked with executing the 'Second Wave.' "without enhanced interrogations, there could be a hole in the ground in Los Angeles to match the one in New York.
Hmm
CIA Director Leon Panetta said during his confirmation hearings that even the Obama administration might use some of the enhanced techniques in a "ticking time bomb" scenario.
President Obama's decision to release these documents is one of the most dangerous and irresponsible acts ever by an American president during a time of war -- and Americans may die as a result.
Excellent article UT.
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.
SOME of the things described most definitely ARE torture, according to the Geneva Conventions and also our own military laws.
[SIZE="4"]The CIA's Questioning Worked[/SIZE]
Why aren't they getting reported????
Hmm
Excellent article UT.
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.
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.
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.
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.
The CIA's Questioning Worked
Excellent article UT.
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
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.
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.
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:
[INDENT] 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.[/INDENT]
McCain..."waterboarding is torture"
And the second part of my post?
McCain..."waterboarding is torture"
McCain... "Sarah Palin is my choice for Vice President"
And the second part of my post?
Cruel and degrading treatment is also prohibited under UNCAT.
[INDENT]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_Nations_Convention_Against_Torture#Ban_on_torture_and_cruel_and_degrading_treatment
UNCAT text
[/INDENT]
We (Reagan) signed it, we (the US) should live by it.
McCain... "Sarah Palin is my choice for Vice President"
I have no explanation for that decision.
McCain... "Sarah Palin is my choice for Vice President"
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
WASHINGTON (AP) - The Obama administration's top intelligence official privately told employees last week that "high value information" was obtained in interrogations that included harsh techniques approved by former President George W. Bush.
"A deeper understanding of the al-Qaida network" resulted, National Intelligence Director Dennis Blair said in the memo, in which he added, "I like to think I would not have approved those methods in the past." The Associated Press obtained a copy.
Critics of the harsh methods—waterboarding, face slapping, sleep deprivation and other techniques—have called them torture. President Barack Obama said Tuesday they showed the United States "losing our moral bearings" and said they would not be used while he is in office. But he did not say whether he believed they worked.
Obama ordered the release of long-secret Bush-era documents on the subject last week, and Blair circulated his memo declaring that useful information was obtained at the same time.
In a public statement released the same day, Blair did not say that interrogations using the techniques had yielded useful information.
As word of the private memo surfaced Tuesday night, a new statement was issued in his name that appeared to be more explicit in one regard and contained something of a hedge on another point.
Any government that releases all it's secrets will not be around for very long. Regardless of what kind of gov it is.
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:
Report Gives New Detail on Approval of Brutal Techniques
A newly declassified Congressional report released Tuesday outlined the most detailed evidence yet that the military’s use of harsh interrogation methods on terrorism suspects was approved at high levels of the Bush administration. ...
The Senate report documented how some of the techniques used by the military at prisons in Afghanistan and at the naval base in Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, as well as in Iraq ...
According to the Senate investigation, a military behavioral scientist and a colleague who had witnessed SERE training proposed its use at Guantánamo in October 2002, as pressure was rising “to get ‘tougher’ with detainee interrogations.” Officers there sought authorization, and Mr. Rumsfeld approved 15 interrogation techniques.
The report showed that Mr. Rumsfeld’s authorization was cited by a United States military special-operations lawyer in Afghanistan as “an analogy and basis for use of these techniques,” and that, in February 2003, a special-operations unit in Iraq obtained a copy of the policy from Afghanistan “that included aggressive techniques, changed the letterhead, and adopted the policy verbatim.”
Months later, the report said, the interrogation officer in charge at Abu Ghraib obtained a copy of that policy “and submitted it, virtually unchanged, through her chain of command.” This ultimately led to authorization by Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez of the use of stress positions, “sleep management” and military dogs to exploit detainees’ fears, the report said.
“The paper trail on abuse leads to top civilian leaders, and our report connects the dots,” Senator Carl Levin, Democrat of Michigan, the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, said on Tuesday in a conference call with reporters. “This report, in great detail, shows a paper trail going from that authorization” by Mr. Rumsfeld “to Guantánamo to Afghanistan and to Iraq,” Mr. Levin said.
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:
Confronting the Bush Legacy, Reluctantly
Widening an explosive debate on torture, President Obama on Tuesday opened the possibility of prosecution for Bush-era lawyers who authorized brutal interrogation of terror suspects and suggested Congress might order a full investigation. The three men facing the most scrutiny are former Justice Department officials Jay Bybee, Steven Bradbury and John Yoo.
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:
The Bush administration applied relentless pressure on interrogators to use harsh methods on detainees in part to find evidence of cooperation between al Qaida and the late Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein's regime, according to a former senior U.S. intelligence official and a former Army psychiatrist....
A former senior U.S. intelligence official familiar with the interrogation issue said that Cheney and former Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld demanded that the interrogators find evidence of al Qaida-Iraq collaboration.
"There were two reasons why these interrogations were so persistent, and why extreme methods were used," the former senior intelligence official said on condition of anonymity because of the issue's sensitivity.
"The main one is that everyone was worried about some kind of follow-up attack (after 9/11). But for most of 2002 and into 2003, Cheney and Rumsfeld, especially, were also demanding proof of the links between al Qaida and Iraq that (former Iraqi exile leader Ahmed) Chalabi and others had told them were there."
It was during this period that CIA interrogators waterboarded two alleged top al Qaida detainees repeatedly — Abu Zubaydah at least 83 times in August 2002 and Khalid Sheik Muhammed 183 times in March 2003 — according to a newly released Justice Department document.
"There was constant pressure on the intelligence agencies and the interrogators to do whatever it took to get that information out of the detainees, especially the few high-value ones we had, and when people kept coming up empty, they were told by Cheney's and Rumsfeld's people to push harder," he continued.
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/227/story/66622.html
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:
[INDENT]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[/INDENT]
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.
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.
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.
I think Obama may have just released a huge albatross that will hang around the neck of the nation for a long time.
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.
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.
Not sure I'm reading that correctly - It seems like a contradiction.
They knew or they would be left guessing?
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.
She is being used as a pawn in a political game. See it for what it is - PLEASE.
Who is "she?"
nvm. I see you meant Harmon.
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.
Gotcha - That's
if "they" believe us.
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.
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/obsidian_wings/2009/04/prof-james-horne-on-the-memos.html
We (Reagan) signed it, we (the US) should live by it.
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.
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.
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.
Blah blah blah.
"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
Blah blah blah.
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.
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.
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?
Redux: it has been reported that no such wave was a serious threat
cite
citation request ignored over 24 hours, position fails.
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:
FOR seven years I have remained silent about the false claims magnifying the effectiveness of the so-called enhanced interrogation techniques like waterboarding. I have spoken only in closed government hearings, as these matters were classified. But the release last week of four Justice Department memos on interrogations allows me to shed light on the story, and on some of the lessons to be learned
One of the most striking parts of the memos is the false premises on which they are based. The first, dated August 2002, grants authorization to use harsh interrogation techniques on a high-ranking terrorist, Abu Zubaydah, on the grounds that previous methods hadn’t been working. The next three memos cite the successes of those methods as a justification for their continued use.
It is inaccurate, however, to say that Abu Zubaydah had been uncooperative. Along with another F.B.I. agent, and with several C.I.A. officers present, I questioned him from March to June 2002, before the harsh techniques were introduced later in August. Under traditional interrogation methods, he provided us with important actionable intelligence.
We discovered, for example, that Khalid Shaikh Mohammed was the mastermind of the 9/11 attacks. Abu Zubaydah also told us about Jose Padilla, the so-called dirty bomber. This experience fit what I had found throughout my counterterrorism career: traditional interrogation techniques are successful in identifying operatives, uncovering plots and saving lives.
There was no actionable intelligence gained from using enhanced interrogation techniques on Abu Zubaydah that wasn’t, or couldn’t have been, gained from regular tactics. In addition, I saw that using these alternative methods on other terrorists backfired on more than a few occasions — all of which are still classified. The short sightedness behind the use of these techniques ignored the unreliability of the methods, the nature of the threat, the mentality and modus operandi of the terrorists, and due process.
Defenders of these techniques have claimed that they got Abu Zubaydah to give up information leading to the capture of Ramzi bin al-Shibh, a top aide to Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, and Mr. Padilla. This is false. The information that led to Mr. Shibh’s capture came primarily from a different terrorist operative who was interviewed using traditional methods. As for Mr. Padilla, the dates just don’t add up: the harsh techniques were approved in the memo of August 2002, Mr. Padilla had been arrested that May.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/23/opinion/23soufan.html?_r=1&ref=opinion
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.
cruel and degrading treatment is ILLEGAL.
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 and cruel and degrading treatment is ILLEGAL.
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.
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.
:rolleyes:
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...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.
What are their definitions? I gotta rethink this part.
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:
[INDENT]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[/INDENT]
I agree it is subjective.
In the US Code, it refers to Constitutional protections as well as UNCAT protections:
[INDENT]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.
[/INDENT]
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.
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
Plese tell my you didn't actually write these.
So if a person bangs their head against the wall?
What is an AID virus?
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
Plese tell my you didn't actually write these.
So if a person bangs their head against the wall?
What is an AID virus?
: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.
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.
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.
The whole world did not sign and many have not ratified it.
It sure looks like most of the world to me:
[INDENT]
[/INDENT]
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_Nations_Convention_Against_Torture
IMO, the US should act as a model of the best of the signatories, not among the worst.
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?
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!"
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/glennthrush/0409/Pelosi_I_didnt_know_about_waterboarding.html
Pelosi, "Ok, maybe I was fully informed. But it's Bush's fault!"
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/glennthrush/0409/Pelosi_briefed_on_waterboarding_in_02_.htmlDux, 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:
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.archives.gov/news/releases/2006/02/20060209-2.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:
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/politics/23detain.html?_r=2&hp
He may have been talking about these guys:
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.
Pelosi, "I know nutting!"
http://www.politico.com/blogs/glennthrush/0409/Pelosi_I_didnt_know_about_waterboarding.html
Pelosi, "Ok, maybe I was fully informed. But it's Bush's fault!"
http://www.politico.com/blogs/glennthrush/0409/Pelosi_briefed_on_waterboarding_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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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:
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/weekinreview/19shane.html?hpw"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.
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.
I know what you are getting at. And I sort of agree. I am not sure that the problem lies with what we do to the high value targets of whom we are sure of their importance and value as the vetting of all the prisoners captured. I think back to the days of WW2 where our soldiers were kept in pretty poor conditions and the Germans we captured were actually brought to working farms where they had a lot of local freedom to work, move about, and purchase goods, and in some cases even travel. But times have changed and although war and the WOT specifically has changed many of the rules of conventional combat. The enemy is non-specific and not easily identified. IMHO, all they know and respond to is a certain degree of brutality and ruthlessness, anything less is a weakness to that kind of enemy. It brings about many mixed emotions for many reasons. I don't have the answer. But I know the answer is not easily defined by ill conceived UN Conventions which everyone ignores and only provides a bully pulpit for the detractors and critics.
Their plot was derailed in early 2002 when a Southeast Asian nation arrested a key al Qaeda operative.
The plot was "derailed in early 2002...." when the Jemaah Islamiyah (J-I) guys were arrested in Malaysia.
Please note the critical difference in these two statements.
We know when a Southeast Asian nation arrested a key al Qaeda operative. We don't know who that was. We don't know when the J-I guys were arrested, but we know it's
later:
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.
And we also know that J-I remained active and powerful in October 2002 when they carried out the Bali bombings.
And we know that ringleader Hambali was arrested in August 2003 in Thailand.
Makes sense that it would take that kind of time. The torture memo I referenced lays out what leads to it:
More specifically, we understand that KSM admitted that he had tasked Majid Khan with delivering a large sum of money to an al Qaeda associate. Khan subsequently identifed the associate (Zubair), who was then captured. Zubair, in turn, provided information that led to the arrest of Hambali. The information from these captures allowed CIA interrogators to pose more specific questions to KSM, which led the CIA to Hambali's brother, al-Hadi. Using information from multiple sources, al-Hadi was captured, and he subsequently identified the Guraba cell.
Based on all this and the flawed
Timothy Noah piece in Slate, I'll guess this: the plot began to unravel in the first early 2002 arrest, but we didn't necessarily KNOW that it was unraveling, and the trail that led to the arrests of the rest of the cell in late 2003 were provided by later intelligence. KSM intel figured into subsequent understanding of the plot and associated arrests.
Commentary: Obama and D.C. dance the torture minuet
By Joseph L. Galloway | McClatchy Newspapers
There they go again, those folks in Washington, D.C. Everyone wants the power; nobody wants the responsibility.
We're back to the question of which Bush administration officials ordered Justice Department lawyers to concoct some legal way to use illegal torture methods on the prisoners we were taking in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq and elsewhere.
It appears that no one in power or recently out of power wants to know the answer to that question.
The Republicans in Congress, who resemble nothing so much as a dwindling flock of whooping cranes, have been nothing but surly since last November. Now they’re threatening to get nasty if the Democrats across the aisle insist on unearthing the truth - the who, what, when, where and why - about the torture question.
(Spare me your e-mails about how waterboarding isn't torture; even John McCain, who knows more about torture than you do, agrees that it is.)
President Barack Obama doesn't want or need this issue sucking all the oxygen out of the Congress and his ambitious agenda, and he just wishes it would go away. His position, if you can call it that, changes daily, if not hourly. He and his people look and sound like a hokey-pokey line on the issue.
The problem is that they're all thinking and acting like politicians, and there's nothing in this issue for any of them except an opportunity to do the right thing. Whoever won an election by doing the right thing? Talking about doing the right thing is another matter.
Torture, however, isn't a political problem, but a legal and moral problem, and therein lies the painful rub.
The new president and his administration released a few of the Top Secret memos that show how and why the lawyers in the Bush Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) went to work turning criminal acts into just another day at the office for CIA and military interrogation officials.
Then, however, the president hurried out to McLean, Va. to assure CIA employees that none of them will ever face prosecution for just following orders and using methods that they thought were legal - even though one of his first acts as chief executive was to halt the use of torture and order the closing of Guantanamo prison.
Next, the Senate Armed Services Committee, chaired by Sen. Carl Levin of Michigan, released a long-delayed timeline of how the torture issue wended its way from the highest offices in the land to the OLC and across the Potomac to the Pentagon and CIA headquarters and down to cells in Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib and rent-a-dungeons hidden away around the world.
In the process, we learned that one high-ranking al Qaida prisoner was subjected to waterboarding, a barbaric tool in the torturer's kit that involves suffocation and near-drowning, not one time for 20 seconds, as reported earlier, but 83 times. Khalid Sheikh Mohamed got the same treatment 183 times, or an average of six times a day.
The new director of national intelligence, Navy Adm. Dennis Blair, said that some useful information was squeezed out of the torture chambers, but he isn't certain that this information couldn't have been gained without resorting to techniques borrowed from the Spanish Inquisition.
Former Bush administration luminaries, beginning with former Vice President Darth Cheney and proceeding down the chain, hasten to declare that torturing those people made America safe, or safer than it was on 9/11, when they were all ignoring a CIA warning that Osama bin Laden was "determined to strike in U.S.."
Even if you believe that the end justifies the means and ignore the numerous factual flaws in this ex post facto defense, it doesn't address the question of how many of the 4,954 American troops who’ve been killed to date in Afghanistan and Iraq were killed by Islamic jihadists who were recruited in part by the revelations that we were torturing helpless Muslims. How much safer did those orders to torture make our young men and women?
The plain fact is that waterboarding is illegal under U.S. law. It's illegal under international laws and treaties that we helped negotiate, we approved and we adhered to until President Bush and his men and women decided that we wouldn't.
Sen. Patrick Leahy of Vermont has revived his proposal for a bipartisan Truth Commission to investigate the well-known and less well-known authors of this legal and moral outrage. If the Republicans continue to refuse to participate, as they have so far, he says, then he's prepared to launch a congressional investigation.
What's truly disheartening is to watch all the ducking, bobbing and weaving in the nation's capital - like so many powder-haired dandies prancing a minuet.
Yes, it's an ugly chapter in the life of a nation that prides itself on its freedoms and its rule of law. But it's more than that: It's a splendid opportunity for a bunch of politicians from both parties to find their spines, or borrow some, and get to work cleaning out the dark corners in the White House and emptying the closets of skeletons.
http://www.michaelyon-online.com/Please note the critical difference in these two statements.
We know when a Southeast Asian nation arrested a key al Qaeda operative. We don't know who that was. We don't know when the J-I guys were arrested, but we know it's later:
And we also know that J-I remained active and powerful in October 2002 when they carried out the Bali bombings.
And we know that ringleader Hambali was arrested in August 2003 in Thailand.
Makes sense that it would take that kind of time. The torture memo I referenced lays out what leads to it:
Based on all this and the flawed Timothy Noah piece in Slate, I'll guess this: the plot began to unravel in the first early 2002 arrest, but we didn't necessarily KNOW that it was unraveling, and the trail that led to the arrests of the rest of the cell in late 2003 were provided by later intelligence. KSM intel figured into subsequent understanding of the plot and associated arrests.
UT....here is another perspective:
The description of the plot was based on claims made by Mohammed, who has said he was the mastermind of the Sept. 11 attacks, during interrogations after his capture in Pakistan in March 2003. But those familiar with Mohammed’s comments and the alleged plot have suggested that, at most, it was a plan that was stopped in its initial stages and was not an operational plot that had been disrupted by authorities.
In March 2004, the Los Angeles Police Department confirmed that it had been briefed on Mohammed’s statements. “We were made aware of that information last spring,” John Miller, then the LAPD’s top anti-terrorism official, said at the time.
On Friday, Miller – now the chief spokesman for the FBI – said only that the LAPD had discussed the matter in depth with the Joint Terrorism Task Force and concluded that whatever plot that had existed in its initial stages already had been dismantled with the arrest of Al Qaeda operatives in Indonesia and elsewhere.
Federal counter-terrorism officials on Friday disclosed for the first time that during his interrogations, Mohammed said he hadn’t completely abandoned the prospect of a second wave of attacks, but had turned the idea over to a trusted aide named Hambali, the chief of operations for an Al Qaeda affiliate group in South Asia, Jemaah Islamiyah.
Hambali, also known as Riduan Isamuddin, in turn is believed to have chosen several men to launch the attacks, including a pilot, and had set aside some money to pay for them, according to one senior counter-terrorism official.
Those men were soon captured, however, and the plot never progressed past the planning stages, according to several counter-terrorism officials.
“To take that and make it into a disrupted plot is just ludicrous,” said one senior FBI official, who spoke on condition of anonymity in accordance with departmental guidelines.
http://articles.latimes.com/p/2005/oct/08/nation/na-terror8
I guess it is a matter of interpretation and who one chooses to believe.
The enemy is non-specific and not easily identified. IMHO, all they know and respond to is a certain degree of brutality and ruthlessness, anything less is a weakness to that kind of enemy.
Violence and torture are all their kind understand?
Violence and torture are all their kind understand?
Violence yes. Anyone will respond to torture, it may not be kind of response you expect, but anyone will respond.
I guess it is a matter of interpretation and who one chooses to believe.
Yah, and what parts one decides to put in bold.
...and the plot never progressed past the planning stages, according to several counter-terrorism officials
Okay, so what do we know. We know they had money. They had a cell. They had a leader. They had a target. They had a plan. Their operation was decided upon and timed by al Q's #2.
Never progressed past the planning stages? Can I ask you just one question:
What the fuck?
Because the thing after the planning stage is, you do what you planned. So they didn't have boarding passes yet? That's what the LA Times and you find most important?
...the LAPD had discussed the matter in depth with the Joint Terrorism Task Force and concluded that whatever plot that had existed in its initial stages already had been dismantled with the arrest of Al Qaeda operatives in Indonesia and elsewhere.
Yes...that is what I choose to believe.
I also choose to believe the Bush administration frequently exaggerated the terrorist threat level for political purposes including to justify torture.
And the current administration would never do anything like that :headshake
I also choose to believe the Bush administration frequently exaggerated the terrorist threat level for political purposes including to justify torture.
But that's something you don't actually know about until more information is released, so choosing to believe that is irrational partisanship.
I also choose to believe the Bush administration frequently exaggerated the terrorist threat level for political purposes including to justify torture.
But that's something you don't actually know about until more information is released, so choosing to believe that is irrational partisanship.
We know from the memos that the CIA Inspector General found there was no conclusive proof that harsh interrogation techniques (torture) helped prevent any "specific imminent attacks"...despite numerous assertions by Bush/Cheney/Rice that torture led directly to preventing such attacks. (political?)
The CIA inspector general in 2004 found that there was no conclusive proof that waterboarding or other harsh interrogation techniques helped the Bush administration thwart any "specific imminent attacks," according to recently declassified Justice Department memos.
That undercuts assertions by former vice president Dick Cheney and other former Bush administration officials that the use of harsh interrogation tactics including waterboarding, which is widely considered torture, was justified because it headed off terrorist attacks.
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/227/story/66895.html
We also know that the CIA director later ordered an investigation of the CIA IG - a highly unusual and unprecedented action. (political?)
The director of the Central Intelligence Agency, Gen. Michael V. Hayden, has ordered an unusual internal inquiry into the work of the agency’s inspector general, whose aggressive investigations of the C.I.A.’s detention and interrogation programs and other matters have created resentment among agency operatives....
...Any move by the agency’s director to examine the work of the inspector general would be unusual, if not unprecedented, and would threaten to undermine the independence of the office, some current and former officials say.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/11/washington/12intel.html?_r=1
We know from the bipartisan Senate Armed Services Report that Cheney/Rumsfeld pressured interrogators to use torture to find a (non-existent) connection between al Qaida and Saddam Hussein. (political?)
The Bush administration applied relentless pressure on interrogators to use harsh methods on detainees in part to find evidence of cooperation between al Qaida and the late Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein's regime, according to a former senior U.S. intelligence official and a former Army psychiatrist.
Such information would've provided a foundation for one of former President George W. Bush's main arguments for invading Iraq in 2003. In fact, no evidence has ever been found of operational ties between Osama bin Laden's terrorist network and Saddam's regime.
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/227/story/66622.html
We know that Bush's DoJ Office of Professional Responsibility has issued a report (to be made public in the next few weeks) that reportedly says the DoJ attorneys who wrote the torture memos may have deliberately slanted their legal advice to provide the White House with the conclusions it wanted. (political?)
A Torture Report Could Spell Big Trouble For Bush Lawyers
IMO, yes...without knowing all the facts, all of the above stink of politicization to justify the use torture.
Which is why we need some type of hearings to get to the truth and to prevent such practices in the future.
And the current administration would never do anything like that :headshake
If you can point to any action by the current administration that has been perceived or publicly acknowledged as illegal or potentially so by many officials within the agencies responsible for those actions....let's discuss it and if there is compelling evidence to support it, I will probably condemn it.
We know from the memos that the CIA Inspector General found there was no conclusive proof that harsh interrogation techniques (torture) helped prevent any "specific imminent attacks"...despite numerous assertions by Bush/Cheney/Rice that torture led directly to preventing such attacks.
We also know that the CIA director later ordered an investigation of the CIA IG - a highly unusual and unprecedented action.
And the White House was involved in ordering the investigation? That's such a long reach, even the Times doesn't draw that conclusion.
We know from the bipartisan Senate Armed Services Report that Cheney/Rumsfeld pressured interrogators to use torture to find a (non-existent) connection between al Qaida and Saddam Hussein
In a search of all 266 pages of the bipartisan Senate Armed Services Report
PDF part 1 PDF part 2, the word "Iraq" does not appear.
The evidence in that McClatchy story comes from a single anonymous individual. And the story buries the note that
Others in the interrogation operation "agreed there was pressure to produce intelligence, but did not recall pressure to identify links between Iraq and al Qaida," the report said.
That's the newspaper game for you: the scary bit goes in the lede, the lack of evidence for the scary bit goes after the jump.
We know that Bush's DoJ Office of Professional Responsibility has issued a report (to be made public in the next few weeks) that reportedly says the DoJ attorneys who wrote the torture memos may have deliberately slanted their legal advice to provide the White House with the conclusions it wanted.
If the Bush DoJ writes opinions with its left hand, and investigates itself for those opinions with the right hand, then if the left hand is politicization, the right hand is utter lack of it.
Now, to think in a straight line, your original conclusion is
the Bush administration frequently exaggerated the terrorist threat level for political purposes. The examples you've provided do not address that conclusion, not even circumstantially, so you're back to square one.
UT....this is not a case where I have concluded that the facts are irrefutable. My opinion is based on what I consider to be reasonable conclusions from the information available.
You obviously disagree...again a matter of opinion.
I don't disagree. I don't think I've stated a position. I just find that partisanship is a terrible way to determine truth, guaranteed to fail regularly, and that's important.
Also, you used the word believe, and that set me off. Why choose to believe when the facts are not present? Why not just wait for better information, or admit you can't know?
As a skeptic, I believe that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. I find many partisan people making extraordinary claims *constantly*, with little to no actual evidence in sight. I think that's a big mistake.
Eventually they wind up in such a tight circle that it's embarrassing, as in the case of UG, whose logic is so minimal at this point that he'll have this conversation:
UG: "This Democratic Party idea is dumb."
Others: "Why, what makes it dumb?"
UG: "Because it's from the Democrats."
The radio biz takes advantage of this kind of thinking:
Excited teen: "KQOR plays the very best music!"
Program Director: "Why do you think that's the best music?"
Excited teen: "Because it's on KQOR, duh!!!"
I don't disagree. I don't think I've stated a position. I just find that partisanship is a terrible way to determine truth, guaranteed to fail regularly, and that's important.
Also, you used the word believe, and that set me off. Why choose to believe when the facts are not present? Why not just wait for better information, or admit you can't know?
As a skeptic, I believe that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. I find many partisan people making extraordinary claims *constantly*, with little to no actual evidence in sight. I think that's a big mistake."
UT....that is a fair critique.
Can I invoke the classicman ACORN "guilt by association" defense?
"Where there is smoke, there is fire"....and I see a hell of alot of smoke in the justification of the torture memos.
I think it is important for the facts to come out in some forum. And I have said repeatedly that I dont think anyone should be prosecuted.
My interest is in ensuring that such questionable practices be subject to greater oversight in the future.
Heh, yeah as long as you do a fair post-mortem of where you went wrong if it turns out you went wrong.
And the current administration would never do anything like that :headshake
That from one who advocated torture, knew that Saddam had WMDs, believed the myths about Al Qaeda in Iraq, and will not even ask a question that any decent American would ask - when do we go after bin Laden.
The fact that classicman repeatedly and only criticizes Obama says so much about how much good Obama has accomplished in only 90 days. He even closed America's overseas torture chambers that classicman said did not exist. Who should we believe?
Extremists are still parroting what Limbaugh et al tells them to. So classicman posts another cheap shot. Extremists: people who will routinely lie to promote a poltical agenda.
A smarter classicman would stop posting where he has nothing useful to offer - as if that was somehow supposed to be humorous.
Based upon that logic you would have stopped posting years ago.
snip~
If the Bush DoJ writes opinions with its left hand, and investigates itself for those opinions with the right hand, then if the left hand is politicization, the right hand is utter lack of it.
~snip
Wouldn't that depend on the right hands marching orders? Violating Occam's Razor, I can think of a lot of nefarious reasons for having the right hand do investigations, and would not put much stock in them without more detail as to exactly what they did/didn't do.
I agree. We need more and better information, which is why Obama's push for more transparency in the future is a good thing.
But you remind me that Dux's post contains
two internal investigations, CIA and DoJ.
The first is interpreted as political: you did what the WH
didn't want you to do, so we're investigating you.
The second is interpreted as the result of politics: you did what the WH
wanted you to do, so we're investigating you.
In both cases, there is not enough information to know, yet it's the narrative pushed by the reporters that is generally accepted.
I agree. We need more and better information, which is why Obama's push for more transparency in the future is a good thing.
....
In both cases, there is not enough information to know, yet it's the narrative pushed by the reporters that is generally accepted.
For 5+ years, the narrative pushed by the Bush administration, from political appointees at DoJ, CIA, DoD to the the very top officials in the WH, was
"we do not torture" and
"harsh interrogation techniques have been directly responsible for preventing attacks on America."
Internal reports from the DoJ OPR and the DoD and CIA IGs, in carrying out their responsibilities to investigate their respective agency policies and practices without regard to political considerations, would appear to suggest otherwise .
Which is why we need full disclosure (w/o harming national security interests) in order to ensure that current oversight and transparency is adequate to prevent illegal acts or acts that are in violation of administrative policies and procedures...or to determine if greater oversight and transparency is needed.
For 5+ years, the narrative pushed by the Bush administration, from political appointees at DoJ, CIA, DoD to the the very top officials in the WH, was "we do not torture" and "harsh interrogation techniques have been directly responsible for preventing attacks on America."
Internal reports from the DoJ OPR and the DoD and CIA IGs, in carrying out their responsibilities to investigate their respective agency policies and practices without regard to political considerations, would appear to suggest otherwise.
Negative. That is not at all what has been said. They didn't believe it was torture. Period. You don't have to agree with it. You can draw all the analogies and historical references you want, and I won't always disagree with you, but they didn't think it was wrong or they wouldn't have done it. And if they did think it was borderline then why did they do it if it had not produced the intel that it did. Certainly this is still open to debate, but there is ample evidence that it did produce actionable intel. That is significant in this circle jerk of arm chair quarterbacks like yourself trying to say it produced nothing. Who you choose to believe is up to you. You speak as if you know the facts when you know nothing more than anyone else that can read the reports and news. Hop on the train.
IF waterboarding produced a positive outcome then this administration could be pressured to use it in the future if a key operative were captured. If they did not and something terrible happened, they would be blamed. Right or wrong, for political reasons (among others) this administration does NOT want a credible link.
Negative. That is not at all what has been said. They didn't believe it was torture. Period. You don't have to agree with it. You can draw all the analogies and historical references you want, and I won't always disagree with you, but they didn't think it was wrong or they wouldn't have done it. And if they did think it was borderline then why did they do it if it had not produced the intel that it did. Certainly this is still open to debate, but there is ample evidence that it did produce actionable intel. That is significant in this circle jerk of arm chair quarterbacks like yourself trying to say it produced nothing. Who you choose to believe is up to you. You speak as if you know the facts when you know nothing more than anyone else that can read the reports and news. Hop on the train.
We can debate who is doing the circle jerk.
The fact remains that CIA,DoJ and DoD IGs all reported to their respective cabinet level directors/secretaries that the proposed "harsh interrogation techniues were potentially (probably) illegal...and those superior chose to ignore those reports (and in one case, CIA, investigate the IG)....and those report were either not shared with the WH or were shared and the WH chose to ignore them as well.
And the fact remains that Bush/Cheney/Rice et al made repeated public pronouncements (and continue to make such pronouncements) that those harsh interrogation techniques directly resulted in protecting the country from attack..and there is no credible evidence to support that.
there is no credible evidence to support that.
No credible evidence? OK then the administration should release all the documents regarding this issue. To release only those that potentially support "their side" is less than honest. There have been numerous reports that the documents exist.
side note - How bout her majesty Nancy P claiming to know nothing of this and being quite critical till the truth again came out.
She knew all about it from day one - forkin hypocrite.
No credible evidence? OK then the administration should release all the documents regarding this issue. To release only those that potentially support "their side" is less than honest. There have been numerous reports that the documents exist.
side note - How bout her majesty Nancy P claiming to know nothing of this and being quite critical till the truth again came out.
She knew all about it from day one - forkin hypocrite.
The next report likely to be released is the DoJ Office of Professional Responsibility investigation conducted last year (and held up by the last Bush AG) that reportedly found that the DoJ attorneys who wrote the torture memos may have deliberately slanted their legal advice to provide the White House with the conclusions it wanted....but we wont know til we see it.
Beyond that I agree that all relevant documents should be released...but in a structured forum like an independent commission rather than just dumping the reports in the media.
And there is plenty of hypocrisy to go around....from the WH to the leaders of both parties in Congress.
Negative. That is not at all what has been said. They didn't believe it was torture. Period. You don't have to agree with it. You can draw all the analogies and historical references you want, and I won't always disagree with you, but they didn't think it was wrong or they wouldn't have done it. And if they did think it was borderline then why did they do it if it had not produced the intel that it did. Certainly this is still open to debate, but there is ample evidence that it did produce actionable intel. That is significant in this circle jerk of arm chair quarterbacks like yourself trying to say it produced nothing. Who you choose to believe is up to you. You speak as if you know the facts when you know nothing more than anyone else that can read the reports and news. Hop on the train.
Of course they knew it was torture. They were warned by more than one source that it was. They just had to try and justify it because that's what Cheney wanted. I think it is all his doing.
IF waterboarding produced a positive outcome then this administration could be pressured to use it in the future if a key operative were captured. If they did not and something terrible happened, they would be blamed. Right or wrong, for political reasons (among others) this administration does NOT want a credible link.
No, they wouldn't, because they know they can get more reliable information by other methods. Torture is proven to be unreliable. By the gods! I can't believe some of you actually believe torture is OK. :headshake
(probably)
Operative word. Open to what you want to believe about the good work that most of these people did.
They didn't believe it was torture.
Clinton didnt believe he had sex with that woman.
Nixon didnt believe he was a crook
But Bush/Cheney are pure of heart and honest in their public pronouncements.
Clinton didnt believe he had sex with that woman.
Nixon didnt believe he was a crook
But Bush/Cheney are pure of heart and honest in their public pronouncements.
No shit.
By the gods! I can't believe some of you actually believe torture is OK. :headshake
To believe it, they must lie to themselves. Torture has never proven reliable. But facts get in the way of political agendas be it global warming, economic stimulus, Enron, Saddam's WMDs, and even torture. To be an extremist means one must lie. "Reagan proved that deficits don't matter". Lie after lie.
Never expect an extremist to admit that the FBI gave up interrogating as soon as torture started. Once tortured, any useful information from a prisoner is lost. Anyone who learned before knowing from 24 would know that. FBI knew it. Once torture started, the FBI left. Torture that wacko extremists first claimed did not exist. How can they be honest when lying is necessary to be an extremist?
...reportedly found that the DoJ attorneys who wrote the torture memos may have deliberately slanted their legal advice to provide the White House with the conclusions it wanted...
We await this finding. If they just wrote opinions, how could one know whether it was deliberate? It seems to me that proof would require:
A) Word had to be passed from the WH on what conclusions they wanted. "We need you to create an opinion that permits the harshest levels of interrogation possible, although that may be unlawful. We will make sure you aren't held accountable."
or
B) Evidence that the DoJ attorneys had a different opinion before being asked. "Attorney X published an opinion ten years ago that stated unequivocally that waterboarding is torture."
We await this finding. If they just wrote opinions, how could one know whether it was deliberate? It seems to me that proof would require:
A) Word had to be passed from the WH on what conclusions they wanted. "We need you to create an opinion that permits the harshest levels of interrogation possible, although that may be unlawful. We will make sure you aren't held accountable."
or
B) Evidence that the DoJ attorneys had a different opinion before being asked. "Attorney X published an opinion ten years ago that stated unequivocally that waterboarding is torture."
Well, since we have prosecuted people in the past for waterboarding, that makes a pretty damn good argument that we think it's illegal. Otherwise, why would we have prosecuted them? OH RIGHT! Because it was OUR MEN who were being tortured. :rolleyes: The double standard that people in this country have is sickening.
King Abdullah of Jordan said yesterday that they had actually been able to turn some members of al Qaeda and got them to work FOR them. They damn sure didn't get them to do that by torturing them.
they know they can get more reliable information by other methods.
Who is "they" and how do they "KNOW"?
Well, since we have prosecuted people in the past for waterboarding,
Please cite a few cases of who "we" have prosecuted.
Who is "they" and how do they "KNOW"?
I said: King Abdullah of Jordan said yesterday that they had actually been able to turn some members of al Qaeda and got them to work FOR them. They damn sure didn't get them to do that by torturing them.
They = Jordanians King Abdullah of Jordan said yesterday that they (Jordan) had actually been able to turn some members of al Qaeda and got them (al qaeda prisoners) to work FOR them (Jordan). They (Jordan) damn sure didn't get them (al qaeda prisoners) to do that by torturing them (al qaeda prisoners).
I guess they
know because maybe the people they were able turn supplied them with information that was good? I don't know, he wasn't specific. Go watch Meet the Press from yesterday and see for yourself.
Is my language that hard to understand, or are you just giving me a hard time?
Please cite a few cases of who "we" have prosecuted.
Please don't tell me you didn't already know this...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/02/AR2007110201170.html
The United States knows quite a bit about waterboarding. The U.S. government -- whether acting alone before domestic courts, commissions and courts-martial or as part of the world community -- has not only condemned the use of water torture but has severely punished those who applied it.
After World War II, we convicted several Japanese soldiers for waterboarding American and Allied prisoners of war. At the trial of his captors, then-Lt. Chase J. Nielsen, one of the 1942 Army Air Forces officers who flew in the Doolittle Raid and was captured by the Japanese, testified: "I was given several types of torture. . . . I was given what they call the water cure." He was asked what he felt when the Japanese soldiers poured the water. "Well, I felt more or less like I was drowning," he replied, "just gasping between life and death."
Nielsen's experience was not unique. Nor was the prosecution of his captors. After Japan surrendered, the United States organized and participated in the International Military Tribunal for the Far East, generally called the Tokyo War Crimes Trials. Leading members of Japan's military and government elite were charged, among their many other crimes, with torturing Allied military personnel and civilians. The principal proof upon which their torture convictions were based was conduct that we would now call waterboarding.
Here's another one...
http://pubrecord.org/torture/854.html?task=view
George W. Bush’s Justice Department said subjecting a person to the near-drowning of waterboarding was not a crime and didn’t even cause pain,
but Ronald Reagan’s Justice Department thought otherwise, prosecuting a Texas sheriff and three deputies for using the practice to get confessions.
Federal prosecutors secured a 10-year sentence against the sheriff and four years in prison for the deputies. But that 1983 case – which would seem to be directly on point for a legal analysis on waterboarding two decades later – was never mentioned in the four Bush administration opinions released last week...
http://washingtonindependent.com/13453/waterboarding
...
the U.S. itself prosecuted waterboarding of American soldiers after World War II; waterboarding by American soldiers in the Philippines, and “water torture,” as it’s also been called — most recently by a local sheriff in Texas...
...Evan Wallach, a judge on the U.S. Court of International Trade and expert on the laws of war, wrote: “Not so very long ago,
the United States, acting alone before domestic courts, commissions and courts-martial, and as a participant in the world community,
not only condemned the use of water torture, but severely punished as criminals those who applied it.”...We once condemned same sex partnerships too. Things change. ;)
Leading members of Japan's military and government elite were charged, among their many other crimes, with torturing Allied military personnel and civilians. The principal proof upon which their torture convictions were based was conduct that we would now call waterboarding.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waterboarding#World_War_II
In this [Japanese] version [of waterboarding], interrogation continued during the torture, with the interrogators beating the victim if he did not reply and the victim swallowing water if he opened his mouth to answer or breathe. When the victim could ingest no more water, the interrogators would beat or jump on his distended stomach.
Please don't tell me you didn't already know this.
Isn't she so
cute! being all smug and pretending to know stuff!
:dunce:
Of course they knew it was torture. They were warned by more than one source that it was. They just had to try and justify it because that's what Cheney wanted. I think it is all his doing.
12:33am responding to Merc
Originally Posted by classicman
IF waterboarding produced a positive outcome then this administration could be pressured to use it in the future if a key operative were captured. If they did not and something terrible happened, they would be blamed. Right or wrong, for political reasons (among others) this administration does NOT want a credible link.
12:35am responding to the above.
No, they wouldn't, because they know they can get more reliable information by other methods. Torture is proven to be unreliable. By the gods! I can't believe some of you actually believe torture is OK. :headshake
This was not posted till 2:09PM this afternoon.
King Abdullah of Jordan said yesterday that they had actually been able to turn some members of al Qaeda and got them to work FOR them. They damn sure didn't get them to do that by torturing them.
Is my language that hard to understand, or are you just giving me a hard time?
Yes, no. (Is my answer hard to follow :p)
I'm just trying to follow you. You are all over the place again and your timeline doesn't add up. It would appear that you were referring to the posts you quoted and now you are saying otherwise... hence the confusion.
I think I got ya now, moving along.
Yes, no. (Is my answer hard to follow :p)
Hell yes! :p
I'm just trying to follow you. You are all over the place again and your timeline doesn't add up. It would appear that you were referring to the posts you quoted and now you are saying otherwise... hence the confusion.
I think I got ya now, moving along.
Sorry for the confusion. I don't see how my timeline doesn't add up though. Oh well. *sigh*
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waterboarding#World_War_II
Isn't she so cute! being all smug and pretending to know stuff!
:dunce:
Why are you being such an ass? I am entitled to my opinion, which by the way, is the same as millions of other Americans. I have learned about this stuff over the past 8 years. I am not an expert, and I don't believe I have ever suggested otherwise.
We once condemned same sex partnerships too. Things change. ;)
yes, but we usually change for the better, not the other way around. How can we hold ourselves up as the moral beacons we claim to be if we engage in torture?
I said: King Abdullah of Jordan said yesterday that they had actually been able to turn some members of al Qaeda and got them to work FOR them. They damn sure didn't get them to do that by torturing them.
You have absolutely no evidence to support that claim. Absolutely nothing.
If you support torture, you're scum.
It really is that simple.
You have absolutely no evidence to support that claim. Absolutely nothing.
But that is always sufficient proof to extremists. It proved global warming does not exist. It proved that "Reagan proved that deficits don't matter". It proved that stem cell research only kills people. It proved we did not have secret prisons. It proved we were not torturing. Then it proved we were torturing because only torture could extract intelligence. It also proved that Saddam and bin Laden conspired to create 11 September. It even proved that Saddam had WMDs. Why do you always forget that last sentence?
Which standard are we using? One routinely found in Rush Limbaugh, Pat Robertson, and Fox News reality? One that also justifies lying? Or one that is exists in science, logic, and history?
Why the double standard? Oh. One standard for proof routinely used lies - ie a court case in Dover PA or Terry Schiavo incident.
Reality, the only way to 'turn' someone means no torture. But then six years of torturing John McCain proves that torture works? They even tortured one 'terrorist' 183 times in one month and still could not get the *truth*? Reality: only when 24 (a TV show) becomes proof that torture works. And yes, the tone is fully appropriate because I am using the attitude used by those who advocate torture.
Those who first need facts before knowing have repeatedly defined torture as useless - including the FBI. Those with a long history of knowing only because that is the extremist political agenda are also advocating torture. Coincidence? So we should believe their denials? In the real world, one believes how Jordan and Indonesia turned terrorist - not how wacko extremist Americans say it must have happened.
That is the nature of extremism. First one knows. Later one learns why they should know. How curious. Exact same logic was used to keep torturing someone 183 times in one month until he said what he *knows*.
Maybe Jordan did not really turn those extremists. Does not matter. We know only extremists advocate torture. An only because they are told to believe it using emotion and even a TV show.
Let’s see. Hundreds of facts all show how torture does nothing productive. And yet the same extremists deny it without any proof and with what extremists also routinely do - lie. Simple benchmark. Some are more centrists. Others only believe what they are told to believe. Which ones did Hitler need to come to power? Not an insult. A damning question - also called a lesson from history.
Which ones did Hitler need to come to power? Not an insult. A damning question - also called a lesson from history.
Which ones did he already have? The conservatives, liberals or socialists?
We once condemned same sex partnerships too. Things change. ;)
I can't fucking believe you just drew that comparison.
:neutral:
Which ones did he already have? The conservatives, liberals or socialists?
The conservatives. They make the best nationalists, and he was busy scrapping with the communists at the time.
Sug, post your opinion, but if you post it with that smarmy "Please don't tell me you didn't already know this", make sure you get it exactly right, or we have the right and the responsibility to pwn your ass.
I doubt la Pop will learn that until she's had her lily-pale ass pwnd a couple times. Her thinking is yet unsophisticated -- and very clone-y. Won't be pleasant, but it may mature her, and her understanding.
Meanwhile, exerpted:
Yet none of these interrogations were the result of a “rogue” CIA or the mad whims of a “torture presidency.” The relevant Democratic congressional leadership for intelligence — including current House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Sen. Jay Rockefeller, and former Sen. Bob Graham — were briefed on CIA operations more than once. “Among those being briefed, there was a pretty full understanding of what the CIA was doing,” Porter Goss, who chaired the House Intelligence Committee from 1997 to 2004 before becoming CIA director, told the Washington Post. “And the reaction in the room was not just approval, but encouragement.”
As for the slippery-slope caterwauling, the opposite is true. The slope toward more torture and abuse has gone up, not down, and it is today more difficult to climb than ever. According to existing law and Justice Department rulings, the practice has been proscribed for several years now — except, that is, for the thousands of U.S. servicemen who’ve been subjected to it by the U.S. military as part of their training. [Emph. mine]
The current debate over legislation to ban waterboarding in all circumstances stinks of political opportunism. Democrats want to claim that Republicans are “pro-torture” if they vote against the legislation. Others are hoping to advance criminal prosecutions of CIA operatives who used the techniques sparingly and with approval from both the White House and Congress, and from both parties.
From
here.But that is always sufficient proof to extremists. It proved global warming does not exist.
Hey, tw, has or has not the Arctic ice cap largely expanded (like by about a fifth), not shrunk, in the past two years? That some are saying that somehow this is evidence that global warming marches on tells me the global climate models still have systemic limitations. I'm not putting much faith in these doomsday extrapolations, because I have experience with them. And those various doomsdays were supposed to be ten years ago. Or so.
It proved that "Reagan proved that deficits don't matter".
To whom? Certainly not to me, and tw thinks I'm the kind of wacko extremist who'd accept it. I can't name anyone of my acquaintance who did.
It also proved that Saddam and bin Laden conspired to create 11 September. It even proved that Saddam had WMDs.
Tw believes somebody else, somewhere in America, must believe that Saddam had something to do with 9/11. It's a stupid belief the Left has. He is secure in this belief because he's never tested it. Again, I can't name a single American who does think Saddam did it, which would seem to rather test the idea. What a silly idea tw has. And he can't let go of the silly. Well is the Left served.
WMD's? Yeah, it transpires that the assessment that Iraq had a viable WMD capability was an intelligence mistake -- one shared globally among every single intelligence service that concerned itself with Iraqi military strengths. It simply tells us that Iraq had everyone fooled. I think it was mainly for CYA in midlevel Iraqi officialdom. If your dictator tells you to create WMD, you don't tell him you're failing, or you really can't, unless you like getting executed in imaginative ways. So you get really determined about your CYA just to keep breathing. It also transpired that while Saddam didn't have viable WMD up and running, it was not for want of trying, nor for want of burying key apparatus where they hoped arms inspectors wouldn't look, like scientists' backyards. If ever Ba'ath Iraq got the chance, they'd hare right on after their own WMD.
So now, there's no Ba'athist Party left in Iraq.
From the NRO link above
Keeping waterboarding as an interrogation technique is not the slippery slope some say it is.
One was Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, “the principle architect of the 9/11 attacks” according to the 9/11 Report, and the head of al-Qaeda’s “military committee.” Linked to numerous terror plots, he is believed to have financed the first World Trade Center bombing, helped set up the courier system that resulted in the infamous Bali bombing, and cut off Danny Pearl’s head.
A second was Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, the head of al-Qaeda operations in the Persian Gulf. He allegedly played a role in the 2000 millennium terror plots and was the mastermind behind the USS Cole attack that killed 17 Americans.
The third was Abu Zubaydah, said to be al-Qaeda’s chief logistics operative and Osama bin Laden’s top man after Ayman al Zawahri. It is believed that Zubaydah essentially ran al-Qaeda’s terror camps and recruitment operations. After he was waterboarded, Zubaydah reportedly offered intelligence officers a treasure trove of critical information. He was waterboarded just six months after the 9/11 attacks and while the anthrax scare was still ongoing.
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.
There you have it. Now it comes down to what you want to believe.
The NRO item is old and sometimes wrong based on what's come out since; for example, Mr Goldberg says the detainees were WB'd for a total of less than five minutes, which doesn't concur at all with the numbers listed in the torture memos.
I saw that too. I wasn't sure whether this was correct or the memo's, so I let it be.
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/content/article/2007/12/10/AR2007121002091_3.html?sid=ST2007121100844
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?
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.
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."
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:
[INDENT]“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.”
[/INDENT]
Or we do as Bush did (unilaterally circumvent US treaty obligations and block investigations).
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.
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.
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:[INDENT]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." [/INDENT]
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2007/06/scalia_and_tort.html
Relevant background for constitutional jurisprudence......WTF?
WOW! took you two posts to not answer - lol.
WOW! took you two posts to not answer - lol.
WOW....how obtuse can you be not to understand what I posted?
Try answering it with a yes or no. Why is that so hard for you to do?
There now you have two questions.
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.
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.
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?
YES....it is a bullshit question.
NO...i'm not gonna play your game.
no game - just a discussion of a real life situation that HAD to be dealt with. You chose not to decide that is your choice. Be very very thankful you had that option.
no game - just a discussion of a real life situation that HAD to be dealt with. You chose not to decide that is your choice. Be very very thankful you had that option.
What real life situation have we faced, or even remotely possible that we may face, where the only response is that black or white.....NONE, dude.
But I am very very thankful that our current president is not making policy decisions based on TV worst case, only one solution, scenarios.....now if we could only get Scalia to retire....I will feel safer for the country's future.
Sug, post your opinion, but if you post it with that smarmy "Please don't tell me you didn't already know this", make sure you get it exactly right, or we have the right and the responsibility to pwn your ass.
UT, I said that because classicman is a very informed individual, and I found it hard to believe that I would know something that he didn't. I didn't mean it in a condescending way. I meant it in a "I can't believe you don't know this" stunned kind of way. It's hard to imagine how people mean something when they're typing on the internet, because you can't see the expression on their face or hear the inflection in their voice.
And ftr, I DID get it exactly right. We absolutely HAVE prosecuted people in the past for waterboarding.
What real life situation have we faced, or even remotely possible that we may face, where the only response is that black or white.....NONE, dude.
So you would let the thousands die - got it.
classicman is a very informed individual
Well ow there is a first - I've been called A LOT of things...
WHAT???????? Are you high again?
Right, Sug, we have prosecuted people for the Japanese style of waterboarding.
Right, Sug, we have prosecuted people for the Japanese style of waterboarding.
I think she was also taking about the Reagan DoJ that prosecuted a Texas sheriff and deputies for waterboarding.
I doubt la Pop will learn that until she's had her lily-pale ass pwnd a couple times. Her thinking is yet unsophisticated -- and very clone-y. Won't be pleasant, but it may mature her, and her understanding.
Meanwhile, exerpted:
...As for the slippery-slope caterwauling, the opposite is true. The slope toward more torture and abuse has gone up, not down, and it is today more difficult to climb than ever. According to existing law and Justice Department rulings, the practice has been proscribed for several years now — except, that is, for the thousands of U.S. servicemen who’ve been subjected to it by the U.S. military as part of their training. [Emph. mine]...
From here.
The difference between our servicemen being subjected to it, and a prisoner, is the servicemen KNOW they will be OK, that nothing will happen to them. The prisoners, not so much. There is a HUGE difference in the psychology of those two things.
Hey, tw, has or has not the Arctic ice cap largely expanded (like by about a fifth), not shrunk, in the past two years? That some are saying that somehow this is evidence that global warming marches on tells me the global climate models still have systemic limitations. I'm not putting much faith in these doomsday extrapolations, because I have experience with them. And those various doomsdays were supposed to be ten years ago. Or so.
According to the members of the Tara Expedition, the ice is now only 3 feet deep, and the water underneath the ice, and the air, has warmed more than they thought it would have. It took them less than a year to travel across what took 2 years to travel 100 years ago. (or something like that. I'm going from memory.) You can go watch the program yourself...
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29840099/
Tw believes somebody else, somewhere in America, must believe that Saddam had something to do with 9/11. It's a stupid belief the Left has. He is secure in this belief because he's never tested it. Again, I can't name a single American who does think Saddam did it, which would seem to rather test the idea. What a silly idea tw has. And he can't let go of the silly. Well is the Left served.
HA! I actually know people who still claim that. It is not a figment of the imagination of the left.
Try answering it with a yes or no. Why is that so hard for you to do?
There now you have two questions.
classic, he said he doesn't believe in torture, so I believe the answer is right there. No. And there ARE other methods that can be used, and in the opinion of most people who know about such things, the "other ways" to get information work better and are more reliable.
So you would let the thousands die - got it.
Millions.
I think she was also taking about the Reagan DoJ that prosecuted a Texas sheriff and deputies for waterboarding.
Yes. I actually cited 3 different references, I believe, this was one of them.
And waterboarding is waterboarding. It suffocates you. You lose consciousness. You have the fear you are drowning. The fact that the Japanese did other things
in addition to waterboarding means nothing.
If you are in the hands of someone you trust, as in a demonstration or training situation, then mentally you know you will be OK because you know nothing bad is going to happen to you. In the case of being in the custody of an enemy, or a prison guard, the psychology is different. You
fear for your life, because you DON'T know that, ultimately, you are safe. According to the definition of torture, that applies.
The difference between our servicemen being subjected to it, and a prisoner, is the servicemen KNOW they will be OK, that nothing will happen to them.
You have no frigging idea what you are talking about.
But I am very very thankful that our current president is not making policy decisions based on TV worst case, only one solution, scenarios.
And if you are wrong? Will you run and hide like the rest of the Demoncratic roaches? How do you know that any president made "policy decisions based on TV worst case, only one solution, scenarios". You don't. You are talking partisan bullshit as usual. You have no frigging clue because you are not read in.
So you would let the thousands die - got it.
I need more data for your real life scenario.
Is the alleged terrorist an Islamic extremist, an ideological urbane guerrilla, a mindless mercenary?
Hell, I could turn two out of the three just by playing their emotional strings....no challenge at all.
lol- good one or two, but seriously would you stick to your ideals and let potentially thousands die? Thats a scary scenario.
You have no frigging idea what you are talking about.
Tell us all about it, Rambo.
lol- good one or two, but seriously would you stick to your ideals and let potentially thousands die? Thats a scary scenario.
Millions.
Liberty or death wasn't just a speech. Either you have principles or you don't.
lol- good one or two, but seriously would you stick to your ideals and let potentially thousands die?
How often must facts be ignored? Jemaah Islamiya was destroyed BECAUSE nobody was tortured. That alone shows without doubt that classicman is lying. So that thousands would not die, Indonesia kept torturers (such as Nazis, George Jr, and classicman) away. Since they did not torture, thousands of lives were saved.
As the FBI and other professionals note (even America's WWII interrogators), the well is poisoned when torture is used. Only those educated by 24 (or with a UG mentality) would deny this. In fact, anyone who advocates torture is a threat to fundamental American principles.
They tortured the Iraqi General repeatedly so that he died. He would not disclose where Saddam was hiding his WMDs. Wacko extremists approved. Death proved that torture works. Obviously his death caused other to disclose Saddam’s WMDs. classicman's logic proves it. He *feels* it works - therefore it must work.
Extremists will even lie to themselves. 1) Extremists first denied that America was torturing. 2) Then lie again to claim torture works. 3) Then lie again to deny that thousands will die if torture is used. How many more lies? Wacko extremism is alive and well. Which even justifies lying? Only head in the sand are extremists who must always deny facts to believe their feelings.
Lying is routine among religous extremists and those who love to torture. Worse, classicman will not even deny his many lies including the above three.
In fact, anyone who advocates torture is a threat to fundamental American principles.
This is really all you had to say.
How often must facts be ignored? Extremists will even lie to themselves.
Worse, classicman will not even deny his many lies including the above three.
You cannot be serious. I need not deny anything. It is here for all to see. Your insanity is leaching out in all your posts. You better take an extra dose before writing any more. Perhaps another Dr's visit is in order as well.
The fact that there is dissent in the opinions of those who know infinitely more than you or I does not constitute MY BELIEF. The fact that there is information and professionals who disagree with you and may be right - IS A REALITY. Deal with it.I post their opinions and the information as it is available. All you post are things that support your position. How enlightening that must be - NOT.
We await this finding. If they just wrote opinions, how could one know whether it was deliberate? It seems to me that proof would require:
A) Word had to be passed from the WH on what conclusions they wanted. "We need you to create an opinion that permits the harshest levels of interrogation possible, although that may be unlawful. We will make sure you aren't held accountable."
or
B) Evidence that the DoJ attorneys had a different opinion before being asked. "Attorney X published an opinion ten years ago that stated unequivocally that waterboarding is torture."
UT.....The DoJ OPR investigation (to determine if the attorneys who wrote the torture memos were guided solely by legal issues or slanted their legal advice to provide the White House with the conclusions it wanted) could very well come down to e-mails:
The Justice Department’s Office of Professional Responsibility has been investigating the work of lawyers who signed off on the interrogation policy, and is believed to have obtained archived e-mail messages from the time when the memorandums were being drafted.
If it turned out that the lawyers initially concluded that aspects of the proposed program would be illegal, then reversed that conclusion at the request of policy makers, then prosecutors could make a case that the officials knowingly broke the law.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/23/us/politics/23legal.html?_r=4
IF....the OPR finds that there was political influence......the shit will hit the fan.
But as you noted....we await this finding.
The difference between our servicemen being subjected to it, and a prisoner, is the servicemen KNOW they will be OK, that nothing will happen to them. The prisoners, not so much. There is a HUGE difference in the psychology of those two things.
And for people whose driving ideals are so unpopular they must use violence to persuade instead of reason --
id est, terrorists -- this is bad how?
All mankind except for sugarpop, who has never once looked at it this way, wants these enemies of humanity in precisely that state of mind. Thus, they may be cracked, and certain of their fellow creatures thereby denied a chance to assail other human beings.
The difference you're so concerned with is therefore unimportant. The terrs are people, sugarpop, who would as cheerfully lop off your head as they would mine, in your case after multiple gang rapes and sundry mutilations. Ever seen that one "after" picture of the partisan girl the Nazis got hold of in Russia? That might be you. That is their human rights record, and it is far worse than ours.
And I wouldn't do it to them. Despite knowledge of their human rights record. That's because I'm so much better a man than they can be. You might try being a sensible woman.
So if the police capture a suspected criminal, say a possible mass murderer, and drag in his family, neighbors and friends, and torment them for years with waterboarding, slapping them around, confining them in small boxes with things that are known to terrify them, etc., without charge and without access to lawyers or courts, you'd be perfectly ok with that? You wouldn't expect the community to go up in arms about police brutality because, after all, eventually one of them might crack and give up something that may turn out to be useful.
It's the ends that matter, not the means, right?
You're perfectly fine with that?
If not, why not? What differentiates that scenario from what our government and its agents have been doing to suspected terrorists and their friends, family and neighbors? Is it the potential number of victims? Is one life, or 20, or 100, not as important to protect from the alleged mass murderer as the potential hundreds or thousands threatened by the alleged terrorists? Is it a quantity issue to you?
suspected terrorists and their friends, family and neighbors
26 people interrogated with "harsh techniques", 3 with the harshest.
Is it a [I]quantity issue to you?[/i]
It certainly is. Would you *not* do it if, say, everyone in NYC were at risk?
I would not do it under any circumstances. Even if your life were at stake. Even if my husband's life was at stake.
It is inhumane.
It is illegal.
It violates our Constitution.
It's in violation of International Treaties we've signed.
It's proven to be unreliable.
It bears repeating, it's illegal and inhumane.
Now, answer my questions, please. I'll repeat them with bullet points so you don't miss any. [list] [*][I]f the police capture a suspected criminal, say a possible mass murderer, and drag in his family, neighbors and friends, and torment them for years with waterboarding, slapping them around, confining them in small boxes with things that are known to terrify them, etc., without charge and without access to lawyers or courts, you'd be perfectly ok with that?
[*]It's the ends that matter, not the means, right?
[*]What differentiates that scenario from what our government and its agents have been doing to suspected terrorists and their friends, family and neighbors?
[*]Is one life, or 20, or 100, not as important to protect from the alleged mass murderer as the potential hundreds or thousands threatened by the alleged terrorists?
[*]Is it a quantity issue to you? (Apparently yes, but I'd like a clarification and a quantification. At what number of potential victims does torture become acceptable to you?) [/list]
Because you said please.
No, I would not legalize torture in any form to be used in law enforcement. However, it is routinely done. (see my thread:
Is tasering torture?)
What differentiates that scenario from what our government and its agents have been doing to suspected terrorists
Enforcing rule of law is an entirely different matter from protecting a country during wartime. Do you want your cops killing gang members on the street? Of course not. Do you want your soldiers in 1944 shooting at Japanese soldiers, whose country's goal is to destroy the US? Yes you do.
It is inhumane.
To not do whatever you can to foil plots to kill thousands and hurt the country is inhumane.
It is [I]illegal.[/I]
Ah, but the law is never so black and white...
It violates our Constitution.
Constitutional protections are not available for non-citizens who are not living in the US.
It's in violation of International Treaties we've signed.
I think this is true, but probably not important. I would expect that the authors did not consider the possibility of suddenly having to fight a shadowy network of combatants, scattered around every corner of the globe, some places which are signatories and some not.
It's [I]proven to be unreliable.[/I]
I doubt it, and I'm sure all gathered intelligence is validated using sophisticated methods we can't even imagine.
Because you said please.
No, I would not legalize torture in any form to be used in law enforcement. However, it is routinely done. (see my thread: Is tasering torture?)
So the fact that something you consider torture, which has not been legally classified as torture, happens in law enforcement from time to time, means what, exactly?
False equivalence. If gang members took to the streets and started shooting at law enforcement, I would absolutely support the police shooting to kill. That's what happens during wartime; our troops are being fired upon, or are at imminent risk of being fired upon, and they are returning fire with fire, which is always an appropriate response. [quote=Jill]
It is inhumane.
To not do whatever you can to foil plots to kill thousands and hurt the country is inhumane.
To not do whatever you can that works, and doesn't compromise the value of the information obtained is, indeed, inhumane. No one is suggesting that potential or accused terrorists be left entirely alone to further their plots unencumbered. The implication is absurd. The motto "by any means necessary" is contrary to the nature of the free world, and what separates us from those who you refer to as being for "unfreedom". We do not beat them by becoming them.
The difference between our servicemen being subjected to it, and a prisoner, is the servicemen KNOW they will be OK, that nothing will happen to them. The prisoners, not so much. There is a HUGE difference in the psychology of those two things.
You have no frigging idea what you are talking about.
Actually, she does, and you don't. To confirm that, why don't we ask one of our servicemen who was a part of that program. . .
Waterboarding Is Torture, Says Ex-Navy Instructor
A former Navy survival instructor subjected to waterboarding as part of his military training told Congress yesterday that the controversial tactic should plainly be considered torture and that such a method was never intended for use by U.S. interrogators because it is a relic of abusive totalitarian governments.
Malcolm Wrightson Nance, a counterterrorism specialist who taught at the Navy's Survival, Evasion, Resistance and Escape (SERE) school in California, likened waterboarding to drowning and said those who experience it will say or do anything to make it stop, rendering the information they give nearly useless.
. . .
It is an overwhelming experience that induces horror and triggers frantic survival instincts. As the event unfolded, I was fully conscious of what was happening: I was being tortured."
. . .
SERE attendees expect to be released and assume that their trainers will not permanently harm them. Nance said it is "stress inoculation" meant to let U.S. troops know what to expect if they are captured. "The SERE community was designed over 50 years ago to show that, as a torture instrument, waterboarding is a terrifying, painful and humiliating tool that leaves no physical scars, and which can be repeatedly used as an intimidation tool," he said.
A detainee, on the other hand, "has no idea what is about to happen to them," Nance said, and could legitimately fear death. "It's far worse," he said.
I think I'll take the word of someone with first-hand experience, both in training and being the recipient of this technique, over some dude on a message board whose partisan panties are in a twist.
You would kill the Japanese soldiers even if they weren't returning fire; you'd also kill civilians, who happened to be unlucky enough to be driving across a bridge at the wrong time, or working in a plant you destroyed.
We've already had that McClatchy story in the thread, and we've discussed it at length. The CIA IG didn't say enhanced techniques weren't effective, period; he said they weren't helpful in thwarting any specific imminent attacks.
What I find remarkable is how certain you are of the effectiveness of these methods. How could you have this level of certainty? You're at odds with the CIA interrogators whom, I'm certain, know more about it than do you or I or anybody writing for McClatchy. I'm guessing that it works because the CIA interrogators think it works. I'm also guessing that it works because I personally am a huge pussy, and would tell every intimate detail I had in order to avoid even getting tased.
I am guessing that your certainty is driven less from application of careful thought, and more from the fiery passionate hate you hold for torture. Your passion is admirable, and shows you deeply care. But don't let it burn you because at the end of the day there is no substitute for careful thought.
What I find remarkable is how certain you are of the effectiveness of these methods. How could you have this level of certainty?
I'm certain because I've done my homework. I've studied the history. I've read the evidence.
You're at odds with the CIA interrogators whom, I'm certain, know more about it than do you or I or anybody writing for McClatchy. I'm guessing that it works because the CIA interrogators think it works.
Cite that they think it works. It didn't "work" to thwart the attacks in L.A., because that attack was thwarted a full year before the waterboarding began. It didn't "work" to enough of a degree that they
stopped using it in 2004. If it was so effective, why stop?
I'm also guessing that it works because I personally am a huge pussy, and would tell every intimate detail I had in order to avoid even getting tased.
You're doing an awful lot of guessing.
I am guessing that your certainty is driven less from application of careful thought, and more from the fiery passionate hate you hold for torture. Your passion is admirable, and shows you deeply care. But don't let it burn you because at the end of the day there is no substitute for careful thought.
Once again, you guess wrong. Especially after the well-cited post I provided to you above, I find it highly insulting that you would charge me with not applying careful thought to my opinion or conclusions. I wish I could find your obviously uneducated guessing as admirable, but I don't.
"Highly insulting"? :lol: No need to get all riled up, I'm just some idiot on a message board.
This is the Internet, get a helmet.
OK, well let me ask you this. In Pakistan, the US has a program where it identifies certain known bad guys and vaporizes them via missile from a predator drone.
Should we not do that?
I think I'll take this guy's experienced word over your personal guesses. . .
My Tortured Decision
by Ali Soufan, an F.B.I. supervisory special agent from 1997 to 2005
. . .
There was no actionable intelligence gained from using enhanced interrogation techniques on Abu Zubaydah that wasn’t, or couldn’t have been, gained from regular tactics. In addition, I saw that using these alternative methods on other terrorists backfired on more than a few occasions — all of which are still classified. The short sightedness behind the use of these techniques ignored the unreliability of the methods, the nature of the threat, the mentality and modus operandi of the terrorists, and due process.
Defenders of these techniques have claimed that they got Abu Zubaydah to give up information leading to the capture of Ramzi bin al-Shibh, a top aide to Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, and Mr. Padilla. [SIZE="4"]This is false[/SIZE]. The information that led to Mr. Shibh’s capture came primarily from a different terrorist operative who was interviewed using traditional methods. As for Mr. Padilla, the dates just don’t add up: the harsh techniques were approved in the memo of August 2002, Mr. Padilla had been arrested that May.
One of the worst consequences of the use of these harsh techniques was that it reintroduced the so-called Chinese wall between the C.I.A. and F.B.I., similar to the communications obstacles that prevented us from working together to stop the 9/11 attacks. Because the bureau would not employ these problematic techniques, our agents who knew the most about the terrorists could have no part in the investigation. An F.B.I. colleague of mine who knew more about Khalid Shaikh Mohammed than anyone in the government was not allowed to speak to him.
. . .
The debate after the release of these memos has centered on whether C.I.A. officials should be prosecuted for their role in harsh interrogation techniques. That would be a mistake. Almost all the agency officials I worked with on these issues were good people who felt as I did about the use of enhanced techniques: it is un-American, ineffective and harmful to our national security.
Fortunately for me, after I objected to the enhanced techniques, the message came through from Pat D’Amuro, an F.B.I. assistant director, that “we don’t do that,” and I was pulled out of the interrogations by the F.B.I. director, Robert Mueller (this was documented in the report released last year by the Justice Department’s inspector general).
My C.I.A. colleagues who balked at the techniques, on the other hand, were instructed to continue. (It’s worth noting that when reading between the lines of the newly released memos, it seems clear that it was contractors, not C.I.A. officers, who requested the use of these techniques.)
. . .
Editing to add yet another source:
Unresolved debate: Does torture work?
. . .
In 2006, a group of scientists and retired intelligence officers set out to settle the matter. They sought to find the most effective interrogation tactics and advise the U.S. government on their use. Their conclusions, laid out in a 372-page report for the director of national intelligence, argued against harsh interrogation.
“The scientific community has never established that coercive interrogation methods are an effective means of obtaining reliable intelligence information,” former military interrogation instructor and retired Air Force Col Steven M Kleinman wrote in the Intelligence Science Board report. “In essence, there seems to be an unsubstantiated assumption that ‘compliance’ carries the same connotation as ‘meaningful cooperation.’”
In short: Slam someone up against the wall, keep him awake for days, lock him naked in a cell and slap his face enough, and he will probably say something. That doesn’t necessarily make it true.
. . .
....I am guessing that your certainty is driven less from application of careful thought, and more from the fiery passionate hate you hold for torture. Your passion is admirable, and shows you deeply care. But don't let it burn you because at the end of the day there is no substitute for careful thought.
UT...at the end of the day, there is no substitute for the rule of law.
[INDENT]
[/INDENT]
Whether its torture in violation of treaty obligations or circumventing FISA and spying on Americans w/o a warrant or asserting presidential "war powers" when Congress authorized no such powers...when we condone lawbreaking by our highest elected officials.....where does it end?
More historians and scientists weigh in. . .
Torture Has a Long History ... of Not Working
. . .
As a rule, torture is not an effective method of extracting information from prisoners, most experts agree.
. . .
A switch from more physical methods of torture to the psychological approaches emerged in the following decades [since the 1950s] in places such as Vietnam, Central America and Iran, McCoy said, without any definitive proof of their effectiveness.
. . .
Though captives are less resentful when tortured psychologically, it doesn't make their statements any more trustworthy, Rejali said.
"Torture during interrogations rarely yields better information than traditional human intelligence, partly because no one has figured out a precise, reliable way to break human beings or any adequate method to evaluate whether what prisoners say when they do talk is true,"
. . .
There's no such thing as "a little bit of torture," McCoy said of the "light" tactics that are preferred today. Detainees are just as likely to tell their interrogators whatever they want to hear under psychological distress as they are under physical distress, he said, a statement backed up by Sen. John McCain, who himself was tortured as an officer during the Vietnam War.
. . .
Innocent Suspects Confess Under Pressure
A new study finds some people under interrogation will confess to crimes they did not commit, either to end the questioning or because they become convinced they did it.
An unrelated study last year found it is fairly easy to create false memories in people in a lab setting.
Lack of sleep and isolation contribute to false confessions, the scientists say in the new study, announced today.
. . .
In the latest issue of the journal Psychological Science in the Public Interest, the scientists call for videotaping of confessions so they can be properly analyzed by experts.
"Modern police interrogations involve the use of high-impact social influence techniques [and] sometimes people under the influence of certain techniques can be induced to confess to crimes they did not commit," write Saul Kassin of Williams College and Gisli Gudjonsson of King's College, University of London.
A University of Michigan study last year reached the same conclusion in analyzing 328 cases since 1989 in which DNA exoneration defendants convicted of rape, murder and other serious crimes.
"Enhanced interrogation techniques" have been scientifically proven to be completely
useless in gaining truthful and accurate information. Testimony from people who have endured it and/or inflicted it, corroborates these truths, not guesses.
OK, well let me ask you this. In Pakistan, the US has a program where it identifies certain known bad guys and vaporizes them via missile from a predator drone.
Should we not do that?
OK, well let me ask you this. In Pakistan, the US has a program where it identifies certain known bad guys and vaporizes them via missile from a predator drone.
Should we not do that?
UT...IMO, it is dishonest and disingenuous to even raise the comparison of a battlefield tactic to prevent an armed enemy from striking US forces (or US civilians) to the treatment of an enemy captive in your total control.
OK, well let me ask you this. In Pakistan, the US has a program where it identifies certain known bad guys and vaporizes them via missile from a predator drone.
Should we do that?
OK, well let me ask you this. In Pakistan, the US has a program where it identifies certain known bad guys and vaporizes them via missile from a predator drone.
Should we not do that?
Start a new thread on the subject and we can discuss it.
I would raise the issue of the capacity of the enemy forces in question, proportionality, likelihood of success, the potential impact on non-combatants, and other battlefield issues....and acknowledging the fact that the enemy is "stateless" which raises an entirely new set of questions.
But it is an entirely separate discussion from torturing captives in your total control.
Why?
The law regarding torture vs military rules of engagement.
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.
They were very good cites, Jill, and you have changed my opinion.
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?
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."
. . .
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?
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.
You have no frigging idea what you are talking about.
I am going by what experts, including SERE trainers, have said in interviews on TV.
The psychology part, it doesn't take an expert to tell me that it would be different when you are doing a training exercise where you KNOW the people in charge aren't going to let something happen to you, and being a prisoner where you really actually fear for your life. That is basic psychology 101.
And for people whose driving ideals are so unpopular they must use violence to persuade instead of reason -- id est, terrorists -- this is bad how?
All mankind except for sugarpop, who has never once looked at it this way, wants these enemies of humanity in precisely that state of mind. Thus, they may be cracked, and certain of their fellow creatures thereby denied a chance to assail other human beings.
The difference you're so concerned with is therefore unimportant. The terrs are people, sugarpop, who would as cheerfully lop off your head as they would mine, in your case after multiple gang rapes and sundry mutilations. Ever seen that one "after" picture of the partisan girl the Nazis got hold of in Russia? That might be you. That is their human rights record, and it is far worse than ours.
And I wouldn't do it to them. Despite knowledge of their human rights record. That's because I'm so much better a man than they can be. You might try being a sensible woman.
So because they do it, that means WE should? That is a very poor argument for doing things that are inhumane and immoral to another human being. The United States of America is supposed to above such things. We are supposed to be the moral leaders of the world. How can we claim such a title when we lower ourselves to the level of the terrorists that we so hate?
I have a question for all of you who think what we did isn't torture, those pictures from Abu Ghraib, if they had been reversed, and it was OUR soldiers who were treated like that, how would you have felt? You would all have been screaming bloody murder that they were tortured, but since it was US who did it, you feel the need to make excuses. You really need to examine that.
You would kill the Japanese soldiers even if they weren't returning fire; you'd also kill civilians, who happened to be unlucky enough to be driving across a bridge at the wrong time, or working in a plant you destroyed.
We've already had that McClatchy story in the thread, and we've discussed it at length. The CIA IG didn't say enhanced techniques weren't effective, period; he said they weren't helpful in thwarting any specific imminent attacks.
What I find remarkable is how certain you are of the effectiveness of these methods. How could you have this level of certainty? You're at odds with the CIA interrogators whom, I'm certain, know more about it than do you or I or anybody writing for McClatchy. I'm guessing that it works because the CIA interrogators think it works. I'm also guessing that it works because I personally am a huge pussy, and would tell every intimate detail I had in order to avoid even getting tased.
I am guessing that your certainty is driven less from application of careful thought, and more from the fiery passionate hate you hold for torture. Your passion is admirable, and shows you deeply care. But don't let it burn you because at the end of the day there is no substitute for careful thought.
I'm pretty sure Jill has careful thought. She certainly seems to, from her posts anyway. My opinions, well, my opinions come from looking at different times in history when torture has been used, like the Inquisitions. Everything I've read makes me believe that evidence gained during torture is unreliable. Add to that all the experts who have testified or said in interviews that torture is an unreliable way to gain information makes me believe it even more. And my moral compass tells me it's wrong. No one can make me believe it is actually OK for a
civilized country or people to act in that way, no matter what is at stake.
UT, the scenario you described above, the accidental killing of innocent victims while striking at an enemy, is far different from torturing someone who is in custody. One is collateral damage that is an accident, the other is purposeful and intentional mistreatment of someone who is already in custody.
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. .
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.
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.
Why won't you answer his question?
Because it's completely irrelevant and off-topic in the scope of this discussion.
I'm pretty sure Jill has careful thought. She certainly seems to, from her posts anyway.
Jill. That was brilliant. Really interesting.
Thank you
sugarpop and
DanaC. I appreciate the compliments and kind words. :)
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.
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!
The analysis is based on a Pew Research Center survey of 742 American adults conducted April 14-21. It did not include analysis of groups other than white evangelicals, white non-Hispanic Catholics, white mainline Protestants, and the religiously unaffiliated, because the sample size was too small.
I wonder if the timing of this poll had any impact on the outcome. I wonder if they did a similar poll back in 2001 or 2005 or... just to see a trend.
I went looking for polls on torture. Incredibly, it's nearly impossible to find any polls. The only recent poll was in December by ABC News/Washington Post Poll. Amazingly, neither ABC nor the Pentagon Post published the results, as far as I can tell:
"Just your best guess, do you think the U.S. government as a matter of policy is or is not using torture as part of the U.S. campaign against terrorism?"
Torture Using Not Using Unsure
12/15-18/05 56% 39% 5%
5/20-23/04 51% 43% 6%
"Would you regard the use of torture against people suspected of involvement in terrorism as an acceptable or unacceptable part of the U.S. campaign against terrorism?"
--------------Acceptable Unacceptable Depends
12/15-18/05--------32%------ 64%----- 3%
So what do we learn from this data?
Despite Bush's repeated lies that "the U.S. does not torture," Americans aren't fools. In 5/04, a 51%-43% majority believed the U.S. was torturing prisoners; by 12/05, that majority increased to 56%-39%. Now that Bush has admitted we use "alternative methods" to interrogate prisoners - which everyone else calls torture - that majority should be trending towards 100%-0%.
And how do Americans feel about our use of torture? By 2:1 (64%-32%), Americans consider torture of terrorism suspects to be unacceptable.
Link
I'm not sure of the validity of this, but it is rather damning.
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.
Well I must be the oddball then. I do not support torture. I said so when this first came out and I have written my congressman with my opinion. In general I support humane treatment of prisoners because it is the ethical path and because I want humane treatment for our men and women if they are captured.
Over and above that I can't see how anyone can approve torture for people who have been convicted of no crime.
As for the poll, I never doubted that I was a:
An interesting bit about the history of torture by the Brits in WW2 on NPR today.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=103728934 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.
Opinions exist when one first has facts. Because Pat Robertson says so, that is a fact?
But you lie (again) about what I said. What you call opinions is propaganda. Repeating what a political machine tells you to believe. Jill even asked you to back up your cheap shot with facts. You cannot do that. Limbaugh does not tell you why; only tells you what to believe.
So you lie about what I state? Opinions are nothing more than propaganda when hateful O'Reilly preachings are mindlessly echoed. Why do you repeatedly forget what I really said? Opinions require supporting facts.
Extremists must and will routinely lie even about torture. It was promoted by those who know; but forgot to learn how interrogation works. Then lie again to scapegoat enlisted men once they realized in pictures what torture really looks like. Soldiers must be sacrified for a political agenda.
Somehow enlisted men accidently used torture methods approved at the highest levels of government? Another lie promoted in 2004 and 2005 to blame enlisted men for torture. Who needs so much protection as to lie?
These are honest men - who accidently got it wrong even about Saddam's WMDs? Who accidently sent 4000 American soldiers to death? Lying is routine: demonstrated when Jill challenged you to support your accusations with facts.
But again, the common factor repeated. Extermist political agendas justify constant lying and posting cheap shot accusations.
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.
I had a friend who worked in boiler rooms. Telephone scams. He loved the most religious. They would most often believe anything he told them; were so easy to close a deal.
When I watch people religiously watching World Wrestling, I wonder what they believe.
tw - you are an asshole - plain and simple - I need not write 1500 words why, it is plainly obvious. Not once have I ever quoted nor brought up Limbaugh, O'Reilly or Fox news into a discussion, I do not listen to nor watch them. You, however, must spend a great deal of time doing just that as you seem to know exactly what they say and think.
Being ridiculed and attacked because my opinions are different than yours shows what a pathetic, worthless piece of shit you really are. When asked repeatedly by several other posters to support your baseless attacks on other posters, you did not, you could not. To delve as low as you routinely do (calling another posters wife a "gonorrhea dripping whore") shows EXACTLY what kind of person you are.
I do not lie. I am an honest person. Both statements you cannot make.
UT...IMO, it is dishonest and disingenuous to even raise the comparison of a battlefield tactic to prevent an armed enemy from striking US forces (or US civilians) to the treatment of an enemy captive in your total control.
It's all the same battlefield, Redux. Can't really part 'em. Haven't since WWI. We shall stand or fall on our HUMINT in this fight. If there is failure to gather information through HUMINT, how is your life improved should the enemy thereby manage to kill you off?
It sure wouldn't improve mine.
. . .those pictures from Abu Ghraib, if they had been reversed, and it was OUR soldiers who were treated like that, how would you have felt? You would all have been screaming bloody murder that they were tortured, but since it was US who did it, you feel the need to make excuses. You really need to examine that.
Annoyed, but I wouldn't call it torture. Why do you insist that the most thoughtful, profound people on the board are thoughtless?
We can
win, or we can make excuses. We had until recently an Administration who wasn't making excuses, but trying to win. I don't see the same spirit in the Obama Administration, which is why I voted for a real war-fighter, not a socialist-influenced comparative lightweight who by his mere unaggressiveness shall encourage the icky fascistic unfriendlies. It is bad for the Republic, and bad for mankind in general, to encourage these unfriendlies. Show otherwise or shut up.
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.
How exterminating the savage and the brutal diminishes us in any moral dimension quite escapes me, Jill.
Amazing. Truly amazing.
Mere horse sense. Dead folks have one tough time actually doing any evil. That's a good thing.
(Must remember: application of horse sense passes for amazing with Dana. How well the Left is served.)
Meanwhile, Ann Coulter could hardly contain her mirth at it all in her recent column:
April 29 . . . We do that on first dates.
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.
I'm not really interested in what
tw thinks of your opinion. Since I'm the one engaging you in this discussion, it should only matter that
I don't think your opinions are irrelevant.
What I believe is that you've formulated your opinions based on erroneous information that you have relied upon as being factual. It is my hope that pointing you to the sources from which I've formed my opinion, you might come to a different conclusion than the one you currently have.
Lying is routine: demonstrated when Jill challenged you to support your accusations with facts.
tw, much as I appreciate your support, you have (probably unintentionally) misrepresented my response to
classicman. He didn't make any "accusations", he said that there were cites here that contradicted the ones I provided. So I went back to look for them. What I found did not seem to support his contention, so I asked him to point me to what I might have missed.
Then I took those cites I thought he might have intended as countering mine, read them thoroughly and pointed out what I consider to be unreliable and contradictory accounts. It is now incumbent upon him to consider my assessment of those cites and either acknowledge that they don't, after all, support the argument he was making, or counter my assessment of them. He's not likely to do either when the peanut gallery is shouting 'LIAR' from the bleachers.
How exterminating the savage and the brutal diminishes us in any moral dimension quite escapes me, Jill. Performing damage control is simply sensible.
In some circumstances it very well might be. What my cites support, is that in the case of torturing people we've rounded up and imprisoned, it is not sensible in any way to torture them.
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.
You conflate two entirely different sets of circumstances and attempt to draw parallels that don't exist. I have no problem "outfighting" the enemy on the battlefield. Especially since I'm a Jew, you can be damn sure I have no complaints about beating the crap out of Hitler in the war he started.
And I sure as hell have no sympathy for terrorists, either. But what I have attempted to show you, is that the methods our government and its agents used against them while they were in our care, custody and control, does not produce the results you claim it does.
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.
No, I'm afraid you'll never overwhelm any of my arguments against it, though you're certainly free to try.
I do not mistake the distasteful for the unnecessary. There are many necessary aspects of war that I find distasteful, yet fully support. Torture is not one of them. It is not only distasteful, but it is, in point of fact, unnecessary.
That I believe I have proven with my cited evidence; torture does not produce
reliable results. The FBI, who knew more about Al Qaida than anyone in the world, obtained that information by non-violent interrogation methods long before the CIA and outside agents stepped in and took over with their "enhanced" interrogation methods.
The kind of abuse inflicted upon our prisoners is not the kind that produces good intelligence, but the kind that produces
more terrorists.
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.
On that we completely agree.
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.
If those methods actually provided the result of keeping them bootless and fruitless, you might have an argument to make in its favor. As it doesn't, the only thing I've been able to glean from your points is that you just want revenge. You simply like the idea of beating the crap out of these guys, tough luck if it kills them. Somehow that makes you feel bigger, better, stronger. The reality is that it
does only diminish us.
I had a friend who worked in boiler rooms. Telephone scams. He loved the most religious. They would most often believe anything he told them; were so easy to close a deal.
When I watch people religiously watching World Wrestling, I wonder what they believe.
OK, well let me ask you this. In Pakistan, the US has a program where it identifies certain known bad guys and vaporizes them via missile from a predator drone.
Should we not do that?
Sure.
What's that got to do with torturing captives?
Sure.
What's that got to do with torturing captives?
I believe he's conceded that question is irrelevant.
I believe he's conceded that question is irrelevant.
You had me at hello, you had me at...
\
The question is still relevant, just take out the bug in the box bit.
Well no maybe not. Anyway, it's still a decision to be made.
Actually, Jill, what such of the record as we without clearances and accesses know is that it
did work and we
did bust up some impending attacks from what we choked out of those three men. Apparently in amongst whatever else they might have said, they also told us some things that were accurate. And we determine this by following up on the leads; some leads no doubt didn't pan out, and certain others evidently did.
Despite their manifest desire to repeat their successes of 9/11, no repetitions have occurred. That isn't an accident, I feel sure. Don't you, on consideration?
It looks like the truth of the matter is more subtle than you're conceiving it to be.
This rather reinforces my argument:
What stood between the attacks of 1941 and the rebirth of Japan as a civilized nation were five years of merciless warfare, the incineration by napalm and nuclear attack of nearly 400,000 Japanese civilians, an intransigent demand for unconditional surrender, and six years of postwar military occupation by the United States. The result was the most benevolent turnaround of an entire nation in history.
The victory over Japan remains America’s greatest foreign policy success. Today, we take for granted a peaceful, productive, mutually beneficial relationship with the Japanese people. But this friendship was earned with blood, struggle, and an unrepentant drive to victory. The beneficent occupation of Japan—during which not one American was killed in hostile military action—and the corresponding billions in American aid were entirely post-surrender phenomena. Prior to their surrender, the Japanese could expect nothing but death from the Americans.
From
here.
My contention is that there is no fundamental difference between fighting against the anti-freedom hegemonists this time or then -- that it is the same regardless of time or place. You claim to find some kind of difference, without actually outlining what you conceive this alleged difference to be. What are details of date or language next to the essential question of "Who's for a liberal social order, and who's against?" Thus, I support Israelis against Arabs, America against the Jihadists, and so on. There are people on this board who have the colossal stupidity and fascistic sympathies -- conscious, as in tw's case, or not, as in Redux's (or the average leftwinger's, to be blunt) -- to object to my approach, and vehemently.
I get this sort of half-thought-through argument all the time from the opposition. It is tedious. They seem to avoid knowledge, preferring the shibboleths they've been spoon-fed.
Actually, Jill, what such of the record as we without clearances and accesses know is that it did work and we did bust up some impending attacks.....
I get this sort of half-thought-through argument all the time from the opposition. It is tedious....
Putting aside the contention that you know that it worked despite the numerous DoD, DoJ and CIA IG reports and other documents that have been released and suggest, at a minimum, that there is no such certainty....and that the "enhanced interrogation techniques" were highly questionable as to their legal justification.
We know that Bush/Cheney and neo-cons like yourself believe that the Geneva Conventions and UNCAT are tedious.
Still the law.....the supreme law of the land.
[INDENT]Article VI: This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land;[/INDENT]
Buth why should that matter?
If the president authorized it, it must be legal:
[INDENT]“And so...if it was authorized by the president, it did not violate our obligations under the Convention Against Torture.”
~ Condi Rice[/INDENT]
You guys are our "freedom fighters" and answer to a higher authority than the Constitution.
There are people on this board who have the colossal stupidity and fascistic sympathies -- conscious, as in tw's case, or not, as in Redux's (or the average leftwinger's, to be blunt) -- to object to my approach, and vehemently.
UG....I generally refrain from playing the fascist card as you so often feel a need to do to characterize those with whom you disagree.
But wouldnt those like yourself who believe a president (and top subordinates) is the law or above the law (
"...if it was authorized by the president...") be the ones with fascistic sympathies?
And here, I thought the Department of Justice is responsible for upholding the law.....hardly a fascistic sympathy.
Actually, Jill, what such of the record as we without clearances and accesses know is that it did work and we did bust up some impending attacks from what we choked out of those three men.
With all due respect, that is the complete opposite of what we know. I have provided links to first-hand accounts, stating that the timelines alleged don't work, that the information that led to "bust[ing] up some impending attacks" came from
other detainees, and said information was provided
with standard interrogation methods. You've provided no evidence to dispute the sources I provided. You appear to be buying what you're being told by the right-wing media, without questioning the veracity of their claims.
Apparently in amongst whatever else they might have said, they also told us some things that were accurate. And we determine this by following up on the leads; some leads no doubt didn't pan out, and certain others evidently did.
Pure speculation without any support.
Despite their manifest desire to repeat their successes of 9/11, no repetitions have occurred. That isn't an accident, I feel sure. Don't you, on consideration?
Of course it's not an accident. But you provide no evidence that torturing detainees is the
reason there have been no repetitions. There weren't any repetitions of the 1993 WTC bombings for 9 years, and we weren't torturing anyone in the aftermath of that attack.
And yet we
knew that Bin Laden was "Determined to Strike in the U.S.", and we even knew that the plans included hijacking airliners, and we knew all of this through traditional intelligence gathering techniques.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/04/10/august6.memo/
Clandestine, foreign government, and media reports indicate bin Laden since 1997 has wanted to conduct terrorist attacks in the US. Bin Laden implied in U.S. television interviews in 1997 and 1998 that his followers would follow the example of World Trade Center bomber Ramzi Yousef and "bring the fighting to America."
After U.S. missile strikes on his base in Afghanistan in 1998, bin Laden told followers he wanted to retaliate in Washington, according to a -- -- service.
An Egyptian Islamic Jihad (EIJ) operative told - - service at the same time that bin Laden was planning to exploit the operative's access to the U.S. to mount a terrorist strike.
The millennium plotting in Canada in 1999 may have been part of bin Laden's first serious attempt to implement a terrorist strike in the U.S.
Convicted plotter Ahmed Ressam has told the FBI that he conceived the idea to attack Los Angeles International Airport himself, but that in ---, Laden lieutenant Abu Zubaydah encouraged him and helped facilitate the operation. Ressam also said that in 1998 Abu Zubaydah was planning his own U.S. attack.
Ressam says bin Laden was aware of the Los Angeles operation. Although Bin Laden has not succeeded, his attacks against the U.S. Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998 demonstrate that he prepares operations years in advance and is not deterred by setbacks. Bin Laden associates surveyed our embassies in Nairobi and Dar es Salaam as early as 1993, and some members of the Nairobi cell planning the bombings were arrested and deported in 1997.
Al Qaeda members -- including some who are U.S. citizens -- have resided in or traveled to the U.S. for years, and the group apparently maintains a support structure that could aid attacks.
Two al-Qaeda members found guilty in the conspiracy to bomb our embassies in East Africa were U.S. citizens, and a senior EIJ member lived in California in the mid-1990s.
A clandestine source said in 1998 that a bin Laden cell in New York was recruiting Muslim-American youth for attacks.
We have not been able to corroborate some of the more sensational threat reporting, such as that from a ---- service in 1998 saying that Bin Laden wanted to hijack a U.S. aircraft to gain the release of "Blind Sheikh" Omar Abdel Rahman and other U.S.-held extremists.
Nevertheless, FBI information since that time indicates patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings or other types of attacks, including recent surveillance of federal buildings in New York.
The FBI is conducting approximately 70 full-field investigations throughout the U.S. that it considers bin Laden-related. CIA and the FBI are investigating a call to our embassy in the UAE in May saying that a group or bin Laden supporters was in the U.S. planning attacks with explosives.
Which President got this briefing? Which President ignored it, to all of our detriment and peril?
It looks like the truth of the matter is more subtle than you're conceiving it to be.
It looks like the truth is entirely different from what you're conceiving it to be.
This rather reinforces my argument: What stood between the attacks of 1941 and the rebirth of Japan as a civilized nation were five years of merciless warfare, the incineration by napalm and nuclear attack of nearly 400,000 Japanese civilians, an intransigent demand for unconditional surrender, and six years of postwar military occupation by the United States. The result was the most benevolent turnaround of an entire nation in history.
The victory over Japan remains America’s greatest foreign policy success. Today, we take for granted a peaceful, productive, mutually beneficial relationship with the Japanese people. But this friendship was earned with blood, struggle, and an unrepentant drive to victory. The beneficent occupation of Japan—during which not one American was killed in hostile military action—and the corresponding billions in American aid were entirely post-surrender phenomena. Prior to their surrender, the Japanese could expect nothing but death from the Americans.
From here.
My contention is that there is no fundamental difference between fighting against the anti-freedom hegemonists this time or then -- that it is the same regardless of time or place. You claim to find some kind of difference, without actually outlining what you conceive this alleged difference to be.
No, you did not claim that it is the same regardless of time or
place. That is why you believe you can accuse me of not outlining what the difference is. Let me show you our exchange again so you don't have to go back and look for it, highlighting the relevant portions.
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.
You conflate two entirely different sets of circumstances and attempt to draw parallels that don't exist. I have no problem "outfighting" the enemy on the battlefield. Especially since I'm a Jew, you can be damn sure I have no complaints about beating the crap out of Hitler in the war he started.
. . .
Battlefield /= Prison cell
War /= Interrogations
I hope this "outline" is clear now.
What are details of date or language next to the essential question of "Who's for a liberal social order, and who's against?" Thus, I support Israelis against Arabs, America against the Jihadists, and so on.
Huh? I have no idea what "details of date or language next to the essential question, etc." even means. This is just gobbledeegook.
There are people on this board who have the colossal stupidity and fascistic sympathies -- conscious, as in tw's case, or not, as in Redux's (or the average leftwinger's, to be blunt) -- to object to my approach, and vehemently.
This sentence doesn't make any sense as written, either. What I think you're trying to say is that other members of this board are too stupid and fascist, whether consciously or unconsciously, to -- what, challenge your approach or vehemence? Again, Huh?
Not to mention, as I explained to
classicman, I don't really give a hoot about what you think of
tw or
Redux or anyone else, personally.
I'm having this conversation with you, and if you'd like to continue it, I'd respectfully ask that you refrain from ad hominem and stick to debating the facts, not other posters.
I get this sort of half-thought-through argument all the time from the opposition. It is tedious. They seem to avoid knowledge, preferring the shibboleths they've been spoon-fed.
Again, argumentum ad hominem.
On the subject of torture, I thought of a good one yesterday.
Tie the subjects hands and feet up and then let them get bitten by sandflies, midgees and mosquitos. They wont be able to scratch, and I reckon it'd drive a person insane.
On the subject of torture, I thought of a good one yesterday.
Tie the subjects hands and feet up and then let them get bitten by sandflies, midgees and mosquitos. They wont be able to scratch, and I reckon it'd drive a person insane.
I would just force them listen to UG for a couple hours....far worse torture.
UG is entertaining. ;) And even more entertaining is the fact that some people take him seriously.
ding ding ding - we have a winner
:)
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.
How many of those people do you think were
actually witches? Which is another argument that it doesn't work. People were ratting out anyone and everyone just to make it stop.
Annoyed, but I wouldn't call it torture. Why do you insist that the most thoughtful, profound people on the board are thoughtless?
We can win, or we can make excuses. We had until recently an Administration who wasn't making excuses, but trying to win. I don't see the same spirit in the Obama Administration, which is why I voted for a real war-fighter, not a socialist-influenced comparative lightweight who by his mere unaggressiveness shall encourage the icky fascistic unfriendlies. It is bad for the Republic, and bad for mankind in general, to encourage these unfriendlies. Show otherwise or shut up.
Well sir, I do not believe you. Anyone who thinks we do not torture, I would be willing to bet if the shoe had been on the other foot, they would be screaming bloody murder for revenge if it had been OUR soldiers who were treated so inhumanely at Abu Ghraib. They would be crying for blood.
And to put everything in perspective, more people die in this country in car crashes every year than were killed on 9-11. More people die of cancer every year. More people die from handguns every year. More people die from alzheimers, or kidney failure, or diabetes. Hell, more people die from the damn flu every year than died in 9-11. Does that mean we shouldn't have gone after the people who attacked us? No. Of course we should have. But attacking a country that had nothing to do with it
was wrong. Imprisoning people who had nothing to do with it, and holding them
for YEARS without a trial
was wrong. And most definitely torturing them was
WRONG.
How many of those people do you think were actually witches? Which is another argument that it doesn't work. People were ratting out anyone and everyone just to make it stop.
*blink* well, obviously m'dear, that was my point :P
In answer to your question I think
none of them were 'witches'.
*blink* well, obviously m'dear, that was my point :P
In answer to your question I think none of them were 'witches'.
After I reread it, I kinda got that. :blush:
I think some of them probably were for sure, but the majority definitely not. I imagine the number of people who were actual witches was probably pretty low.
*slight shrug* all depends what you mean by 'witch'. Mostly 'witches' would have been herbalists and healers. Witches weren't burned for healing. The designation 'witch' meant that they practised 'magic' and cavorted with the devil. Since I don't believe in 'magic' and I don't believe in the devil, I don't believe any of those people could have been 'witches'.
There weren't any repetitions of the 1993 WTC bombings for 9 years, and we weren't torturing anyone in the aftermath of that attack.
True, but where was our knowledge of the enemy at that time? Nowhere. There seems also this undercurrent of thinking that we for some reason ought simply to tolerate having our buildings knocked down, our people killed, our nation shocked by people of ideas so unpopular they must kill people to make them stick. Why?
I do not hold with that kind of fatuous thinking, and my opponents never seem to extricate themselves from it.
And yet we knew that Bin Laden was "Determined to Strike in the U.S.", and we even knew that the plans included hijacking airliners, and we knew all of this through traditional intelligence gathering techniques. Which President got this briefing? Which President ignored it, to all of our detriment and peril?
And you forgot that there wasn't anything in that report with a date or a place or anyone named, or even described, as the terrorists? There was nothing in there that could be used to target the men responsible.
It is not a sustainable idea to insist that Bush could only make errors, because, after all, he was trying to commit foreign policy while being Republican. That seems the core of your argument in the above quote.
No, you did not claim that it is the same regardless of time or place. That is why you believe you can accuse me of not outlining what the difference is. Let me show you our exchange again so you don't have to go back and look for it, highlighting the relevant portions. Battlefield /= Prison cell
Fighting against the forces of undemocracy and lessened liberty = fighting against the forces of undemocracy and lessened liberty, quite regardless of whether it's under the sky or in a room. I had thought I had made that clear to even the meanest understanding.
War /= Interrogations
By interrogations, you gain intelligence, and with intelligence, you fight better. So it's all the same thing, really. About the only point you really have here is that interrogations differ from overall war about the way infantry differs from close air support; each has its piece of the action.
I hope this "outline" is clear now. Huh? I have no idea what "details of date or language next to the essential question, etc." even means. This is just gobbledeegook.
I see nothing opaque in the sentence. I'd suggest this failure to get it is owing to a blank refusal to think.
What I think you're trying to say is that other members of this board are too stupid and fascist, whether consciously or unconsciously, to -- what, challenge your approach or vehemence? Again, Huh?
Here being an example of that blank noncomprehension: what I said was that I am vehemently disagreed with by people of fascist sympathies, not democratic ones. And it looks like you can correlate their vehemence with their lack of enthusiasm for propagating genuine democratic government abroad on the earth. They seem to think that leaving the fascists unmolested -- their villainies the better to perform -- is the best road, the embodiment of wisdom, and we'll all be good good friends. It's been said elsewhere that "It's an old idea, called 'peace at any price.'"
I say its wiser to make no friends of the undemocrats, the fascists, the communists, the other madmen and their tools. I say it is wiser and better to remove these obstacles to human liberty and progress, and to remove them without let or hindrance.
I am proud to be an apostle of liberty. My opponents, however, cannot have such pride, for they do not deserve to, and aren't trying for it in any case -- they're dead to it from the heart upwards.
True, but where was our knowledge of the enemy at that time? Nowhere. There seems also this undercurrent of thinking that we for some reason ought simply to tolerate having our buildings knocked down, our people killed, our nation shocked by people of ideas so unpopular they must kill people to make them stick. Why?
I do not hold with that kind of fatuous thinking, and my opponents never seem to extricate themselves from it.
Actually, we knew quite a bit about al qaeda back then, but Bush thought they weren't all that dangerous so he demoted Richard Clarke and told people to stop talking to him about it. In the summer of 2001, one of our best informed people about al qaeda in the FBI, John O'Neill, left because he had been forced out. Ironically, he had been hired as head of security at the WTC, and he was killed in the attack.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/knew/ He had been warning us another attack was coming, or trying to warn us. It's kinda hard to warn people when they stop listening to you. Carrying on though, Bush ignored the chatter in the summer of 2001 and went on vacation, instead of trying glean any information about how or when or where bin Laden might try to attack inside the United States, even though some people in intelligence had said their
hair was fire there was so much chatter. If Clinton had still been in office, there is a chance, however slight (or big), that we might have stopped it, because Clinton took al qaeda seriously, and
he warned Bush that al qaeda was the
biggest single threat facing America at that time. Too bad Bush choose not to listen to him. So we were hit by them for the second time.
And you forgot that there wasn't anything in that report with a date or a place or anyone named, or even described, as the terrorists? There was nothing in there that could be used to target the men responsible.
Bush didn't even TRY to glean any new information. He had been warned, and
he chose to look the other way and to NOT investigate the warning or take it seriously.
It is not a sustainable idea to insist that Bush could only make errors, because, after all, he was trying to commit foreign policy while being Republican. That seems the core of your argument in the above quote.
Trying to commit foreign policy while being republican? WTF does that mean? I thought republicans thought they were the superior party with regard to foreign policy? Clearly though they are not.
Fighting against the forces of undemocracy and lessened liberty = fighting against the forces of undemocracy and lessened liberty, quite regardless of whether it's under the sky or in a room. I had thought I had made that clear to even the meanest understanding.
By interrogations, you gain intelligence, and with intelligence, you fight better. So it's all the same thing, really. About the only point you really have here is that interrogations differ from overall war about the way infantry differs from close air support; each has its piece of the action.
Not when the intelligence you gain is tainted because of the methods you choose to use, OR the fact that recruiting for the enemy goes up based on the interrogation methods we use. It is a FACT that al qaeda recruitment went up after Abu Ghraib and the knowledge that we used torture, in a prison where it was known Saddan also used torture... How fucking brilliant was that? ummmm,
it wasn't. In fact, it couldn't have been MORE STUPID.
I see nothing opaque in the sentence. I'd suggest this failure to get it is owing to a blank refusal to think.
Here being an example of that blank noncomprehension: what I said was that I am vehemently disagreed with by people of fascist sympathies, not democratic ones. And it looks like you can correlate their vehemence with their lack of enthusiasm for propagating genuine democratic government abroad on the earth. They seem to think that leaving the fascists unmolested -- their villainies the better to perform -- is the best road, the embodiment of wisdom, and we'll all be good good friends. It's been said elsewhere that "It's an old idea, called 'peace at any price.'"
I say its wiser to make no friends of the undemocrats, the fascists, the communists, the other madmen and their tools. I say it is wiser and better to remove these obstacles to human liberty and progress, and to remove them without let or hindrance.
I am proud to be an apostle of liberty. My opponents, however, cannot have such pride, for they do not deserve to, and aren't trying for it in any case -- they're dead to it from the heart upwards.
Since I am one of these people you refer to as "fascist" (even though you seem to clearly not know what that word actually means), I will say this, why exactly is it OUR JOB to propogate democracy across the globe? How is that ANY DIFFERENT from Russia trying to propogate communism? Forcing a form of government on people who may not want it is not democratic by any definition of the word.
And ftr, we have
overthrown democratically elected leaders in the middle east (and elsewhere) for the simple fact that they were not friendly to our wanting control over certain aspects of their economy, like OIL. Overthrowing a government that had a leader who was democratically elected by his people, and well liked by his people, is NOT
spreading democracy.
You claim the United States is not empirialistic, but yet you tout spreading democracy, in places where people do not want our kind of government. How is that
in any way democratic?
Clearly the only real option is to set up re-education camps where fascist sympathisers like m'self and the good lady sugarpop can learn the true meaning of freedom.
True, but where was our knowledge of the enemy at that time? Nowhere. There seems also this undercurrent of thinking that we for some reason ought simply to tolerate having our buildings knocked down, our people killed, our nation shocked by people of ideas so unpopular they must kill people to make them stick. Why?
I do not hold with that kind of fatuous thinking, and my opponents never seem to extricate themselves from it.
So the whole torture thing is "punishment"?
Ha, ha, ha.
CIA Says Pelosi Was Briefed on Use of 'Enhanced Interrogations'
By Paul Kane
Intelligence officials released documents this evening saying that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) was briefed in September 2002 about the use of harsh interrogation tactics against al-Qaeda prisoners, seemingly contradicting her repeated statements over the past 18 months that she was never told that these techniques were actually being used.
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/capitol-briefing/2009/05/cia_says_pelosi_was_briefed_on.htmlI have no cites, but the new last night said that multiple documents recently released corroborate that.
In typical political fashion she will simply wait a while to let it blow over and/or until something else grabs a headline and the attention of the people and all will be right back to normal. The fact that she is a bold faced liar, just like most of them, will soon be forgotten... business as usual.
This would be the only right thing to do.
Hoekstra considers hearings on Pelosi, interrogations
By Mike Soraghan and Jeremy P. Jacobs
Posted: 05/08/09 11:31 AM [ET]
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is under renewed fire after the Obama administration released documents that critics say contradict her claim that she was never told that U.S. detainees were being waterboarded.
Rep. Pete Hoekstra (Mich.), the top Republican on House Intelligence, in an interview Friday said the document proves that Pelosi knew waterboarding occurred but has denied is because of political pressure from the liberal base of her party.
“Clearly her left wing is outraged that waterboarding was used,” Hoekstra said. “The bottom line is she and her key staff, they all knew about it.”
Now that these documents have been released, Hoekstra is calling for additional CIA documents to be made public including some that he has read that provide a more complete account of what was discussed in lawmaker briefings.
He is also considering calling for congressional hearings on what members knew and when they knew it.
“I wouldn't have a problem with the intelligence committee or the Judiciary Committee having hearings on this,” he said. “If [House Judiciary Chairman] John Conyers [D-Mich.] wants to have hearings, they shouldn't call in the Department of Justice attorneys as their first witnesses. The first people that should be called in and held accountable ought to be Congress.”
Hoekstra also indicated he is considering sending Conyers a letter requesting such hearings.
“He now has a list of who should be the first witnesses,” Hoekstra said.
continues:
http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/pelosi-under-renewed-fire-over-interrogations-2009-05-08.htmlHe is also considering calling for congressional hearings on what members knew and when they knew it.
Now that'd be interesting.
Yep, thats the kind of transparency we should have.
Ha, ha, ha.
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/capitol-briefing/2009/05/cia_says_pelosi_was_briefed_on.html
So prosecute her, too.
Clean sweep. Investigate the hell out of it, and start tossing the bastards in prison.
Yep, thats the kind of transparency we should have.
In this case yes. Expose her duplicity.
In this case? Oh, sorry, I forgot. She's a democrat.
Seems nobody's hands are clean on this.
This may be why nobody is really pushing for hearings or for an independent investigation. I believe there should be a very THOROUGH investigation, and let the chips fall where they may. People should go to jail for this, but so far, the only people to have been punished are GRUNTS way down on the totum pole.
There is a very serious divide in how people at the top and people in the middle and at the bottom are treated with regard to wrongdoing. We always say we are a nation of laws, but when people in power or people with money get caught, nothing ever happens to them, or if it does, it is the exception rather than the rule. We really need to END that practice. We are not a nation of laws if the people who truly need to be punished never are. And laws were very clearly broken here. I want Cheney to go to jail. He's all over TV blackmouthing Obama. Let's get him first. I am fairly convinced he ran the whole thing anyway.
People are not pushing for an independent investigation because they understand that procedures were followed and that the torture memos are evidence thereof. They were asking the department whose job it would be to investigate, comprehend?
Me: Hey, Mr. police officer. That STOP sign is bent over and has been for two years. It looks like somebody decided it wasn't valid... they haven't replaced it.
Policeman: It sure does.
Me: So look, because the sign is broken, I'm just going to go through this intersection without stopping, OK?
Policeman: Yes. I've looked in the county records and there is no legal STOP sign at this intersection. You may definitely go through this intersection without stopping.
Me: (goes through intersection)
Policeman: You are under arrest.
Me: What?? But I went through a procedure where I asked you specifically about this sign!
Policeman: The fact that you asked is proof of your guilt. Also, sugarpop is "fairly convinced" you're guilty. Fairly is good enough for me. Off we go.
So, Undertoad, you're saying that an investigation is the same thing as arresting people without an investigation???
TGRR,
Isn't sure what you're getting at.
Try harder man. It's not that difficult.
In this case yes. Expose her duplicity.
Duplicity? Wacko nonsense that only a George Jr lover would post. Once the briefing was 'classified' she could say nothing.
In order to hide torture, torture was classified. Not because it was secret. Classified so that they could continue to lie to Americans. Lying – which is routine from wacko extremists who also love torture. Anyone briefed about American torture (that George Jr said does not exist) could not discuss it or challenge it.
Wackos who love torture forget to mention all facts. Briefings were classified so that nobody could talk about it or could challenge it. Then wackos accuse Pelosi of doing what everyone who knew she had to do. How convenient. Wackos again forget to mention all facts.
Half facts - another way that wacko extremists routinely pervert reality. No wonder Colin Powell is a flaming liberal.
People are not pushing for an independent investigation because they understand that procedures were followed and that the torture memos are evidence thereof. They were asking the department whose job it would be to investigate, comprehend?
Me: Hey, Mr. police officer. That STOP sign is bent over and has been for two years. It looks like somebody decided it wasn't valid... they haven't replaced it.
Policeman: It sure does.
Me: So look, because the sign is broken, I'm just going to go through this intersection without stopping, OK?
Policeman: Yes. I've looked in the county records and there is no legal STOP sign at this intersection. You may definitely go through this intersection without stopping.
Me: (goes through intersection)
Policeman: You are under arrest.
Me: What?? But I went through a procedure where I asked you specifically about this sign!
Policeman: The fact that you asked is proof of your guilt. Also, sugarpop is "fairly convinced" you're guilty. Fairly is good enough for me. Off we go.
Arrest the police officer.
Arrest the police officer.
Why? For what?
Try harder man. It's not that difficult.
Okay, never mind. I thought you were seriously debating. My bad.
Clearly the only real option is to set up re-education camps where fascist sympathisers like m'self and the good lady sugarpop can learn the true meaning of freedom.
Yes, at my house... with lots of naked calisthenics.:right:
you're a bad man Bruce.....but I like it
People are not pushing for an independent investigation because they understand that procedures were followed and that the torture memos are evidence thereof. They were asking the department whose job it would be to investigate, comprehend?...
In order to get to bottom of this and find out what truly happened and how it happened, we need an independent investigator, someone who is truly unbiased but who understands the rules and laws that were broken. We need to know if there was conspiracy, how far up or down the chain it went, and who all knew about it. Who ordered it. We broke laws, and someone needs to pay for it. I think it should be Cheney, and perhaps Rumsfeld, and the lawyers who twisted the law to fit what they wanted.
We also need an investigation into the financial markets. We need another Pecaro Investigation so we can get to the bottom of that as well, because if we don't, nothing will get done in regulating these institutions and taking apart the ones that are too big to fail, because we can't have that anymore.
Why? For what?
entrapment.
In order to get to bottom of this and find out what truly happened and how it happened, we need an independent investigator, someone who is truly unbiased but who understands the rules and laws that were broken. We need to know if there was conspiracy, how far up or down the chain it went, and who all knew about it. Who ordered it. We broke laws, and someone needs to pay for it. I think it should be Cheney, and perhaps Rumsfeld, and the lawyers who twisted the law to fit what they wanted.
And if Pelosi covered up her complacency and approval.
Hell yeah. This whole thing is Pelosi's fault. First against the wall, that's what i say. There surely can't be anyone else more heavily implicated or worthy of anger.
Forgot your /sarc tag.
You can't hang one group and not hang the others involved.
entrapment.
Then it should be the DoJ lawyers who are prosecuted.
I don't use /sarc tags...I rely on context :P
Then it should be the DoJ lawyers who are prosecuted.
And anyone else involved in approving it.
And anyone else entrapped in approving it.
FTFY, the law is a messy business.
On related news this was interesting. This site has some great posts.
A federal court last week rejected most of the objections raised by the Federal Bureau of Investigation to publication of a 500-page manuscript critical of the FBI counterterrorism program that was written by retired FBI Special Agent Robert G. Wright. The manuscript had been submitted for pre-publication review in October 2001.
“This is a sad and discouraging tale,” wrote Judge Gladys Kessler in a May 6 order (pdf), referring to the FBI’s handling of the manuscript.
“In its efforts to suppress this information, the FBI repeatedly changed its position, presented formalistic objections to release of various portions of the documents in question, admitted finally that much of the material it sought to suppress was in fact in the public domain and had been all along, and now concedes that several of the reasons it originally offered for censorship no longer have any validity,” Judge Kessler observed.
The 41-page, partially redacted court ruling reviewed the facts of the pre-publication review dispute as well as the legal standards for official censorship of such materials, and dismissed all but one government objection to the manuscript. The court also dismissed other government objections to release of written answers to interview questions submitted by then-New York Times reporter Judith Miller.
http://www.fas.org/blog/secrecy/2009/05/court_rebuffs_fbi_censorship.htmlFTFY, the law is a messy business.
I'm not particularly clear on how someone is "entrapped" into constructing legal loopholes in the torture prohibition. These are the guys who were bending over that stop sign and making sure it stayed that way for two years.
And if Pelosi covered up her complacency and approval.
How could she possibly have covered it up? Really?
Then it should be the DoJ lawyers who are prosecuted.
And I have no problem with that. However, I believe it goes much further up the chain of command. I think Cheney is ultimately the one who orchestrated the whole thing.
I'm not particularly clear on how someone is "entrapped" into constructing legal loopholes in the torture prohibition. These are the guys who were bending over that stop sign and making sure it stayed that way for two years.
When classicman asked why you said to arrest police officer, I said entrapment. What would have been your reason for arresting them?
I don't see how the whole analogy fit to the problem at hand anyway. If the police officer is supposed to represent the lawyers who constructed the documents legalizing torture, then I don't know what the charge would be. I think torture is pretty clearly defined by international law and also military law. They tried to rewrite it, and they did a pretty poor job of it IMO. One could argue collusion to commit harm or something, or perhaps conspiracy. I don't know. I'm not a lawyer.
UT said the cop was entrapped.
And I agree, the analogy is a bit tortured (get it?) when it equates torture with running a stop sign. More- with running a stop sign that isn't clearly marked. There's not much that is more clearly illegal than torture. I don't think the torturers should be exonerated. At the very least, they should have to plea bargain by testifying about their superiors.
I do have some grudging sympathy for the actual torturers, though. The classic Stanford Prison and Milgram experiments show how otherwise ethical people can be influenced into doing awful things when an authority gives them permission. That excuse, however, thins out the higher you get to the top.
Milgram is no excuse. I'm sorry, but it's not. When you're given an illegal order, you are legally bound NOT to follow it. If you DO break the law and follow the illegal order, that is on YOU. But I agree that more blame lies at the top than the bottom.
http://english.chosun.com/site/data/html_dir/2009/05/01/2009050100328.html
There were gasps in the audience at a press conference by female North Korean defectors in Washington, D.C. on Wednesday when Bang Mi-sun rolled up her black skirt and showed the deep ugly scars in her thighs. The event was part of North Korea Freedom Week.
As soon as she was asked to recount her life in a North Korean concentration camp, Bang (55) stepped on a chair and roll up her skirt. Various parts of her thighs were sunken as if the flesh had been gouged out. She also walks with a limp.
Bang had formerly been an actress with the propaganda squad of the Musan Mine. She fled the North with her children when her husband starved to death in 2002, but soon fell victim to human traffickers. She was arrested by Chinese police and was sent back to the North, where she was tortured. In 2004, she escaped again.
Bang testified that one 21-year-old pregnant woman who had fled to China and been forcibly repatriated was killed when she refused to have an abortion. Forced abortions of half-Chinese children apparently aim to prevent the proliferation of "unclean" stock due to the North's archaic obsession with the national bloodline.
She called on U.S. President Barack Obama to make sure no more North Korean women are "sold like livestock in China. Please raise your voice in the international community so that North Koreans no longer receive this subhuman treatment in prison."
Pelosi received a briefing on interrogation by CIA officials when she served as ranking Democrat on the Intelligence panel in 2002, but she has asserted that she was never told that waterboarding and other harsh practices were used, only that intelligence officials thought them legal.
The Office of the Director of National Intelligence, however, has since released information calling Pelosi’s assertion into question. A DNI chart released earlier this month asserted that Pelosi received a briefing in September of 2002 during which she was given a description of interrogation methods used on a suspected terrorist.
Pelosi has claimed a different recollection of the briefing.
“Trying to understand what she was told is almost impossible; her story changes almost every day,” said Graham.
Milgram is no excuse. I'm sorry, but it's not. When you're given an illegal order, you are legally bound NOT to follow it. If you DO break the law and follow the illegal order, that is on YOU. But I agree that more blame lies at the top than the bottom.
Agreed. Excuse was the wrong word.
UT said the cop was entrapped.
And I agree, the analogy is a bit tortured (get it?) when it equates torture with running a stop sign. More- with running a stop sign that isn't clearly marked. There's not much that is more clearly illegal than torture. I don't think the torturers should be exonerated. At the very least, they should have to plea bargain by testifying about their superiors.
I do have some grudging sympathy for the actual torturers, though. The classic Stanford Prison and Milgram experiments show how otherwise ethical people can be influenced into doing awful things when an authority gives them permission. That excuse, however, thins out the higher you get to the top.
I don't see where he said that, but no big deal.
And yea, there is evidence that otherwise good and ethical people will resort to the worst kind of human behavior under certain circumstances. Like Lord of the Flies. Everyone isn't influenced though. Some people are strong enough to withstand mob rule or hive mentality.
Quote:
Pelosi received a briefing on interrogation by CIA officials when she served as ranking Democrat on the Intelligence panel in 2002, but she has asserted that she was never told that waterboarding and other harsh practices were used, only that intelligence officials thought them legal.
The Office of the Director of National Intelligence, however, has since released information calling Pelosi’s assertion into question. A DNI chart released earlier this month asserted that Pelosi received a briefing in September of 2002 during which she was given a description of interrogation methods used on a suspected terrorist.
Pelosi has claimed a different recollection of the briefing.
“Trying to understand what she was told is almost impossible; her story changes almost every day,” said Graham.
classic, there is now evidence that they were torturing people to try and make a connection between al Qaeda and Saddam Hussien. Which they never got btw.
I don't see where he said that, but no big deal.
Post 329, he modified my quote.
there is now evidence that they were torturing people to try and make a connection between al Qaeda and Saddam Hussien.
That was old news a month ago, but thanks for the update. It also has nothing to do with what I was talking about.
Chicago radio host Erich "Mancow" Muller decided he'd get himself waterboarded to prove the technique wasn't torture.
It didn't turn out that way. "Mancow," in fact, lasted just six or seven seconds before crying foul. Apparently, the experience went pretty badly -- "Witnesses said Muller thrashed on the table, and even instantly threw the toy cow he was holding as his emergency tool to signify when he wanted the experiment to stop," according to NBC Chicago.
"The average person can take this for 14 seconds," Marine Sergeant Clay South told his audience before he was waterboarded on air. "He's going to wiggle, he's going to scream, he's going to wish he never did this."
Seems Sergeant South was correct. :haha:
That is frigging hairlarrious. Mancow was in the idiot category of, "wish I would have just gone to breakfast."
Would that be a catherine wheel?
Excellent article UT- very interesting read. I need to digest it a bit more...
Would that be a catherine wheel?
I was wondering why you were bringing up fireworks in this thread, but wiki provided the answer.
I wouldn't have had any reference for Catherine wheel at all if it weren't for the Moody Blues
Eternity Road.
*grins* what can I say. I have a bleak sense of humour.
Oh good god damn.
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2010/01/26/cia_man_retracts_claim_on_waterboarding?page=0,0
Well, it's official now: John Kiriakou, the former CIA operative who affirmed claims that waterboarding quickly unloosed the tongues of hard-core terrorists, says he didn't know what he was talking about.
Kiriakou, a 15-year veteran of the agency's intelligence analysis and operations directorates, electrified the hand-wringing national debate over torture in December 2007 when he told ABC's Brian Ross and Richard Esposito in a much ballyhooed, exclusive interview that senior al Qaeda commando Abu Zubaydah cracked after only one application of the face cloth and water.
"From that day on, he answered every question," Kiriakou said. "The threat information he provided disrupted a number of attacks, maybe dozens of attacks."
...
Now comes John Kiriakou, again, with a wholly different story. On the next-to-last page of a new memoir, The Reluctant Spy: My Secret Life in the CIA's War on Terror (written with Michael Ruby), Kiriakou now rather off handedly admits that he basically made it all up.
"What I told Brian Ross in late 2007 was wrong on a couple counts," he writes. "I suggested that Abu Zubaydah had lasted only thirty or thirty-five seconds during his waterboarding before he begged his interrogators to stop; after that, I said he opened up and gave the agency actionable intelligence."
But never mind, he says now.
"I wasn't there when the interrogation took place; instead, I relied on what I'd heard and read inside the agency at the time."
RebuttalFor each genius who says no another says yes.
I have spoken to the people who — unlike Kirakou — were in the room for the interrogations of Zubaydah, KSM and other terrorists held by the CIA. And in Courting Disaster, I meticulousluy document the evidence for the efficacy of the CIA interrogation program — based not on Kirakou's claims, but on the testimony of the actual interrogators, interivews with top CIA and other intelligence officials, the evidence presented in the CIA inspector general's report, and other top-secret documents declassified by the Obama administration. I urge you to read it and judge for yourself. The evidence is overwhelming.
Before these documents were released, there was room for debate on the efficacy of CIA interrogations — because the facts had not been declassified. No longer. Yet the critics will continue to attempt to muddy the waters and use Kirakopu as "proof" of their claim the interrogations did not work. They will do so because if they admit that the interrogations worked, that means that the consequence of their position would have been another 9/11. They have to argue that a) enhanced interrogation is wrong and b) it did not work, because if the latter is not true then the deaths of thousands of innocent men, women, and children would have been the price of their approach.
The last part from LO123's link
What I hear: "The end justifies the means."
And I still don't believe it.
The last part from LO123's link
As far as I recall, beyond the legal questions, the CIA IGs report raised questions about the effectiveness of torture
But you can read it for yourself.
Today, the National Security Archive posted a side-by-side comparison of two very different versions of a 2004 report on the CIA's "Counterterrorism Detention and Interrogation Activities" by Agency Inspector General John Helgerson. Yesterday, the Obama administration released new portions of the report including considerably more information about the use of torture and other illegal practices by CIA interrogators than a version of the report declassified by the Bush administration in 2008. The report was first posted on the Web yesterday by the Washington Independent.
New revelations include:
* Details on a number of “specific unauthorized or undocumented torture techniques” not mentioned in the 2008 release, including the use of guns, drills, threats, smoke, extreme cold, stress positions, “stiff brush and shackles,” mock executions and “hard takedown.” The Bush administration censured almost all portions of the document pertaining to specific torture techniques, save for a few references to waterboarding that omitted nearly all other contextual information.
*A look at the legal reasoning behind the Agency’s use of “enhanced interrogation techniques” and the development of Agency guidance on capture, detention and interrogation.
A brief discussion of the history of CIA interrogation, including the "resurgence of interest in teaching interrogation techniques" in the early 1980s "as one of several methods to foster foreign liaison relationships."
The conclusion that, while CIA interrogations had produced useful intelligence, the “effectiveness of particular interrogation techniques in eliciting information that might not otherwise have been obtained” is not “so easily measured.”
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/torture_archive/index_ig.htm
IMO. the ends dont justifty the means....we are a nation of laws...or we are no better than the enemy.
If you I am causing you discomfort and you believe I may escalate that into the downright painful and possibly lethal, do you think you would be more or less likely to answer my questions?
But its no good if the person just doesn't have any information to give. Of course, then, they will make it up to survive. I wonder how many people we tortured who were in that category? How often did we really get the right people to torture?
If you I am causing you discomfort and you believe I may escalate that into the downright painful and possibly lethal, do you think you would be more or less likely to answer my questions?
<sarcasm>shoving hot needles under their fingernails would probably also work. Or we could use an iron maiden. That would please the heavy metal folks.</>
The results don't matter if the methods are reprehensible.
What is acceptable, Pete? - seriously.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geneva_convention
And UNCAT (
UN Convention Against Torture) signed by Reagan and US law...AND, the very moral foundation on which this country was built.
From Redux's link
Any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person, information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.
– Convention Against Torture, Article 1.1
Exactly what doesn't that include?
Either they are prisoners of war - in which case we hold them until the war is over according to the rules of the Geneva convention.
Or they are (accused) criminals in which case they should get a speedy and fair trial. Punishment according to law if/when they are proven guilty.
You are looking for an excuse for torture. If we stoop to that level, how are we better than any third world dictatorship?
No I'm not. I'm trying to figure out what forms of interrogation are allowed in your opinion. The description from the link is very ambiguous.
In general I'd say: No pain. No killing. No pushing to the brink of death.
So are we talking your basic POW captured in battle or some guy accused of working for al qaeda? If the latter has a trial occurred?
I dunno what interrogation tactics are allowed. Sounds like none.
Laws against torture are not codified to the level of specific individual acts, but to standards of behavior.
Much like "assault" is not codified by individual acts. but by standards..."causing serious physical or bodily harm." Hundreds of years of common law understand what that means...just as common law understand what is meant by "severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental"
And no. I am not suggesting any correlation between torture and assault...just an example of how such acts are codified.
Legal interrogation tactics are more psychological... like building a sense of trust, exploiting a detainee’s self-love or allegiance to or resentment of the persons with whom he was aligned, or convincing the person off the futility of his position, etc.
These techniques are not only legal, but also, according to many interrogation experts, more effective. Applied in the right combination, they will work on nearly all detainees...and the US military identifies these techniques as the best way to induce detainees to divulge information.
When you are a nation of laws, you live by those laws.
gotcha. I was wondering if there were specific things that could be done physically that were determined to be torture vs others that were not. I was trying to determine where that "line" was/is.
gotcha. I was wondering if there were specific things that could be done physically that were determined to be torture vs others that were not. I was trying to determine where that "line" was/is.
What is the purpose? Interrogation or punishment? Torture does not result in useful information. That was even understood in WWII. And demonstrated by Indonesia by taking prisoners out for dinner while keeping torture crazy Americans away. As a result, the entire Jemaah Islamiya terrorist organization was disassembled.
What is the purpose? Interrogation or inflicting pain. These are mutually exclusive objectives.
Thanks for not helping. Please feel free to not reply to my posts, especially any not directed specifically at you, in the future. Have a blessed day.
Thanks for not helping. Please feel free to not reply to my posts, especially any not directed specifically at you, in the future. Have a blessed day.
I thought it was a helpful contribution to the discussion....clear and succinct, with no animosity directed towards anyone.
[INDENT]
"What is the purpose? Interrogation or inflicting pain. These are mutually exclusive objectives." [/INDENT]
Classic...what specifically do you find pointless or not helpful?
I guess I am not communicating clearly. Perhaps it is my fault.
We weren't discussing "punishment?" Nor rehashing the "Torture does not result in useful information." argument.
But again that is just my opinion and its worth what you paid for it.
Thanks for not helping. Please feel free to not reply to my posts, especially any not directed specifically at you, in the future.
Your post applies to every decent person in the world. Which do you want advocate? Inflict pain or interrogate them? These are mutually exclusive options - except when Cheney and others promoted hate, fear and lies. Which one do you advocate? Do we punish them with pain. Or do we extract useful information - as Indonesia did to completely subvert Jemaah Islamiya? The Bali bombings that killed hundreds of Australians? Solved by not using torture and by overtly denying Cheney's people access.
What part do you not understand? Do we inflict pain as Americans did in Guantanamo, Abu Ghriad and secret prisons elsewhere in the world? Or do we do what decent people - ie Indonesians - throughout the world did to stop terrorism? Decent people even talk to our enemies. Which do you advocate? It’s a simple and logical question. Torture or interrogation? Mutually exclusive concepts. Political spin does not negate the question. Which one do you advocate?
From The Washington Post of 6 Oct 2007:
Fort Hunt's Quiet Men Break Silence on WWII
Interrogators Fought 'Battle of Wits'
For six decades, they held their silence.
The group of World War II veterans kept a military code and the decorum of their generation, telling virtually no one of their top-secret work interrogating Nazi prisoners of war at Fort Hunt.
When about two dozen veterans got together yesterday for the first time since the 1940s, many of the proud men lamented the chasm between the way they conducted interrogations during the war and the harsh measures used today in questioning terrorism suspects.
Back then, they and their commanders wrestled with the morality of bugging prisoners' cells with listening devices. They felt bad about censoring letters. They took prisoners out for steak dinners to soften them up. They played games with them.
"We got more information out of a German general with a game of chess or Ping-Pong than they do today, with their torture," said Henry Kolm, 90, an MIT physicist who had been assigned to play chess in Germany with Hitler's deputy, Rudolf Hess.
Blunt criticism of modern enemy interrogations was a common refrain at the ceremonies held beside the Potomac River near Alexandria. Across the river, President Bush defended his administration's methods of detaining and questioning terrorism suspects during an Oval Office appearance.
Several of the veterans, all men in their 80s and 90s, denounced the controversial techniques. And when the time came for them to accept honors from the Army's Freedom Team Salute, one veteran refused, citing his opposition to the war in Iraq and procedures that have been used at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba.
"I feel like the military is using us to say, 'We did spooky stuff then, so it's okay to do it now,' " said Arno Mayer, 81, a professor of European history at Princeton University.
When Peter Weiss, 82, went up to receive his award, he commandeered the microphone and gave his piece.
"I am deeply honored to be here, but I want to make it clear that my presence here is not in support of the current war," said Weiss, chairman of the Lawyers' Committee on Nuclear Policy and a human rights and trademark lawyer in New York City.
The veterans of P.O. Box 1142, a top-secret installation in Fairfax County that went only by its postal code name, were brought back to Fort Hunt by park rangers who are piecing together a portrait of what happened there during the war.
Nearly 4,000 prisoners of war, most of them German scientists and submariners, were brought in for questioning for days, even weeks, before their presence was reported to the Red Cross, a process that did not comply with the Geneva Conventions. Many of the interrogators were refugees from the Third Reich.
"We did it with a certain amount of respect and justice," said John Gunther Dean, 81, who became a career Foreign Service officer and ambassador to Denmark.
The interrogators had standards that remain a source of pride and honor.
"During the many interrogations, I never laid hands on anyone," said George Frenkel, 87, of Kensington. "We extracted information in a battle of the wits. I'm proud to say I never compromised my humanity."
Exactly what went on behind the barbed-wire fences of Fort Hunt has been a mystery that has lured amateur historians and curious neighbors for decades.
During the war, nearby residents watched buses with darkened windows roar toward the fort day and night. They couldn't have imagined that groundbreaking secrets in rocketry, microwave technology and submarine tactics were being peeled apart right on the grounds that are now a popular picnic area where moonbounces mushroom every weekend.
When Vincent Santucci arrived at the National Park Service's George Washington Memorial Parkway office as chief ranger four years ago, he asked his cultural resource specialist, Brandon Bies, to do some research so they could post signs throughout the park, explaining its history and giving it a bit more dignity.
That assignment changed dramatically when ranger Dana Dierkes was leading a tour of the park one day and someone told her about a rumored Fort Hunt veteran.
It was Fred Michel, who worked in engineering in Alexandria for 65 years, never telling his neighbors that he once faced off with prisoners and pried wartime secrets from them.
Michel directed them to other vets, and they remembered others.
Bies went from being a ranger researching mountains of topics in stacks of papers to flying across the country, camera and klieg lights in tow, to document the fading memories of veterans.
He, Santucci and others have spent hours trying to sharpen the focus of gauzy memories, coaxing complex details from men who swore on their generation's honor to never speak of the work they did at P.O. Box 1142.
"The National Park Service is committed to telling your story, and now it belongs to the nation," said David Vela, superintendent of the George Washington Memorial Parkway.
There is a deadline. Each day, about 1,100 World War II veterans die, said Jean Davis, spokeswoman for the U.S. Army's Freedom Team Salute program, which recognizes veterans and the parents, spouses and employers who provide support for active-duty soldiers.
By gathering at Fort Hunt yesterday, the quiet men could be saluted for the work they did so long ago.
Torture was very effective at rooting out witches in the salem witch trials. People confessed to being witches and told their interrogators who else was a witch in response to torture. Those they'd accused of being witches were then also tortured and they also confessed and gave information about other witches.
Torture makes people say anything to stop the pain and distress. Sometimes what they say is true; if for example they really do know something, they may well give that information. But unless you can say with 100% certainty that the people who are being tortured, know useful information, then you cannot trust that the information they inevitably give will be useful. Consequently alll information becomes suspect. Unless of course you are using their information to confirm what you already know...in which case why is there a need to drag it out of them with torture?
I can assure you, that if I were to find myself dragged into some situation through being in the wrong place at the wrong time, and accused of being part of some underground organisation; torture would have me naming names and detailing plans, regardless of whether any of that was valid.
Even if you do know for sure that someone is 'guilty' or involved in plots; you may get answers to your questions, but you may not get everything they could tell you. Psychological techniques to bring them to you, rather than traumatise them may well gain you more information, whilst also opening up new questions to ask as you dig deeper.
That and....it's fucking wrong. Just wrong. There is such a thing as 'right and wrong' and this is wrong. Totally, completely, morally wrong. It's also dangerous. If a government is prepared to sanction torture to protect its people from external threats; then it is not such a giant step for them to use it to protect from internal threats: for the police force to deem it acceptable to use toture to protect the 'law abiding' from the law breaker; or for an administration to use it to protect itself from 'dissent'. There is no sliding scale. It is either an acceptable tool or it is an unacceptable tool.
BUT, what the fuck is mental pain and suffering?
Presumably, something like making someone think they're about to be executed. Less relevant to this particular situastion, but in a wider context, something like exposing somebody to the screams of their family members whilst they are tortured.
OMFG - thank you bruce.
tw - shortly put - As usual you don't understand what I'm saying. Just stop trying.
BUT, what the fuck is mental pain and suffering?
It is defined in the US Code:
(2) “severe mental pain or suffering” means the prolonged mental harm caused by or resulting from—
[INDENT](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;[/INDENT]
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/usc_sec_18_00002340----000-.html
BUT, what the fuck is mental pain and suffering?
:thumb:
Just to step aside from the main thrust of this debate for a moment; I think it's also worth considering the effect of torture on those who perform the interrogations. We expect our soldiers to cope with all kinds of nasty and brutalising realities; often without truly understanding the effects of such experiences on their psyches; or without providing proper and effective methods of lessening the impact.
Those who torture suspects on 'our' behalf,* do so according to their orders; and are therefore exposed, by us, to something potentially even more brutalising than violent death.
*ostensibly, the British state neither condones torture (of any kind) nor accepts information derived from torture. In reality our intelligence services have been fundamentally implicated in both condoning and then utilising information gathered through the torture of suspects: most particularly those subject to the 'extraordinary renditon' system.
:thumb:
Thumbs up to the qeustion? Good, good. Now recognise that a clear answer has been offered.
Thumbs up to the qeustion? Good, good. Now recognise that a clear answer has been offered.
A clear answer based on subjectivity is not a clear answer. Intent is very difficult to measure as well.
I wasn't referring to my answerr; I was referring to the one posted by Redux. The one that explains how it is defined in the US law code. Seems pretty fucking clear to me.
As was I, it states in the part that he did not post:
As used in this chapter—
(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;
You can't measure intent, unless a person tells you what it was, and severe mental pain is a completely subjective thing.
Every time Redux posts he tortures.
The US Army Field Manual also provides the 18 acceptable and legal approaches to interrogation and they are all psychological in nature.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/intell/library/policy/army/fm/fm34-52/app-h.htm
And these were extended by law several years ago to apply beyond just the Army...to any US personnel (including CIA).
Y'know, thids is bizarre to me. If someone had said to me when i was younger, that in a decade or so, I would be having a conversation in which Americans were attempting to justify the use of torture on detainees, I'd never have believed it. I'd have believed it of my own country before I'd have believed it of yours.
All these new definitions are post Abu Ghraib.
@ Merc: I was referring to this.
It is defined in the US Code:
Quote:
(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;
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18...0----000-.html
How is that not clear?
You can't measure intent, unless a person tells you what it was, and severe mental pain is a completely subjective thing.
I fail to see how prohibiting death threats or threats to bodily harm (talk or I'll start pulling off your finger nails) or mind-altering drugs or threats to family members...has anything to do with "intent" or is ambiguous.
Y'know, thids is bizarre to me. If someone had said to me when i was younger, that in a decade or so, I would be having a conversation in which Americans were attempting to justify the use of torture on detainees, I'd never have believed it. I'd have believed it of my own country before I'd have believed it of yours.
Oh, I am not trying to justify it. Merely pointing out that there are holes in it. If I was innocently caught and sent to Gitmo I certainly, along with my lawyers would be quick to say that I was being tortured. Wouldn't you?
I fail to see how prohibiting death threats or threats to bodily harm (talk or I'll start pulling off your finger nails) or mind-altering drugs or threats to family members...has anything to do with "intent" or is ambiguous.
You have to be able to prove it in a court, that the individual said those things. The prisoner is not a very strong witness in many of these cases. Unless I confess you have no idea what my intent is or what was said.
Oh, I am not trying to justify it. Merely pointing out that there are holes in it. If I was innocently caught and sent to Gitmo I certainly, along with my lawyers would be quick to say that I was being tortured. Wouldn't you?
If you were innocently caught and sent to Gitmo, you probably would have been tortured.
The lads from manchester and Tipton were innocent. They were also tortured. The medical evidence for that torture is very hard to ignore.
Besides: there's no reason to turn to such accusations. We know that waterboarding (which puts a suspect into a state similar to that of drowning and induces a fear of death) has been used. That is torture. We know that prisoners have been sent elsewhere to be interrogated by states in which torture is legal. We know that other 'enhanced interrogation' techniques have been used. The question is not whether those techniques were used, but whether or not they constitute torture.
And you have absolutely been justifying their use.
If you were innocently caught and sent to Gitmo, you probably would have been tortured.
False. There is no proof that every person sent there was tortured. Period.
The lads from manchester and Tipton were innocent. They were also tortured. The medical evidence for that torture is very hard to ignore.
There are some really good experts out there that specialize in that type of research. I believe that is the information that is out there about those guys. I doubt anyone will ever know the complete truth.
Besides: there's no reason to turn to such accusations. We know that waterboarding (which puts a suspect into a state similar to that of drowning and induces a fear of death) has been used. That is torture.
True.
We know that prisoners have been sent elsewhere to be interrogated by states in which torture is legal.
True.
We know that other 'enhanced interrogation' techniques have been used.
True.
The question is not whether those techniques were used, but whether or not they constitute torture.
For those cases where it can be proven, true.
And you have absolutely been justifying their use.
False.
[QUOTE=TheMercenary;631002]False. There is no proof that every person sent there was tortured. Period.
QUOTE]
I didn't say you would have been tortured, i said you wouold probably have been tortured. There is no evidence to say that every prisoner was tortured, hence the lack of an absolute in my post. There is plenty of evidence to suggest it was widely used, however, which is why i believe you 'probably' would have been.
There is equally no evidence to suggest that those inmates who claim to have been tortured were lying. Especially given they were not contained within due process. So, why assume that an accusation from them is just a lie?
I didn't say you would have been tortured, i said you wouold probably have been tortured. There is no evidence to say that every prisoner was tortured, hence the lack of an absolute in my post. There is plenty of evidence to suggest it was widely used, however, which is why i believe you 'probably' would have been.
And I say that is completely and utterly false and there is no way you can support that premise. Period.
There is equally no evidence to suggest that those inmates who claim to have been tortured were lying.
But you choose to believe whatever they say about the subject is true because you want to believe it.
Especially given they were not contained within due process.
Yea, it was not a police process it was a combat process.
So, why assume that an accusation from them is just a lie?
My assumption is that there is no way to really prove every accusation without a complete evaluation based on subject matter experts who deal with people like this. I am not saying they have lied only that until they are examined by said experts that we will never know.
From earlier in this debate:
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.
Therefore we shouldn't have them 'looking over their shoulders'. That's a recipe for them continuing to use methods that are illegal and immoral. This in itself is a justification. I realise that you were arguing against them being held accountable retrospectively and the damage that might do to the organisation in the future. But you are arguing here for complicity in the actions they took. The actions they took included torture.
I don't by the way mean you have advocated the use of torture\; you've been very clear that 'torture' is illegal and should not be used. You have however shown remarkable unwillingness to accept that commonly used methods of interrogation during this period constitute tporture. Even where you have (after much diagreement over definitions) accepted something as a method of 'torture'you have then suggested that the inmates who suffered it are the least reliable witnesses. This is a catch 22. The only people who can make an accusation of torture in individual cases are those who were present\: the interrogator and the victim. The fact that they are claiming they have been tortured is taken by you, seemingly as evidence that they have not. The only people who can be trusted are those who were not involved. Therefore nobody can be trusted and therefore no evidence is secure.
I was perhaps unfair to say you have justified the use of torture. But you have advocated an attitude which is inherently complicit in that crime, and which inherently removes all possibility of truly illuminating it.
My assumption is that there is no way to really prove every accusation without a complete evaluation based on subject matter experts who deal with people like this. I am not saying they have lied only that until they are examined by said experts that we will never know.
It is not really an issue of proving anything.
These are the accepted legal approaches to interrogation by US personnel..and they involve little, if any, subjective analysis of whether they inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/intell/library/policy/army/fm/fm34-52/app-h.htm
added:
And one of Obama's first Executive Orders was to put an end to the previous administration's approval of "enhanced interrogation techniques" that go above and beyond these procedures.
Period.
Y'know, thids is bizarre to me. If someone had said to me when i was younger, that in a decade or so, I would be having a conversation in which Americans were attempting to justify the use of torture on detainees, I'd never have believed it. I'd have believed it of my own country before I'd have believed it of yours.
C'mon, do you think Americans (or anyone else) don't abuse spouses, beat children, or kick puppies? People is people, but I digress.
Except for Dick Cheney and UG, I think most Americans don't approve of torturing detainees, foreign or domestic. But the wrinkle is, what constitutes torture? The Department of Justice, Army Field Manual and Geneva Convention, outlines are open to interpretation, especially when it applies to
mental torture.
For example;
(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;
Certainly the threat of rooming with Horny Bubba would cause me mental anguish, but it's not torture because it's "incidental to lawful sanctions".
Except where the interrogator,(or just a guard), is following a script, it remains up to the individuals sense of right/wrong. That becomes pretty subjective, especially in retrospect.
Some people would say puting milk in their tea, is torture. ;)
Except for Dick Cheney and UG, I think most Americans don't approve of torturing detainees, foreign or domestic. But the wrinkle is, what constitutes torture? The Department of Justice, Army Field Manual and Geneva Convention, outlines are open to interpretation, especially when it applies to mental torture.
And back to the beginning we go. This was exactly my point. Its all up to interpretation.
Except where the interrogator,(or just a guard), is following a script, it remains up to the individuals sense of right/wrong. That becomes pretty subjective, especially in retrospect.
That is the point exactly. And all of these recently posted "new" definitions have come about after the fact after a specific event was uncovered.
That is the point exactly. And all of these recently posted "new" definitions have come about after the fact after a specific event was uncovered.
But I think everyone is real clear about waterboarding, especially after we convicted our enemies for it.
Yes, physical torture is more easily defined, although people will still be split on it, than mental torture.
But I think everyone is real clear about waterboarding, especially after we convicted our enemies for it.
Do you mean the Japanese version, where part of the procedure is getting kicked in the stomach during it?
Do you mean the Japanese version, where part of the procedure is getting kicked in the stomach during it?
So the choking is ok, just not the kicking?
But I think everyone is real clear about waterboarding, especially after we convicted our enemies for it.
I don't disagree with that fact.
When you said "we convicted our enemies for it," did you mean the Japanese version?
That is the only one I know of. But obviously I didn't know there was a difference between the two.
http://www.yawningbread.org/arch_1997/yax-057.htm
(2) ... Water torture. There were 2 forms of water torture. In the first the victim was tied or held down on his back and a cloth placed over his nose and mouth. Water was then poured on the cloth. Interrogation proceeded and the victim was beated if he did not reply. As he opened his mouth to breathe or to answer questions, water went down his throat until he could not hold anymore. Sometimes he was then beaten over his distended stomach , sometimes a Jap. jumped on his stomach or sometimes pressed on it with his foot. In the 2nd, the victim was tied lengthways on a ladder face upwards with a rung of the ladder across his throat and his head below the ladder. In his position he was slid head first into a tub of water and kept there until almost drowned. After being revived interrogation continued and he would be re-immersed.
So the choking is ok, just not the kicking?
According to wackos, pealing someone's skin off is not torture because that skin will grow back. Why are so many arguing silly semantics?
Same question remains unanswered. Do interrogate them or just inflict pain? Why do those who love torture not answer that question? Why do they even love choking - as if that does anything useful?
Five plus years ago, a warning to all Cellar dwellers described how confrontational America had become. Widespread is hate, fear, and 'big dic' thinking promoted by Limbaugh, Fox News, etc. Europeans would have little appreciation for the hate routinely broadcast daily on radio and TV.
How many non-Americans in The Cellar did not know five plus years ago and now appreciate how extremist some Americans are? That is not a rhetorical question. How many outside America now understand why the United States did a Pearl Harbor to Iraq? And now understand the source of hate even expressed against the French, Turks, Germans, etc.
Its interpretation? No. A question that American extremists will not answer. Do we interrogate them or just want to implement painful revenge? Other than DanaC, I am shocked how few outside America endorse torture by their silence.
thanks UT.
I don't know what we did or did not do.
And no one else can say for sure either.
I don't know what we did or did not do.
So the pictures from Abu Ghriad never existed?
Were those also ideal interrogation techiques?
NY Times
By ELLEN BARRY
Published: April 13, 2013
[ATTACH]43645[/ATTACH]
David Addington, left, John Yoo, center, and Maj. Gen. Geoffrey D. Miller are among those whom Russia has barred.
Russia Bars 18 Americans After Sanctions by U.S.
The list is headed by four men who Russia’s Foreign Ministry says
are responsible for “the legalization of torture” and “unlimited detention”:
David Addington, who served as chief of staff to Vice President Dick Cheney
and provided legal support for interrogation policies;
John Yoo, a high-ranking Bush administration lawyer who wrote several major opinions on torture;
and Maj. Gen. Geoffrey D. Miller and Rear Adm. Jeffrey Harbeson,
each of whom commanded detention operations in Guantánamo Bay, Cuba.
[COLOR="DarkRed"]Now the US government should follow suite,
and the Univ of California should move John Yoo's office to
Begg Rock.
[/COLOR]
If Russia is barring Americans for anything torture-related, it must be for copyright violations of their own methods.
http://terrorism.about.com/od/humanrights/a/RussiaTorture.htm
“Disappearances” in Chechnya are so widespread and systematic that they constitute crimes against humanity; by some estimates between 3,000 and 5,000 have “disappeared” since 1999. In numerous cases their corpses are found in unmarked graves or dumped, but in most instances they are simply never heard from after being taken into custody . . . The majority of the bodies showed signs of severe mutilation, including flaying or scalping, broken limbs, severed finger tips and ears, and close range bullet wounds typical of summary executions. Examinations by medical doctors of some of these bodies have revealed that some of the deliberate mutilations were inflicted while the detainees were still alive.
OK, but regardless of whatever happens in other governments,
we are responsible for what happens in ours.
Yoo and Additon sold out ours for legal expendiency.
I think I'd prefer us measuring ourselves against the best that the world has to offer rather than justifying ourselves against the worst.
Look at that filthy, pitch-black kettle! Just look at it!!
Read the original story. This barring is in response to a US barring of Russian officials who falsely prosecuted, jailed, beat, and killed a guy, for exposing Russian corruption.
The Russians didn't like the US getting all up in their business
So they stopped US parents adopting Russian orphans. Too bad for the fucking orphans, who are the modern cannon fodder of diplomacy now
"Stop or we'll shoot our kids!"
But Lamp took the bait and praised the Russians for beating his own favorite dead horses...
The Russian government is corrupt but OOH LOOK SHINY THINGS I HATE JOHN YOO TOO!! WE SHOULD BE MORE LIKE THE RUSSIANS!!
I seriously doubt that Lamplighter thinks you should be more like the Russians.
Read the original story.
This barring is in response to a US barring of Russian officials who falsely prosecuted,
jailed, beat, and killed a guy, for exposing Russian corruption.
<snip>
@UT, My OP included this, and my next post conceded your point, but not everything is:
"My Country Right or Wrong", "Love It or Leave It", or "Retarded or High"
By coincidence for this entire thread, an article came out today...
NY Times
SCOTT SHANE
April 16, 2013
U.S. Practiced Torture After 9/11, Nonpartisan Review Concludes
WASHINGTON — A nonpartisan, independent review of interrogation and detention programs
in the years after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks concludes that
[COLOR="DarkRed"]“it is indisputable that the United States engaged in the practice of torture”
and that the nation’s highest officials bore ultimate responsibility for it.[/COLOR]
The sweeping, 577-page report says that while brutality has occurred in every American war,
there never before had been “the kind of considered and detailed discussions
that occurred after 9/11 directly involving a president and his top advisers on the wisdom,
propriety and legality of inflicting pain and torment on some detainees in our custody.”
The study, by an 11-member panel convened by the Constitution Project,
a legal research and advocacy group, is to be released on Tuesday morning.
Debate over the coercive interrogation methods used by the administration of
President George W. Bush has often broken down on largely partisan lines.
The Constitution Project’s task force on detainee treatment,
led by two former members of Congress with experience in the executive branch
— a Republican, Asa Hutchinson, and a Democrat, James R. Jones —
seeks to produce a stronger national consensus on the torture question.<snip>
[COLOR="DarkRed"]The task force found “no firm or persuasive evidence” that these interrogation methods
produced valuable information that could not have been obtained by other means.[/COLOR]
While “a person subjected to torture might well divulge useful information,”
much of the information obtained by force was not reliable, the report says. <snip>
Mr. Hutchinson, who served in the Bush administration as chief of the
Drug Enforcement Administration and under secretary of the Department of Homeland Security,
said he “took convincing” on the torture issue. But after the panel’s nearly two years of research,
he said [COLOR="DarkRed"]he had no doubts about what the United States did[/COLOR].
“This has not been an easy inquiry for me, because I know many of the players,"
Mr. Hutchinson said in an interview. He said he thought everyone involved in decisions,
from Mr. Bush down, had acted in good faith, in a desperate effort to try to prevent more attacks.
“But I just think we learn from history,” Mr. Hutchinson said.
“It’s incredibly important to have an accurate account
not just of what happened but of how decisions were made.”
He added, “The United States has a historic and unique character,
and part of that character is that we do not torture.”
[COLOR="DarkRed"]The panel found that the United States violated its international legal obligations by engineering
“enforced disappearances” and secret detentions. [/COLOR]
It questions recidivism figures published by the Defense Intelligence Agency for Guantánamo detainees
who have been released, saying they conflict with independent reviews.
<snip>
I urge those who have posted in this, and similar, threads to read the entire article.
Keep on beating that horse. We're [COLOR="DarkRed"]ten years on[/COLOR] now and it never gets tiresome.
We're ten years on now and it never gets tiresome.
I'm glad you agree.
Yes, because there are still some people without opinions on the subject and discussing it will be productive and interesting.
![Begg Rock]("http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.mini650pacificchallenge.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/begg_rock.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.mini650pacificchallenge.com/ai1ec_event/pssa-dan-byrne-3-begg-rock/%3Finstance_id%3D&usg=__dXyS36-r7r3Y99ZaBb6c-tPEWfw=&h=768&w=1024&sz=299&hl=en&start=2&zoom=1&tbnid=p4Urn2Nq8-AdkM:&tbnh=113&tbnw=150&ei=LrJqUZmKPOfXigKaxoHQBQ&prev=/search%3Fq%3Dbegg%2Brock%2Bcalifornia%26hl%3Den%26gbv%3D2%26tbm%3Disch&itbs=1&sa=X&ved=0CC4QrQMwAQ"){kind=link}