Hello:

Didja read about what your government did to people in YOUR name?? It's OK if you're not embarrassed by your government. I'm embarrassed enough for all of us.

These ten tortures are: (l) attention grasp, (2) walling, (3) facial hold, (4) facial slap (insult slap), (5) cramped confinement, (6) wall standing, (7) stress positions, (8) sleep deprivation, (9) insects placed in a confinement box, and (10) the waterboard.

I suppose you're going to tell me that I forget WHO they are. My answer is PRECISELY THAT!!

Blind justice is a concept LOST on the right wing!!!

Ok, I'll indulge you for a minute... Let's look at WHO they are. When there were 600 at Gitmo, Cheney told us that they were the "worst of the worst". Since then they let 400 of 'em go with NO charges... So, I guess 400 of the 600 WEREN'T the worst of the worst...

But, if Vice was WRONG about 2/3 of them, what gives you confidence that he's right about the remailing 1/3?? Well, I for one, have NO confidence in it, however I'm sure you righty's believe every word Vice utters.

Who else are these people?? Well, they've never been charged with anything. Even without rights, they've not been convicted of anything. We didn't even arrest all of them. Some were handed over because they couldn't pay a bribe. In truth, we have NO idea whether they're bad guys or not.

The torture memo details the interrogation techniques that were used on Abu Zubaydah. The Palestinian-born man was captured in Pakistan, in March 2002, and then interrogated in Afghanistan and Guantánamo Bay. According to US officials he has given information that foiled major terror attacks, however he has never been charged with any crime and remains in custody.

In a Red Cross report on Guantánamo Bay this year he was quoted saying of his waterboarding: "I thought I was going to die. I lost control of my urine. Since then, I still lose control of my urine when under stress".

"I gave a lot of false information in order to satisfy what I believed the interrogators wished to hear in order to make the ill-treatment stop,” he said.

excon

My answer is that the Obama adm will not prosecute because all the Justice Dept opinions that were released were determined by sound legal standing .


Here is my definition of torture
http://patdollard.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/jumper11zg3yf1.jpg

My answer is that the Obama adm will not prosecute because all the Justice Dept opinions that were released were determined by sound legal standing .Hello again, tom:

Couple things.

It WAS legal. But, it was anything but sound. Plus, I know you believe torture is cool, because it's revenge. Justice ain't part of your equation.

But, for the moment, let's forget about whether torture is good or not. Let's talk about whether we're ever going to do it again. Mr. Constitutional lawyer Obama says no. "We have taken steps to ensure that the actions described within them (the memos) never take place again," Obama said. He's dreaming!!

While Obama has turned the page, many others haven't, including people such as yourself, who think waterboarding was a good idea. Without a commission or a trial, if Mitt Romney, (the man who pledged to double the size of Gitmo) is ever president, we're going to start torturing all over again.

excon

I have actually read some of the memos (published in the Slimes )
Justice Department Memos on Interrogation Techniques - The New York Times (http://documents.nytimes.com/justice-department-memos-on-interrogation-techniques#p=1)

So far they appear to me that :
They show great concern for the health and well-being of the detainees.

They were only authorized in very limited circumstances (only when the CIA had reason to believe that the detainee had knowledge about pending terrorist attacks etc)

That thousands of American servicemen have been waterboarded and subjected to the other techniques in question, as part of their training.

The fact that the CIA extracted valuable INTELLIGENCE (it matters little if some of the "confessions "were lies) proves their effectiveness.The total information received allowed them to swiftly bring down the KSM group and by all evidence prevented other attacks on the country .

I will not lose any sleep that one of terrorists feared bugs ,and we used a caterpillar against him, and now he permanently needs Depends.

What bothers me more is again the left has defined the limits of what will happen to captured detainees. We know already that AQ trains with the Army Manual (which is available on-line) in mind. Now they know they will no longer have to train against getting slapped or being put into a confinement box.

Now they know they will no longer have to train against getting slapped or being put into a confinement box.Hello again, tom:

I'm sure the jihadists are relieved to find out, that if the bomb they've strapped to their body fails to go off, they're not going to get slapped.

You righty's are silly.

excon

The concern here is not the schmuck with the vest. It's the a$$hole who sent him I want stopped.

Abu Zubaydah (a so called low-level operative ) disclosed some information voluntarily. But he was coerced into disclosing information that led to the capture of Ramzi bin al Shibh ;a planners of 9-11. who gave info.that helped lead to the capture of KSM and other senior AQ thugs.

The info from these captured jihadists helped break up plots aimed at both Europe and the U.S.

Briefings and hearings open to all members of the Intelligence Committees of Congress ;both parties , detailed this information and how the information was obtained . Not a peep of protest was made at the time . Now there is faux outrage and a "promise" made to terrorist that we will be good.
That is what's silly .

It's the a$$hole who sent him I want stopped. Hello again, tom:

Changes NOTHING. You think the leaders will stop waging jihad because they know they'll be waterboarded if they're caught??

It's silly.

Plus, there's equally compelling information that Zubaydah's value to the American public was greatly oversold. What folks inside the CIA and FBI were realizing, even as the dufus was emphasizing the strategic value of Zubaydah, is that Zubaydah is psychologically imbalanced with multiple personalities. He was not involved in various events that the CIA thought he was involved in. During various bombings in the late '90s, he was not where the CIA thought he would be. Zubaydah, in his diary's, goes through long lists quoting nonsensical details about various people and what they're doing, folks that he's moving around, getting plane tickets for and serving tea to, all in the hand of three different characters. The CIA thought he was involved in both the Khobar Towers bombing and the attack on the USS Cole, and he clearly wasn't.

That's the real story of Zubaydah.

excon

Mentally ill ? I wonder what that means .Because he was afraid of bugs ? I thought Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was also mentally ill.

Let's see what information the unstable and multiple personalitied Zubaydah disclosed.

He revealed to the CIA that KSM was the mastermind behind the 9/11 attacks and that his code name was “Muktar”(something Zubaydah thought we already knew).
He also gave us information that led to the capture of Jose Padilla. Yeah I know.. the dirty bomb plot was not real either but KSM did send him on a mission to blow up American buildings using natural gas. Lucky for us we knew of that plot before Padilla arrived in O'Hare Chicago. We knew about it because Zubaydah gave the CIA that info also.

He also gave us the key info. On Ramzi bin al Shibh ,who not only helped plan 9-11 , but also was working on a plot to hijack planes in Europe to attack England.

The wild and crazy Zubaydah and bin al Shibh then provided information that led to the capture of KSM .

KSM's swim led to the capture of Zubair ,an operative with the terrorist network Jemmah Islamiyah,who then indentified a Jemmah Islamiyah leader named Hambali who was also KSM's partner in developing a plot to hijack passenger planes and fly them into West Coast skyscrapers.

I could go on and on... a plot to use anthrax by an AQ cell was disrupted with info from KSM... he gave info that led to the capture of Ammar al Baluchi who was plotting an attack against our embassy in Karachi. etc. etc.
These are what is already known by open source information. I can just imagine what has not been revealed . This month the Brits did a quick round up of plotters when their intel chief got sloppy with some paperwork and the Brit press revealed the plot.

Anyway . All the nonsense by the Compost that Zubaydah was a minor player has been discredited .

After reading the memos I'm just not that disturbed. They sure don't sound the way they've been described by the great unhinged among us, and Obama has both promised not to prosecute anyone and tied his own hands in the process by suspending "enhanced" techniques and releasing the memos. I'm sure he released them to give the nutroots something to ease their pain after their 24 hr mourning period from discovering he wouldn't prosecute.

What does Panetta do now since he said the techniques in the Army Field Manual which the Jihadists have a copy of might not be enough, and swore in his confirmation hearing (http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/02/12/panetta.cia.director/index.html) "he would not hesitate to go to the president and ask for additional authority if there was "a ticking-bomb situation?"

A good, less controversial way to torture terrorists would be to put them in a small room with large speakers and force them to listen to Kenny G, Britney Spears, Eminem, any rap music, any boy band, Yoko Ono, pretty much any music made later than the 1980s. But seriously folks, I think that there are situations where "enhanced" interrogation techniques are justified. Islamic extremists exploit the U.S. constitutional rights when it suits them, and we have to do what it takes to prevent another 9/11.

A good, less controversial way to torture terrorists would be to put them in a small room with large speakers and force them to listen to Kenny G, Britney Spears, Eminem, any rap music, any boy band, Yoko Ono, pretty much any music made later than the 1980s. But seriously folks, I think that there are situations where "enhanced" interrogation techniques are justified. Islamic extremists exploit the U.S. constitutional rights when it suits them, and we have to do what it takes to prevent another 9/11.

Non-stop William Hung. 72 hours of "I love the Rainy Nights" or "Turn Me Loose." Perhaps a Japanese game show marathon or Nancy Pelosi wallpaper?

Certainly getting assaulted by a caterpillar is torture.

certainly getting assaulted by a caterpillar is torture.

Horrible!
http://images.inmagine.com/img/westend61/wses023/wses023242.jpg

A good, less controversial way to torture terrorists would be to put them in a small room with large speakers and force them to listen to Kenny G, Britney Spears, Eminem, any rap music, any boy band, Yoko Ono, pretty much any music made later than the 1980s. But seriously folks, I think that there are situations where "enhanced" interrogation techniques are justified. Islamic extremists exploit the U.S. constitutional rights when it suits them, and we have to do what it takes to prevent another 9/11.



I'm with you on thisversion of "enhanced interrogation" ;) I would also include anything by Miley Cyrus.

But rather than "torture" I would take these jihadists to a strip club, buy them lap dances maybe give them a joint or two and then take pictures of them in these compromising positions and threaten to post them on the internet where their fellow jihadists can see what infidels they have become. :eek:

What do you think EX :)





G&P

What do you think EXHello Righty's:

I think you should be ashamed. That's OK. I'm shamed enough for you.

excon

I don't know Ex,

In a box with a caterpillar or waterboardng vs a joint and strippers. Which one is more humane?:) You tell us. Tell us what interrogation techniques are alllowable in order to get useful information from suspected terrorists?



G&P

Hello again:

I guess it assuages your conscience to pretend that we didn't brutalize people. You even make fun of it.. I'll bet the Nazi's posted pictures of Jews having the time of their life too...

Then you say, well if we did brutalize them, they deserved it...

All this, from people who claim to be staunch Christians, like Hannity.

I understand why you don't want to discuss it seriously, or you pretend it didn't happen. I don't blame you at all. It turns my stomach too to know what was done in my name. I want to forget about as quickly as possible too..

But, I can't, and I'm not going to let you!

From the NY Times, today: Abu Zubaydah had provided much valuable information under less severe treatment, and the harsher handling produced no breakthroughs, according to one former intelligence official with direct knowledge of the case. Instead, watching his torment caused great distress to his captors, the official said.

Even for those who believed that brutal treatment could produce results, the official said, “seeing these depths of human misery and degradation has a traumatic effect on me... ”

But, I guess if you're on a website that shows nice pictures of fuzzy caterpillars, you won't be traumatized, because you're lying to yourselves.

I'm not a Christian. If this is what you guys do, I'm really glad I'm not.

excon

Ah, the Christian straw man.

I never said I was for torture, certainly the whole insect thing is ripe for jest unless it was scorpions they are talking about.

So in the attempt to turn the other cheek, we should let all potential terrorists withhold information that could save the lives of others? Or let them go back to the battlefield to kill more Americans?



G&P

I never said I was for torture....

So in the attempt to turn the other cheek, we should let all potential terrorists withhold information that could save the lives of others? or let them go back to the battlefield to kill more Americans?Hello again, in:

Your post demonstrates the schizophrenia of your side. On the one had you say you don't support torture, then on the other hand, you do.

You can't have it both ways. Sorry.

excon

There are Christians in many parts of the world today that would gladly exchange the torture that they are subjected to in favor of torture a la Gitmo.

Maybe we could just show them videos of nude women. I think they believe if they see a nude woman, it makes them unclean and Hell bound.

But I suppose some people would call that torture as well.

Maybe offer them bacon for breakfast?

Carter and the Democrats did something similar in trying to distance themselves from the CIA's cold war methods of operation.They did this in part to impress Western Europeans ,and to stroke each others faux moral superiority. It didn't work out well for us as our intel gathering ability was dangerously weakened.

I see the same process in play again . The agency by this release is being left to twist in the wind. Obama claims that the Army Manual will be the SOP .But even worse ,even if these methods were still allowed the jihadist knows that tight confinement can only last up to a couple of hours;that stress positions are meant to" induce temporary muscle fatigue” not “severe physical pain.”

The question is not if they are repugnant. To you and me they would be because of projection . We don't want to be exposed to it.

The real question is if they are necessary methods. Ex you can get the testimony of all the anonymous interogators you wish .My source is among others former CIA director Michael Hayden ;Michael B. Mukasey former AG and other former CIA assets like Michael Schurer who have publicly testified to the effectiveness.

Obama promised a serious review of the techniques. Now it won't be necessary. Even if we were to go back to them ,the President has just handed over the play-book to the opposing team.

Hello again, tom:

I keep hearing how the jihadists will be emboldended because they learned that we're not going to kill 'em in the box...

I just don't get it. Really, I don't. Tell me this... Do you think, that before these memos were released, the jihadists DID think they were going to die in the box?? And, THAT information was somehow STOPPING them??

You guys make no sense at all.

excon

From Michael Hayden's interview with Chris Wallace today :



WALLACE: Now, we should point out that you were CIA director starting in 2006, which means that you came in after these memos, and you came in after almost all of these interrogations took place.
But I do want to ask you -- explain the practical effect that you believe of how the release of these memos will help Al Qaida train its recruits, train its operatives, to stand up to future interrogations.
HAYDEN: Sure. At the tactical level, what we have described for our enemies in the midst of a war are the outer limits that any American would ever go to in terms of interrogating an Al Qaida terrorist. That's very valuable information.
Now, it doesn't mean we would always go to those outer limits, but it describes the box within which Americans will not go beyond.
To me, that's very useful for our enemies, even if, as a policy matter, this president at this time had decided not to use one, any, or all of those techniques. It still reveals those outer limits, and that's very important.
WALLACE: Now, the president says, and his people say, this has basically all been in the press already.
HAYDEN: There's a difference. There's a difference of leaks, and rumors, and rumors of this and that, and going out there and defining in an absolutely clear way what the limits are.
I mean, if that were the rationale -- "Oh, it's already out there" -- any time there was a leak of classified information, you would seem to argue then that we have to go out there and give the full story. I mean, that doesn't make sense on its face.
WALLACE: Now, President Obama has ordered a review of interrogation techniques beyond the Army Field Manual. Can they find some techniques that meet his standards and that will still be effective in getting the information we need?
HAYDEN: I don't know. What -- I mean, it's not an unlimited universe of techniques that we would find acceptable as a people.
And what we have practically done is taken this body of techniques off the table even while this study is under way. That was one of the things that I discussed with White House officials.
This seems to moot the president's own commission to decide whether the techniques of the Army Field Manual are adequate in all cases.
WALLACE: So are you suggesting that we no longer will have, whatever he decides on, the ability to extract the information we need?
HAYDEN: I think that teaching our enemies our outer limits, by taking techniques off the table, we have made it more difficult in a whole host of circumstances I can imagine, more difficult for CIA officers to defend the nation.

RealClearPolitics - Sens. McCaskill and Graham on "Fox News Sunday" (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/04/19/mccaskill_graham_fox_news_sunday_96064.html)

Hello again, in:

Your post demonstrates the schizophrenia of your side. On the one had you say you don't support torture, then on the other hand, you do.

You can't have it both ways. Sorry.

excon


EX,

This is a very difficult issue, and it is right to be brought up time and time again.
That is cool. Ultimately, to choose between the lives of many innocents vs a suspected terrorist what would you do?


This outlines all the good points you make (http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/17507) against torture.

If there is objective evidence that say humor and a beer with these suspected terrorists gets more useful information than "enhanced interrogations" I am all for it :);)




G&P

The Memos Prove We Didn't Torture - WSJ.com (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124018665408933455.html)

The Memos Prove We Didn't Torture Hello tom:

Couple things. You keep quoting people like Michael Hayden and the Wall Street Journal as your sources... I don't believe HIM any more than I believe Vice, and the Journal people apparently can't read...

The memos prove we changed the definition of torture - that's all.

Seems to me the CIA COULD look back a few years and discover that WE tried and EXECUTED people for doing exactly what we're doing now. But, I guess it's easier to change the meaning of words, and then fool the people by foisting your new definition upon them. Looks like it worked on your side.

It didn't work over here.

excon

According to the Winter Soldiers ,in Vietnam a group of prisoners were lifted in a helicopter . One of them were sent for a free fall. The others became very cooperative .

That was torture.

That was torture.Hello again, tom:

Interestingly, there's OTHER forms of torture besides throwing somebody off an airplane. Waterboarding would be one of them. We DID execute some Japanese for waterboarding OUR GI's.

Maybe you have to be bereft of history in order to be a rightwinger.

excon

No I'm very familiar with the technique that the Japanese used... Filling up the subject so full of water that they had to forcibly help the subject puke and evict out the water before they really drowned.. . and the waterboarding technique described in the above posting where only the sensation of drowning was apparent . That's the difference between harsh interrogation and torture.

Hello again, tom:

How did I know that you'd say OUR waterboarding was legal, but when THEY did it, they needed to be EXECUTED?

How did I also know that you'd say we didn't torture because there was a doctor present?

How did I know that you'd say we didn't torture because the DOJ and the dufus said so?

You, like inthebox, in many of your posts, also want to tell me how badly the guys we torture DESERVE it. THAT I can understand. I GET vengeance. What I don't get, is lying about it.

So, what is it? Do we torture because they deserve it. Or do we just not torture people?

excon

Hello again, tom:

Interestingly, there's OTHER forms of torture besides throwing somebody off an airplane. Waterboarding would be one of them. We DID execute some Japanese for waterboarding OUR GI's.

Maybe you have to be bereft of history in order to be a rightwinger.

Excon

Which Japanese were executed for waterboarding? I've found one instance, Yukio Asano, who was sentenced to 15 years hard labor. Waterboarding also tended to go further (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waterboarding#World_War_II) than 20 seconds of water poured over a towel on someone's face under strict supervision.


During World War II both Japanese troops, especially the Kempeitai, and the officers of the Gestapo, the German secret police, used waterboarding as a method of torture. During the Japanese occupation of Singapore the Double Tenth Incident occurred. This included waterboarding, by the method of binding or holding down the victim on his back, placing a cloth over his mouth and nose, and pouring water onto the cloth. In this version, 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.

Now, what was your version of history?

Hello again, tom/Steve (you guys need to start sounding different):

The C.I.A. officers used waterboarding at least 83 times in August 2002 against Abu Zubaydah, according to a 2005 Justice Department legal memorandum.

So, if it's not torture to do it once, I guess it's not torture to do it 83 times?

excon

The Slimes claims they got their info from John Kiriakou,a former CIA op.

But in an earlier compost article ;although he talked like he had witnessed the waterboarding ,he in fact was not present.


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.
Waterboarding Recounted - washingtonpost.com (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/10/AR2007121002091.html)

Later in the article he describes it as a single event that lasted 35 secords


The waterboarding lasted about 35 seconds before Abu Zubaida broke down, according to Kiriakou, who said he was given a detailed description of the incident by fellow team members. The next day, Abu Zubaida told his captors he would tell them whatever they wanted, Kiriakou said.
"He said that Allah had come to him in his cell and told him to cooperate, because it would make things easier for his brothers," Kiriakou said.


He was either lying then or lying now.

BTW Steve and I are 2 different people.

These ten tortures are: (l) attention grasp, (2) walling, (3) facial hold, (4) facial slap (insult slap), (5) cramped confinement, (6) wall standing, (7) stress positions, (8) sleep deprivation, (9) insects placed in a confinement box, and (10) the waterboard.

I don't see any hot irons under the fingernails. No bastinado. No broken bones, cut off or crushed limbs, entrails pulled out through the stomach, no hot coals. No torture rack, no Iron Maden, no stocks, no sharp or pointy instruments.

Frankly, I've done most of those things to myself during martial arts training. Ever try to hold a sanchin stance for an hour while your sensei gives a lecture? Or due slow-motion fingertip pushups? Sorry, it may be uncomfortable to experience these things, but they don't qualify as TORTURE.


I suppose you're going to tell me that I forget WHO they are. My answer is PRECISELY THAT!!

Blind justice is a concept LOST on the right wing!!!

You are still thinking of terrorism as a crime that is supposed to be handled by the justice system. It's not. It's an act of war that is supposed to be handled by the MILITARY system. And the military isn't supposed to be blind.


Ok, I'll indulge you for a minute... Let's look at WHO they are. When there were 600 at Gitmo, Cheney told us that they were the "worst of the worst". Since then they let 400 of 'em go with NO charges... So, I guess 400 of the 600 WEREN'T the worst of the worst...

You guess wrong... again. The fact that these 400 were let off without prosecution doesn't mean that they aren't terrorists. It means that they weren't prosecuted because the authorities never expected to have to send POWs to trial and never got legal "evidence" against them while in combat against them.

In fact, of the 400 released, 213 have been reported as having gone back to terrorist activities in Iraq, Afghanistan or elsewhere. The highest ranking of these is Prisoner #8, Abdullah Ghulam Rasoul, who is now one of the highest ranking Taliban combat leaders in Afghanistan.


But, if Vice was WRONG about 2/3 of them, what gives you confidence that he's right about the remailing 1/3?? Well, I for one, have NO confidence in it, however I'm sure you righty's believe every word Vice utters.

Using the same logic, if your assumption about 213 of the 400 being innocent is wrong, what does that say about the other 50% about which you are making assumptions.


Who else are these people?? Well, they've never been charged with anything. Even without rights, they've not been convicted of anything. We didn't even arrest all of them. Some were handed over because they couldn't pay a bribe. In truth, we have NO idea whether they're bad guys or not.

What do you mean "WE", white boy? :D YOU have no idea. Most sensible people know exactly who they are and what they have done. Don't put your inability to accept the facts on everyone else.


The torture memo details the interrogation techniques that were used on Abu Zubaydah. The Palestinian-born man was captured in Pakistan, in March 2002, and then interrogated in Afghanistan and Guantánamo Bay. According to US officials he has given information that foiled major terror attacks, however he has never been charged with any crime and remains in custody.

See my response above. Soldiers are not in the habit of acting like cops and collecting evidence. Their job is to capture and/or kill enemies, not arrest them for crimes and prosecute them. Nobody in their right mind ever expected to try to prosecute a POW for criminal activity. Unfortunately, nobody on the left is currently in their right minds vis-à-vis treatment of POWs.


In a Red Cross report on Guantánamo Bay this year he was quoted saying of his waterboarding: "I thought I was going to die. I lost control of my urine. Since then, I still lose control of my urine when under stress".

"I gave a lot of false information in order to satisfy what I believed the interrogators wished to hear in order to make the ill-treatment stop,” he said.

Excon

Boo hoo. He needs a diaper? My heart bleeds.

Somehow, though, this "false information" led to the capture of other terrorists. He also had direct information regarding Canadian Muslim terrorist Mohamed Harkat... information that was later deemed to be correct... that allowed the Canadian government to hold him under security certificate. The information couldn't be all that false.

Zubaydah was one of the leaders of the failed 2000 "Millenium Plot". He was also one of the masterminds of the failed LA airport bombing in 2000. Also, his daughter married Abu Turab al-Urduni, one of only 5 individuals aware of the operational details of 9/11 before the attack took place. This guy is not some nobody that was just picked up off the street.

Let's also take a look at the conditions of his capture. He was captured in a Lashkar el-Taiba safehouse in Faisalabad, Pakistan in the company of five other known terrorists, including Abdul Zahir. I guess it was just a coincidence that he was in a SECRET SAFEHOUSE with a BUNCH OF TERRORISTS, right?

C'mon, excon. Zubaydah is no innocent flower of Islamic peace. He's a terrorist leader with a lot of information. He may have failed in his plots, but not for lack of trying. How much proof do you need?

Elliot

Cheney is apparently calling Obama's bluff. He called for releasing the memos that showed the results of those interrogations:


Cheney Calls for Legal Memos to be Declassified (http://www.drudgereport.com/flashcm.htm)
Mon Apr 20 2009 16:20:53 ET

In a two part interview airing tonight and tomorrow night on FOX News Channel’s Hannity (9-10PM ET), former Vice President Cheney shared his thoughts on the CIA memos that were recently declassified and also revealed his request to the CIA to declassify additional memos that confirm the success of the Bush administration’s interrogation tactics:

CHENEY: “One of the things that I find a little bit disturbing about this recent disclosure is they put out the legal memos, the memos that the CIA got from the Office of Legal Counsel, but they didn't put out the memos that showed the success of the effort. And there are reports that show specifically what we gained as a result of this activity. They have not been declassified.”

“I formally asked that they be declassified now. I haven't announced this up until now, I haven't talked about it, but I know specifically of reports that I read, that I saw that lay out what we learned through the interrogation process and what the consequences were for the country.”

“And I've now formally asked the CIA to take steps to declassify those memos so we can lay them out there and the American people have a chance to see what we obtained and what we learned and how good the intelligence was, as well as to see this debate over the legal opinions.”

Hello again Steve/tom:

I STILL don't believe vice.

excon

Hello again, tom:


You, like inthebox, in many of your posts, also want to tell me how badly the guys we torture DESERVE it. THAT I can understand. I GET vengeance. What I don't get, is lying about it.

So, what is it? Do we torture because they deserve it. Or do we just not torture people?

excon


See post 24

Vengeance would mean doing more to them than what they have done to their victims. :mad: I am for enhanced interrogation in order to produce information that is important to saving lives. Tom's WSJ link mentions some of the successes. I guess you deny the source right off hand because it does not fit into your preconceived notion that suspected terrorists deserve victimhood status.


I don't think I, nor any of us right wingers, have advocated head chopping or going into terrorist training camps and cells with suicide bombers.


I understand the ethical dilemmas that getting useful information from suspected terorists poses. I am with you there.


The information that is available details harsh treatment, yes, torture? Is that a legal definition based in who is power?

What is pertinent to this discussion is

1] no terrorist events in the US since 9/11.
2] you can complain, but, as I have asked you before, what is your proposal to change to a method of interrogation that is proven better?





G&P

Hello again, tom/Steve (you guys need to start sounding different):

Hint... Steve knows how to add links to text .I haven't figured that out yet on this site.


Hello again Steve/tom:

I STILL don't believe vice.



If you don't believe former VP Cheney why not Mukasey and Hayden... neither of whom were in the initial decision making process and could've easily distanced themselves from the policy?

I think VP Cheney makes a fair request. President Obama very selectively released classified documents related to enhanced interrogation. Why not release the docs . That demonstrate it's effectiveness ?

There are clearly contradictory assertions being made. On the one hand ;waterboarding is brutal torture that no one can resist for more than a couple of 2nds .But then the claim is made that it doesn't work. Let's assume that KSM was really boarded 183 times and before him Zubaydah 83 times... why would they continue the procedure if it wasn't ending in the gathering of useful info ?

The May 30 2005 memo says "no technique is used on a detainee unless use of that technique at that time appears necessary to obtaining the intelligence."

These were 2 of only 3 people waterboarding was used on. But if they were dunked that many times ,it must be because in fact, the technique can be resisted if trained properly to do so... and as mentioned, because useful intel was the result.

Cheney's request to make the results available is reasonable if indeed we are looking for full disclosure for the court of public opinion to measure and not instead some Soviet Style show trial .

Obama has already damaged our ability to wage war against jihadistan with the releases . Mukasey and Hayden both pointed out last week that half of the U.S. government's knowledge of AQ 's structure and activities is the fruit of enhanced interrogation. Let's release the documents that show that also... if the President dares.

By the way, tom is much stronger at arguing the political/historical perspective than me. And he's a Giants fan, I don't know how you can confuse the two of us.

Hello again:

I'd like to see this phantom memo too. Maybe it's hiding under the WMD's or inside the yellowcake from Niger... But, there's no memo. Cheney is a liar! Hayden and Mukasey have sipped the rightwing koolaid.

Torture doesn't work. If it did, why did they have to do it to two guys 266 times?? Because it didn't work the 265th time??

I repeat. You, vice, the dufus and all his minions, in terms of torture, are wronger than you have ever been!!

excon

Hello again Steve/tom:

I STILL don't believe vice.

excon

Of course you don't. But what does that have to do with the facts?

Of course you don't. But what does that have to do with the facts?Hello again, El:

Facts and Vice have nothing in common...

How is it that you righty's forget so quickly, all the lies he told about Iraq?? Oh, oh, wait a minute. I understand, now... You don't think he was lying at all, do you? You think they're going to find those WMD's any day now.

You guys are silly.

excon

Hello again, El:

Facts and Vice have nothing in common.....

How is it that you righty's forget so quickly, all the lies he told about Iraq???? Oh, oh, wait a minute. I understand, now... You don't think he was lying at all, do you? They're gonna find those WMD's any day now.

You guys are silly.

excon

I guess 500 TONS of yellowcake uranium doesn't qualify as WMDs.

I guess hundreds of sarin gas mortars aren't WMDs.

And what Israel blew up in Syria in September 2007, I guess those weren't Iraqi WMDs either.

And if all the parts for WMDs are there, but they aren't put together, then they really aren't WMDs either. Just like a gun that has been stripped apart isn't really a gun.

Furthermore, you continue to state that Bush LIED about WMDs. Leaving aside the fact that there were WMDs in Iraq that you have refused to recognize, there is a huge difference between a LIE and a MISTAKE. If Bush and Cheney lied, then so did the UN, the French, Germans, Brits, Israelis, Indians, Pakistanis, Turks, and every other country that stated that Iraq had WMDs. But they didn't lie. If there were no WMDs, then it is because they made a mistake, not a lie. But they didn't even make a mistake, because there were WMDs in Iraq that you continue to brush off.

Who's being silly, excon?

But our topic isn't WMDs. Our topic is TORTURE, and whether the terrorists held at Gitmo were tortured. Please stick to the topic.

And on that topic, you are CLEARLY making assumptions about the innocence of the terrorists (and Zubaidah in particular). You are also making assumptions about the proper method of handling terrorism via the justice system. Both of these assumptions are incorrect as I have indicated above.

You have no response for these points, so instead of responding you change the topic to WMDs... another topic you are wrong about.

Elliot

you are CLEARLY making assumptions about the innocence of the terrorists (and Zubaidah in particular).Hello again, El:

Back to torture - cool! We're again, getting to the heart of it...

I don't think Zubaydah is innocent. I don't think ANY of them are innocent. I've never SAID they were innocent. I said, they've never been CONVICTED of anything in ANY kind of court, even the kangaroo ones in Gitmo.

You believe they're bad guys because your government TOLD you they were. Me?? I'll believe they're bad guys when they're CONVICTED!

But, that DOES bring up my point... Who WE are as a nation; what OUR standards are, are NOT based upon who we happen to be fighting at the moment. We've fought bad guys before without becoming them.

YOU, however, are willing to lower OUR standards to that of our enemy. I'm not, and fortunately, neither is our nation. Hopefully, the dufus and vices' torture crap will just be an ugly blot on an otherwise good and honorable people.

excon

How many American civilians will die because of this STUPID move on the part of our oh-so-smart president in telling the whole world all our intelligence procedures?

You know ex, I don't this nation to be a nation of torturers, I'm just still having a hard time being convinced that what was done was "torture" - and it has nothing to do with using PC terms.

Pulling teeth out with pliers, ripping off fingernails, hanging and beating detainees, beatings to the genitals, dislocating fingers - that's torture. 40 of seconds of water poured over your face with a towel over it, I don't know. Slamming someone against a fake wall, a caterpillar, diapers? Surely not. Even as repugnant as the CIA's form of waterboarding may be to you, how do we balance national security with human rights?

You guys aren't seeing that these memos show our country was struggling to define and meet legal limits while fighting a lawless enemy. Does that not show we do have a soul, to carefully take into consideration the laws and the safety of the detainees while executing their duty to protect the nation from terrorists? There is no easy answer considering the enemy doesn’t give a damn about laws and rules.

You guys aren't seeing that these memos show our country was struggling to define and meet legal limits while fighting a lawless enemy. Does that not show we do have a soul, to carefully take into consideration the laws and the safety of the detainees while executing their duty to protect the nation from terrorists? There is no easy answer considering the enemy doesn’t give a damn about laws and rules.Hello again, Steve:

No, I don't see the same thing you see. I see lawyers trying to find a justification for torture. You see the requirement for a doctor to be present as caring for the dude being tortured. I see it as easing the concience of the torturers by convincing themselves of their compassion.

I'm sorry. Having a doctor there to prevent them from being hurt, all the while hurting them is right out of Nurse Ratched.

excon

Hello again, El:

Back to torture - cool! We're again, getting to the heart of it...

I don't think Zubaydah is innocent. I don't think ANY of them are innocent. I've never SAID they were innocent. I said, they've never been CONVICTED of anything in ANY kind of court, even the kangaroo ones in Gitmo.

And I say that they don't have to be convicted of anything. They aren't criminals. They are POWs. Moreover, they are unlawful combatant POWs. The purpose of holding and interrogating them isn't to punish them for a crime. It is to keep them off the battlefield and obtain the information they have about enemy operations. CONVICTIONS don't enter into the equation... or at least they shouldn't.


You believe they're bad guys because your government TOLD you they were. Me?? I'll believe they're bad guys when they're CONVICTED!

Again, an incorrect assumption. They aren't baguys. They are enemies. HUGE difference.


But, that DOES bring up my point... Who WE are as a nation; what OUR standards are, are NOT based upon who we happen to be fighting at the moment. We've fought bad guys before without becoming them.

Since we are bringing up a history of fighting wars without becoming the enemy, let's take a look at the history of POWs held by the USA.

Historically speaking, we have held POWs for years during times of war.

In WWI, there were 8 million POWs held worldwide by all parties to the war. NONE of them were convicted of anything because they weren't criminals. They were POWs.

In WWII the DEATH TOLL of POWs held by the AXIS powers was 6-10 million. The actual number held is still unknown. The Allies held over 4 million POWs. NONE of them were convicted of a crime, because they weren't criminals. They were POWs.

In the Civil War, the Union and Confederacy each held roughly 200,000 POWs. NONE of them were ever convicted of a crime because they weren't criminals. They were POWs.

During the Korean War, the UN held 170,000 POWs at Koje-Do Island. None of them were convicted of a crime because they weren't criminals. They were POWs.

At no point in our history (or in any other country's history) has a POW ever been treated like a criminal, been given the right to a trial, and set free if not convicted. It doesn't exist. It never has. This idea was made up by you, and has no basis in history or law.


YOU, however, are willing to lower OUR standards to that of our enemy. I'm not, and fortunately, neither is our nation.

I'm not trying to lower our standards. I'm trying to maintain them. YOU are creating a standard that has never existed.

Can you name a single time in the history of man where a legal POW was tried as a criminal (unless he committed a crime other than his actions in combat)? Can you name a sigle time in history when a military was required to let POWs go because they couldn't "prove" in a court of law that the POW was a criminal?

Unless you can show me a time when this was a common practice, or even an uncommon one, then you are creating a standard that doesn't exist and never has. I'm just upholding the standard that the entire civilized world signed onto when they signed the Geneva Conventions.

So put up or shut up. Prove that such a standard exists or ever existed.


Hopefully, the dufus and vices' torture crap will just be an ugly blot on an otherwise good and honorable people.

excon

Actually, it will turn out to have been the exactly correct thing to do... and stopping it and revealing it will turn out to have weakened the USA's intelligence-gathering system to the point that we will again be attacked on US soil. And THAT will be an ugly blot, and an unforgivable one.

Elliot

Historically speaking, we have held POWs for years during times of war. So put up or shut up. Prove that such a standard exists or ever existed.Hello again, El:

I don't disagree with the standard as you've presented it.

The difference this time, is the dufus declared a never ending war. That's a change in standards if there ever was one - all made up by you and the dufus.

But, when you want to have a war that never ends, that means you want to keep your POW's forever, too. That's a new standard. You and the dufus are responsible for that one too.

The problem is our laws don't make provisions for keeping people in cages forever, without being able to challenge their imprisonment.

And, you want to talk about standards with ME? Dude!

excon

Hello again, El:

I don't disagree with the standard as you've presented it.

The difference this time, is the dufus declared a never ending war. That's a change in standards if there ever was one - all made up by you and the dufus.

What?!

When we entered WWII, did we know a date certain when the war would end?

When has there ever been a war where we knew in advance what day the war would end.

Just because we do not yet know the date that the war will end doesn't make it a neverending war.

Also, keep in mind that there have been wars that have gone on for extended periods. The Thirty Years War. The Hundred Years War. The Italian Wars. The Three Hundred Thirty Five Years War (between the Netherlands and the Isles of Sicilly) which ended in 1986. Do you think that none of these wars had POWs just because nobody knew when the wars were going to end?

That's a ridiculous argument.


But, when you want to have a war that never ends, that means you want to keep your POW's forever, too. That's a new standard. You and the dufus are responsible for that one too.

Clearly that is NOT a new standard. See above.


The problem is our laws don't make provisions for keeping people in cages forever, without being able to challenge their imprisonment.

They most certainly do. It's called the Geneva Convention. It is a treaty that has the same power as the Constitution in US law.


And, you want to talk about standards with ME? Dude!

Excon

Yep. I want to talk about unreasonable standards with no basis in sanity. We're not going to take POWs because we don't know when the war is going to end?

Well ex, you may get your wish. Obama seems to have flip-flopped on "looking forward" and decided to hold the door open to prosecutions.


President Holds Open Door For Prosecutions (http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/04/president-holds.html) of Bush Officials For Interrogation Policies, Truth Commission

April 21, 2009 12:50 PM

ABC News' Jake Tapper, Sunlen Miller and Yunji de Nies report:

President Obama suggested today that it remained a possibility that the Justice Department might bring charges against officials of the Bush administration who devised harsh interrogation policies that some see as torture.

He also suggested that if there is any sort of investigation into these past policies and practices, he would be more inclined to support an independent commission outside the typical congressional hearing process.

Both statements represented breaks from previous White House statements on the matter.

While the Bush-era memos providing legal justifications for enhanced interrogation methods "reflected us losing our moral bearings," the president said, he also that he did not think it was "appropriate" to prosecute those CIA officers who "carried out some of these operations within the four corners of the legal opinions or guidance that had been provided by the White House."

But in clear change from language he and members of his administration have used in the past, the president said that "with respect to those who formulated those legal decisions, I would say that is going to be more of a decision for the Attorney General within the parameters of various laws and I don’t want to prejudge that. I think that there are a host of very complicated issues involved there."

Just yesterday, asked by a reporter as to why the administration was not seeking to "hold accountable" Bush administration lawyers who may have "twisted the law," White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said, "the president is focused on looking forward, that's why."

On Sunday, White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel told ABC News' George Stephanopoulos that "those who devised policy, he (the president) believes that they were -- should not be prosecuted either, and that's not the place that we go." Emanuel quoted President Obama saying, "'this is not a time for retribution.' It's time for reflection. It's not a time to use our energy and our time in looking back and any sense of anger and retribution."

The president made his Tuesday remarks in the Oval Office during a joint press availability with His Majesty King Abdullah II Ibn Al Hussein.

Obama's promises have more expiration dates than the dairy section at Wal-Mart. So who is he going to prosecute for following the legal counsel of the White House? Will he include all the Senators that were briefed but didn't object? And just what position does that put our intelligence operatives in now?

Following up on my previous post, Andrew Sullivan has been so good to clear up once and for all the definition of torture (http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2009/04/mark-thiessen-it-was-torture.html):


What defines torture is not this or that specific technique. We could spend hours poring through the countless ways in which human beings have devised to torture defenseless captives over the centuries. What defines torture is applying sufficiently severe mental or physical pain or suffering to force a victim to say anything to make it stop.

Now that we've cleared that up and set the bar sufficiently low, let the witch hunt begin.

I heard on the noon news that Obama is going to leave it up to the AG to decide whether to prosecute those who drafted the programs.

It looks like this administration may scrap our intelligence capabilities.

Anyone want to buy a bomb shelter?

Sullivan frankly looks like someone who would pay for such services.

I am almost in favor of an independent bipartisan commission if it wouldn't degrade into a public circus like the 9-11 commission became. . Let them start by giving subpoena's for ALL the justice Dept records as Cheney requested .Since Obama promised a transparent Presidency and doesn't want to politicize intelligence he should have no problem with the request.

Subpoena's should also be served to all members of the intelligence commitees of Congress who were fully briefed of the techniques that were approved.

This really is a crock.

Well ex, you may get your wish. Obama seems to have flip-flopped on "looking forward" and decided to hold the door open to prosecutions. Hello again, speech:

The dufus thought he could run the Justice Department too. Fortunately, we now have a Constitutional lawyer running the show, who understands that he has no say in criminal investigations undertaken by the Justice Department.

Fortunately too, the Justice Department ISN'T run by politics. In fact, we tortured because the Justice Department was infiltrated by politicians, who didn't go by the law. They went by the politics. That's why they're guilty of breaking the law.

excon

I totally disagree . The memos already released ,if they prove anything ,prove that the Justice Dept to a fault tried to comply to the letter of the law.

What Obama suggested in his comments today is that those who offer a legal opinion can be charged as criminals for expressing that legal opinion.

I totally disagree . The memos already released ,if they prove anything ,prove that the Justice Dept to a fault tried to comply to the letter of the law.Hello again, tom:

Of course you disagree.

But, here's what Fox News analyst Judge Andrew Napolitano says on the memos. I happen to agree.

"In the process of explaining to the CIA Deputy General Counsel just what his folks could do in order to extract information from uncooperative detainees, it is immediately apparent that the writers of the memos are attempting to find snippets of language from other memoranda that they or their colleagues have prepared and from unrelated judicial opinions that justify everything that the CIA wants to do.

The bias in favor of permitting torture may easily be concluded from a footnote in one of the memos. In that footnote, the author, now-federal judge Jay Bybee, declines to characterize such notorious medieval torture techniques as the thumbscrew and the rack as “torture.” With that incredible mindset, he proceeds to do his Orwellian best to define away such terms as “pain,” “suffering,” and “inhumane” in such a way as to require that the interrogators produce near death experiences in order to have their behavior come under the proscriptions of the federal statute prohibiting torture, and the Convention (treaty) Against Torture, which was negotiated by and signed in behalf of the U.S. by President George H.W. Bush.

The logic in the memos is simple: The government may utilize the ten procedures inquired about (all of which were publicly known except confinement on a coffin, bound and gagged, and in the presence of insects), so long as no one dies or comes close to death. This conclusion is startling in the case of walling (banging a detainee's head against a solid but moveable wall) and waterboarding (near drowning) since the federal government's own physicians, cited in the memos themselves, have concluded that both techniques are always a near occasion of death. The conclusion is also startling since it fails to account for numerous federal and state prosecutions, and prosecutions in Thailand — where these torture sessions apparently occurred — that have defined torture according to its generally accepted meaning:

“Any intentionally inflicted cruel or inhumane or degrading treatment, unauthorized by a court of law, perpetrated for the punishment of the victim, to extract statements from the victim, or to gratify the perpetrator.”

This universally-accepted definition makes no reference and has no condition that anything goes short of a near occasion of death.

The memos also fail to account for the Geneva Conventions, which the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled govern American treatment of all foreign detainees, lawful or unlawful. The third of those conventions PROHIBITS TOUCHING the detainee in any way, other than for the purpose of moving him from place to place, if he refuses to go voluntarily and when told to do so.

The memos place Attorney General Holder, who argued for their release, in an untenable situation. He has stated under oath, at his confirmation hearings, that waterboarding is torture and torture is prohibited by numerous federal laws. He has also taken an oath to uphold all federal laws, not just those that are politically expedient from time to time. He is correct and he must do his moral and legal duty to reject any Nuremberg defense.

This is not rocket science and it is not art. Everyone knows torture when they see it; and no amount of twisted logic can detract from its illegal horror, its moral antipathy, and its attack at core American values."

excon

You'll have to be more specific on Napolitano's claim that they can't be touched. Imagine that, a conservative questioning Fox News. I guess we could always go back to firing squads for 'soldiers' not wearing the uniform. That would make much of this much simpler.

I frequently disagree with FOX analyst JUDGE Napolitano (being a former judge is strike one already) as I'm sure you frequently disagree with MSNBC analyst Pat Buchanan.

What the release of the memos actually shows is not the legal game of Twisters that Napolitano describes . It is instead a demonstration of a nation of laws struggling to defend itself against a savage, lawless enemy while adhering to its legal commitments and norms. The vast majority of nations in the world today and throughout history would not have even made the effort.

The memos make it very clear what is torture. They cite an example of how the Serbs treated Muslims :

"severe beatings to the genitals, head and other parts of the body with metal pipes and various other items; removal of teeth with pliers; kicking in the face and ribs; breaking of bones and ribs and dislocation of fingers; cutting a figure into the victim's forehead; hanging the victim and beating him; extreme limitations of food and water; and subjection to games of 'Russian roulette.' "
Mehinovic v. Vuckovic see page 24
http://72.3.233.244/pdfs/safefree/olc_05102005_bradbury46pg.pdf

Strict unambiguous language defined the limits of what an interrogator could apply to ensure the methods wouldn't cause "severe physical or mental pain or suffering." It went so far as to tell how often a diaper had to be changed if a detainee was subject to wearing them.

Contrast that to a typical Fear Factor Episode .
Here are some of the contestant challenges (which were published on a children's web site )
Kidzworld :: Fear Factor Top Ten Grossest Stunts | Couples | Picture | TV Show | Stunt | NBC - Page 1 (http://www.kidzworld.com/article/4924-top-ten-grossest-fear-factor-stunts)


1.) Fear Factor Pizza - Episode 317 (Season 3): This stunt must have made some of the contestants give up on eating pizza ever again. With a crust made from cow bile, coagulated blood paste for sauce, rancid cheese and topping choices like live red worms and fish eyes, Although most contestants ended up puking up their tasty treat, all contestants managed to complete the stunt and move on to the next round.
2.) Rat Bobbing - Episode 416 (Season 4): During Couples' Fear Factor, the girls had to lie down in a plexi-glass tank, and then were covered in 400 rats. The guys then had to retrieve ten chicken's feet from the tank, using only their mouths! One couple bowed out of the stunt because it was just too gross! The couple who won this stunt won an all-expenses paid trip to Las Vegas .
3.) Eat Buffalo Testicles - Episode 104 (Season 1): Ever tried a Rocky Mountain Oyster? Peeps in Colorado think they're pretty tasty when they're breaded and fried, but bull's testicles aren't as tastily prepared on Fear Factor. Contestants had to eat two large bull's testicles in four minutes or else they would be eliminated. Before being able to eat the testicles, contestants would need to bite through and then peel back a veiny membrane that was holding the “meat” inside. - only the two guys were able to complete the stunt.
4.) Bug Body Bag - Episode 433 (Season 4): This All-Female edition of Fear Factor included one truly gruesome stunt. Contestants were stuck inside a morgue drawer, in a body bag filled with giant hissing cockroaches, flesh-eating worms, crickets and stink beetles. Locked in the pitch black of the morgue drawer, the girls were locked in chains and had to fumble around to find the right key to unlock themselves.
5.) Eat African Cave-Dwelling Spiders - Episode 408 (Season 4): This stunt was not for elimination but instead to win a brand new car. Contestants lined up at a table full of African cave-dwelling spiders and had to grab hold of them, and then eat them alive. We're not talking run-of-the-mill basement spiders either. These bad boys looked like a cross between a spider and a crab and even had the little pinchers to prove it. This stunt brought one contestant to tears and she almost forfeited the challenge. In the end, all of the contestants ate a couple of spiders. The winner ate a whopping 12!
6.) Cow Eye Juice - Episode 403 (Season 4): For this Fear Factor stunt, contestants had to stick their face in a jar full of cow eyeballs, pick them up without using their hands and then puncture them with their teeth, letting all of the juices fall in to a cup. Once the cup was full, the contestants would then have to drink the cow eyeball juice. As if it's not bad enough putting slimy, gooey eyeballs in your mouth, you would then have to drink the ooze from inside the eye too!
7.) Eat Horse Rectum - Episode 313 (Season 3): This challenge started with the contestants playing a game of horseshoes. They would get three tosses. There were four rings around the horseshoe peg with the numbers 8, 6, 7 and then 8 again. If the contestant got their horseshoe around the peg, that would give them a score of 0. The goal of this game? To see how many inches of horse rectum the contestants would have to eat! Both girls attempted the stunt, but only one was able to complete it which meant that she won $25,000 dollars for choking back 13 inches.
8.) Fear Factor Spaghetti - Episode 211 (Season 2): Another Fear Factor specialty was served up for this stunt. Fear Factory Spaghetti was made up of live night crawlers and coagulated blood balls. Mmmm. This stunt was so gross that none of the contestants made it through their plate of spaghetti. Wonder why?
9.) Intestine Chew, Milk and Chug - Episode 422 (Season 4): Here's yet another stunt that involved the contestants sitting in a glass coffin covered in something disgusting. This time around, Fear Factor's weapon of choice was cow intestines. Contestants were covered in hundreds of pounds of intestines which they then had to puncture with their mouth, suck out the liquid and fill a glass with it. At the end of course, they had to drink the chunky mixture and hope that they could do it faster than their fellow opponents.
10.) Slugs and Bile - Episode 312 (Season 3): First up on the Fear Factor menu for this stunt were 10, fat, slimy slugs. Each contestant had to choke down their 10 slugs, followed by a shot of cow bile. One contestant tried rubbing the slime from the slugs off on her arm, but that only made them more agitated (making them excrete more goo!).

Prosecute . Obama's administration had better be as pure as a fresh snow fall because he will open up a precedential can of worms he doesn't want to taste. The idea that a legal opinion on our laws based in good faith by an adviser to the President could land that advisor in jail is as disgusting to me as any one of those Fear Factor stunts.

Btw : Obama's own DNI Dennis Blair says the techniques yielded valuable intelligence and were effective.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/22/us/politics/22blair.html?bl&ex=1240545600&en=ab4559dbcc4ddb83&ei=5087%0A

Given the fact that various restrictions on the CIA by Church Committee ,Torricelli ,and Jamie Gorelick legal opinions (why isn't she in jail ?) created a terrible void in our knowledge of who our enemies were and their capabilites ;I think we had no choice but to gather needed intelligence aggressively . It is fine to be a Monday morning quarterback 8 years after the event . But the truth is that after the towers went down,and we were under an anthrax attack ,and Muslim snipers were taking out motorists ,there was a need for real information about the enemies abilities that could not have been gathered in a timely manner with tea and crumpet sessions .

Go ahead and prosecute . Obama's administration had better be as pure as a fresh snow fall because he will open up a precedential can of worms he doesn't want to taste. The idea that a legal opinion on our laws based in good faith by an adviser to the President could land that advisor in jail is as disgusting to me as any one of those Fear Factor stuntsHello again, tom:

You still don't get it. We BRUTALIZED people and you're still comparing it to a game show. I'm surprised you didn't show a picture of a nice fuzzy caterpillar! Like Hannity last night, in his zeal to minimize what we did, he continually referred to waterboarding as a "dunk in the water". He NEVER called it waterboarding. If it's so cool, I wonder why he can't say it.

You and I (and ALL these people reading this post) know why. Dunk in the water, Twister games, TV quiz shows... If those comparisons weren't so gruesome and bizarre, I'd get a chuckle out of it...

You DO NOT GET IT!! It's CLEAR to me, because you don't want to say the WORDS, that you (and Hannity) know who the EVIL ones were. Yes, WE'RE the EVIL ones...

But, you're right about one thing. If they gave their legal opinion in GOOD FAITH, they're not guilty... But, if they gave their opinion because that's the opinion dufus and vice wanted, they're EVIL, and need to be brought down...

And, before you counter with the argument, that I already debunked, about criminalizing policy decisions, I must point out to you again, that if it were true, Pinnochet would only have been guilty of making bad policy...

In other words, if you make a policy that is CRIMINAL, you can't fall back on "it was just POLICY". My reading of the memos tells me that were LOOKING for the justification to torture - pure and simple.

excon

So what we have here is a situation where the detainees were not subject to the legal system because they weren't criminals, but rather POWs. They were subjected to interrogation techniques which, while harsh, do not meet the legal or moral criterion of "torture". And we now know from Dennis Blair that these techniques WORKED.

There's an old military saying: If it's stupid but it works it isn't stupid.

Similarly, if it is distasteful but it works, it isn't distasteful.

We should be holding these guys up as heroes for doing their jobs to protect us and keep us safe. We should be training others to do the job as well as they did. We sure as heck shouldn't be prosecuting them for doing their jobs.

Nor are Rumsfeld, Cheney or Bush guilty of anything except doing the jobs they were elected and appointed to do. The single, primary responsibility of any government is to protect it from threats both foreign and domestic. That is their Constitutional mandate. That is what they did.

Elliot

Nor are Rumsfeld, Cheney or Bush guilty of anything except doing the jobs they were elected and appointed to do. The single, primary responsibility of any government is to protect it from threats both foreign and domestic. That is their Constitutional mandate. That is what they did.Hello again, El:

Maybe the troubles stem from your inability to read the Constitution... You can't find privacy rights in there, but you can find the crap you're spouting...

Well, I don't find that crap. In fact, what I find is that their primary job is to do what they swore to do in their oath of office, which is to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution".

So, as long as one side can't read, It's not surprising they think torture is cool.

excon

It is much worse than criminalizing policy decisions. Obama is also playing political games . Why would he selective edit out Blair's comments from Blair's memo if he weren't ? Why would he "cherry pick " which memos the release from the DOJ files if the truth weren't that it is a political game he is playing ? Seems to me that Blair is confirming what Cheney and the previous people from the Bush administration I have cited have already said.

It is much worse than criminalizing policy decisions. Obama is also playing political games . Why would he selective edit out Blair's comments from Blair's memo if he weren't ? Why would he "cherry pick " which memos the release from the DOJ files if the truth weren't that it is a political game he is playing ? Seems to me that Blair is confirming what Cheney and the previous people from the Bush administration I have cited have already said.

Here is the redacted part of Blair's memo :

"High value information came from interrogations in which those methods were used and provided a deeper understanding of the Al Qaeda organization that was attacking this country."

"The leadership of the CIA repeatedly reported their activities both to executive branch policymakers and to members of Congress, and received permission to continue to use the techniques."

"Even in 2009 there are organizations plotting to kill Americans using terror tactics, and although the memories of 9/11 are becoming more distant, we in the intelligence service must stop them."

It is much worse than criminalizing policy decisions. Hello again, tom:

Laws against torture were well established BEFORE the dufus and vice indulged in them. Nobody criminalized their activities except they themselves. It's not difficult to understand. If the policy WAS criminal, then THEY who indulged in it are criminals. To say that we're NOW making torture illegal is disingenuous at best.

I wonder why you ignore any discussion of the Pinochet "policy" to torture, which landed him in jail. Nahhhh. I know why - because you wouldn't be able to keep on saying what you're saying...

It's cool.

But, you know... The attitude you display, the BLIND leading the BLIND, is what got us into this jackpot in the first place. There was, and is, ample evidence that torture doesn't work, and besides that, it's illegal. However, the important questions were never asked. Nobody wanted to know stuff. Is it because they wouldn't have liked the answers, or were they just plain scared?

It turns out, they did it because they were afraid. You know, anytime we make decisions because we're afraid, we make 'em wrong.

excon

OK I'm game re Pinochet .

He was also charged ,besides torture, with mass-murder and widespread theft of the treasury .

Specific counts of torture included : inflicting electric shocks until death;beatings to death ,threatening the rape of relatives;suspending from ceiling ;forcing to imbibe hallucinogenic drugs ;burnings ,etc etc .
More than 3,000 people were killed or disappeared during Pinochet's military rule.

He was arrested in England on a Spanish warrant for the murder in Chile of Spanish citizens while he was president. He eventually returned to Chile without facing trial .

After some more political back and forth he was indicted in Chile. July 2002, the Supreme Court dismissed Pinochet's indictment .He was again placed under house arrest a couple of times again before his death without any trials.

Anyway ;as you see ,what was done under his reign was indeed torture. I am not convinced ,nor do I believe that what was done by the CIA in the GWOT rises to that level . Oh they definitely pushed the envelope to go to the edge of what is legal .But as the memos clearly show ,they went to great lengths to insure that they stayed within the boundries of legality .

Sorry your sensiblities got offended but it is a rough world .

But as the memos clearly show ,they went to great lengths to insure that they stayed within the boundries of legality.Hello again, tom:

Then policy CAN be criminal. Cool. That wasn't too tough to admit, was it? I know you think what they did was legal. I don't.

However, there has been a sea change in these issues just since yesterday. The president, of course, has grasped the limits of his authority. Yes, contrary to the beliefs of the dufus, there ARE limits to presidential authority. Obama's proclamation goes a long way to restoring the balance of power.

No longer will legal decisions made at the Justice Department be guided by politics. That IS the way it should be, no? Well, that's the way it's GOING to be, so if I was vice, I'd be shutting up and hiring a lawyer.

excon

Hello again:

I guess it assuages your conscience to pretend that we didn't brutalize people. You even make fun of it.. I'll bet the Nazi's posted pictures of Jews having the time of their life too...

Then you say, well if we did brutalize them, they deserved it....

All this, from people who claim to be staunch Christians, like Hannity.

I understand why you don't want to discuss it seriously, or you pretend it didn't happen. I don't blame you at all. It turns my stomach too to know what was done in my name. I want to forget about as quickly as possible too..

But, I can't, and I'm not going to let you!!

From the NY Times, today: Abu Zubaydah had provided much valuable information under less severe treatment, and the harsher handling produced no breakthroughs, according to one former intelligence official with direct knowledge of the case. Instead, watching his torment caused great distress to his captors, the official said.

Even for those who believed that brutal treatment could produce results, the official said, “seeing these depths of human misery and degradation has a traumatic effect on me...”

But, I guess if you're on a website that shows nice pictures of fuzzy catapillars, you won't be traumatized, because you're lying to yourselves.

I'm not a Christian. If this is what you guys do, I'm really glad I'm not.

excon

That's my con. Always right on the money.:D

As of yesterday Obama left his determination not to criminalize policy differences into what Steve accurately described as a short expiration date. He is taking the cowardly way out by speaking lofty about moving on while leaving the dirty work to either Holder or Waxman. That way ,like Pilot he can wash his hands of it ,stay above the fray and pretend to be above it all.

No... policy differences cannot be criminal .Only criminal acts can be criminal . Prosecuting a lawyer because he wrote a legal analysis with which the current Attorney General disagrees reeks of politics .

Quick quiz :

Who said this ?

"One of the things we clearly want to do with these prisoners is to have an ability to interrogate them and find out what their future plans might be, where other cells are located; under the Geneva Convention that you are really limited in the amount of information that you can elicit from people.


"It seems to me that given the way in which they have conducted themselves, however, that they are not, in fact, people entitled to the protection of the Geneva Convention. They are not prisoners of war. If, for instance, Mohamed Atta had survived the attack on the World Trade Center, would we now be calling him a prisoner of war? I think not. Should Zacarias Moussaoui be called a prisoner of war? Again, I think not."

Quick quiz : who said this ?Hello again, tom:

I don't know, and I don't care. The law is what's important here - not the politics du jour.

I'm sure you see a witch hunt underway for vice and Bush. Nothing I could say would change your mind.

But, let me ask you this. Do you think my stance on torture is because Bush did it? Do you think I'd be chuckling and guffawing about it with my buddies if Obama did it?

You probably do.

excon

Hello again, El:

Maybe the troubles stem from your inability to read the Constitution... You can't find privacy rights in there, but you can find the crap you're spouting...

Well, I don't find that crap. In fact, what I find is that their primary job is to do what they swore to do in their oath of office, which is to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution".

So, as long as one side can't read, It's not surprising they think torture is cool.

excon

and


The law is what's important here - not the politics du jour.

I agree. The law of the land is what's important.

Let's start with Article VI of the Constitution:



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; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.


THAT gives the Geneva Convention, which is a treaty ratified by Congress, the authority of Constitutional Law... the Supreme Law of the Land.

Then there's Article I section 8 of the Constitution:



Section 8 - Powers of Congress

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.


So... Congress has a responsibility to see to the security of the Nation. In fact, seen above, it seems to be the single largest responsibility that Congress has.

And from Article II Section 2:



Section 2 - Civilian Power over Military, Cabinet, Pardon Power, Appointments
The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States;


There seems to be a Presidential responsibility toward the security of the nation as well.

These things are clearly spelled out in the Constitution. They are spelled out in very easy to read language. So if you can't read them, it isn't because they aren't there, excon.

Can you find any statement of a right to privacy in the Constitution? Can you even find the word "privacy" in the Constitution?

So to recap,

-We have a Constitutional imprimature regarding the power of the Geneva Convention in US law.
-We have a declaration of war by Congress, giving the President the power to conduct the war as he sees fit.
-We have unlawful combatants that were captured during the prosecution of that war.
-We have the war still ongoing; there has been no cessation of hostilities in either Iraq or Afghanistan.
-We have a Geneva Convention that specifically denies unlawful combatants the protections of POWs, but we gant them those protections anyway.
-We have both historical data and legal advice by the AGs office stating that the methods of questioning the prisoners do not constitute torture.
-We have Obama's head of National Intelligence stating that the methods of questioning were effective, informative, and operationally sound.

In other words, excon, you are wrong. The LAW, which "is what's important here", is on our side, not yours.

Elliot

But, let me ask you this. Do you think my stance on torture is because Bush did it? Do you think I'd be chuckling and guffawing about it with my buddies if Obama did it?

Good then I'm sure you will join me in demanding indictments of Nancy Pelosi ,and every member of both House intelligence comittees who were briefed and signed onto the policy before it was implemented... and also got frequent updates over the last 8 years.

Answer to the question is Eric Holder . He said that back in Jan 2002 when the attacks were still fresh in everyone's mind. A whole bunch of Monday morning quarterbacking going on is what I see.

So to recap,

1) -We have a Constitutional imprimature regarding the power of the Geneva Convention in US law.

2) -We have a declaration of war by Congress, giving the President the power to conduct the war as he sees fit.

3) -We have unlawful combatants that were captured during the prosecution of that war.

4) -We have the war still ongoing; there has been no cessation of hostilities in either Iraq or Afghanistan.

5) -(a) We have both historical data and (b) legal advice by the AGs office stating that the methods of questioning the prisoners do not constitute torture.

6) -We have Obama's head of National Intelligence stating that the methods of questioning were effective, informative, and operationally sound.

7) In other words, excon, you are wrong.

8) Can you find any statement of a right to privacy in the Constitution?

ElliotHello again, El:

1) True.

2) Not true. Congress did not declare war, and no president has the power to do as he sees fit.

3) True.

4) True.

5)(a) Not true. Historical evidence weighs heavily against torture.

5)(b) True. It has, however, yet to be determined whether the advice was LEGAL.

6) Might be true, but who cares?

7) Not true.

8) The Fourth Amendment.

What's your point?

excon

Good then I'm sure you will join me in demanding indictments of Nancy Pelosi ,and every member of both House intelligence comittees who were briefed and signed onto the policy before it was implemented ...and also got frequent updates over the last 8 yearsHello again, tom:

You betcha! Justice is BLIND. Didn't I say that a while ago??

excon

Hello again, El:

1) True.

2) Not true. Congress did not declare war, and no president has the power to do as he sees fit.

Congress authorized the use of military force, not once, but twice. An authorization to use military force IS a legal declaration of war. See the war powers act.



3) True.

4) True.

5)(a) Not true. Historical evidence weighs heavily against torture.

True, but historical evidence also shows that what was done to the detainees wasn't torture.


5)(b) True. It has, however, yet to be determined whether the advice was LEGAL.

Congress was informed on multiple occasions of this legal advice and didn't complain about it being illegal. The courts have never deemed it illegal. Ergo, it is legal until such time as a court deems it illegal.


6) Might be true, but who cares?

Actually, that is the crux of the matter. The head of National Intelligence (an oxymoron if I ever heard one) is saying that it was both legal and effective. As I said before, if it's stupid but it works, it ain't stupid.


7) Not true.

Extremely true, again.


8) The Fourth Amendment.

The Fourth Amendment never mentions a right to privacy at all. It prevents illegal search and seizure by the police or government, but it does NOT guarantee privacy of any sort.


What's your point?

My point is I'm right and you're wrong.

Elliot

This is what David Ignatius of the Compost wrote today:



Sad to say, it's slow roll time at Langley after the release of interrogation memos that, in the words of one veteran officer, “hit the agency like a car bomb in the driveway.” President Obama promised CIA officers that they won't be prosecuted for carrying out lawful orders, but the people on the firing line don't believe him. They think the memos have opened a new season of investigation and retribution.

The lesson for younger officers is obvious: Keep your head down. Duck the assignments that carry political risk. Stay away from a counterterrorism program that has become a career hazard.

One veteran counterterrorism operative says that agents in the field are already being more careful about using the legal findings that authorize covert action. An example is the so-called “risk of capture” interview that takes place in the first hour after a terrorism suspect is grabbed. This used to be the key window of opportunity, in which the subject was questioned aggressively and his cellphone contacts and “pocket litter” were exploited quickly.
Now, field officers are more careful. They want guidance from headquarters. They need legal advice. I'm told that in the case of an al-Qaeda suspect seized in Iraq several weeks ago, the CIA didn't even try to interrogate him. The agency handed him over to the U.S. military.
Agency officials also worry about the effect on foreign intelligence services that share secrets with the United States in a process politely known as “liaison.” A former official who remains in close touch with key Arab allies such as Egypt and Jordan warns: “There is a growing concern that the risk is too high to do the things with America they've done in the past.”


washingtonpost.com (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/21/AR2009042102969.html?sub=AR)

I wonder what the shadow warriors at Langley feel about their new CIC now ?

This is what David Ignatius of the Compost wrote today:

washingtonpost.com (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/21/AR2009042102969.html?sub=AR)

I wonder what the shadow warriors at Langley feel about their new CIC now ?

And just think, the Taliban has moved to within 70 miles of Islamabad (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124041153700943789.html). Imagine Mullah Omar with his hand on the nuclear trigger.

Bottom line... dunking KSM exposed the 'next wave' which was a plot to attack LA with International Airliners . The question is ;since the technique most likey saved the lives of hundreds if not thousands in LA ,where is the moral authority... in using aggressive interrogation or not using them at the cost of lives lost. That is what the rough people on our side have to consider .
"Men sleep peacefully in their beds at night because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf."

Bottom line .... dunking KSM exposed the 'next wave' which was a plot to attack LA with International Airliners . The question is ;since the technique most likey saved the lives of hundreds if not thousands in LA.. "Men sleep peacefully in their beds at night because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf."Hello again, tom:

All unsubstantiated and uncorroborated reports from the people most likely to lie about it - the CIA, and the vice dufus his damn self. Believe me, if there WAS a memo that proves what vice is saying, and that exonerated the CIA, doncha think it would have been leaked by now??

Plus, the "technique", which you still miscast as "dunking", doesn't work any better than ordinary interrogation. Not a life was saved - not a one. In fact, it could be argued that since torture is a recruiting magnet for Al Quaida, it has endangered us substantially. I'm making that argument.

I have a great deal of respect for violent men who risk their lives on the battlefield. I have NO respect at all for violent bullies, who take NO risk when they slam their handcuffed victim against the wall. Where is the honor in that?

excon

Hello again, tom:

You told me once, that the value of waterboarding is that the detainee thinks he's going to drown. You also told me that the problem with releasing information about the "techniques", is that they'll find out that they WON'T die when they're waterboarded...

Doncha think Zubydah figured out he wasn't going to die after the first waterboarding? Plus, if it works, how come it didn't work the first 82 times they did it??

excon

All unsubstantiated and uncorroborated reports


Plus, the "technique", which you still miscast as "dunking", doesn't work any better than ordinary interrogation. Not a life was saved - not a one. In fact, it could be argued that since torture is a recruiting magnet for Al Quaida, it has endangered us substantially. I'm making that argument.


Obama's Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair, is a retired admiral who commanded the Navy in the Pacific and served on the White House's National Security Council .He wrote in his memo that the techniques employed were effective . He joins a list of high ranking military ,justice and intelligence directors who make the same claim. All I ever hear in rebute is field agents who by their own admission were often reporting 2nd hand information with prejudice.

Very simple remedy... release the unredacted documents that Cheney has requested. Why not if the Obamas have nothing to hide ? It will come out in evidentiary discovery anyway if Holder persues this .

In fact, it could be argued that since torture is a recruiting magnet for Al Quaida, it has endangered us substantially. I'm making that argument.

Those methods foiled terrorist plots, in particular KSM's 2nd wave plan to fly a passenger jet into the Library Tower in Los Angeles, the West Coast's tallest skyscraper.

How can "image" trump the saving of lives in national security policy?

Excon,

Are you aware of the fact that last year Ted Kennedy tried to get waterboarding listed as "torture" via legislation?

If waterboarding actually was torture, why would he have to change the law to get it to be called torture?

BTW, the legislation failed BADLY in the Senate, with even a majority of Dems voting against it. There are two possibilities as to why that would be:

1) They don't really believe that it is torture themselves, or

2) By changing the law NOW, they would have to admitt that Bush and his people were within the bounds of the law at the time they performed these acts. To do that would mean that they would have to let Bush drop out of the limelight, and wouldn't have him as a whipping boy or a distraction from their miserably failed policies. Better for them to compromise on their beliefs regarding the legality or illegality of waterboarding, just as long as they can keep blaming Bush for everything that they do wrong, especially on national security.

Elliot

Someone at Huffpo - an Air America host - is even asking "what would you NOT do to stop a nuke (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lionel/what-would-you-not-do-to_b_189122.html)?"


I repeat: What would you not do to locate that nuclear device?

My answer is simple. I wouldn't not do anything to locate and defuse a nuclear devise to avoid its imminent detonation. But first on my list of interrogation techniques would not be torture or insects placed within a confinement box. (Hats off to the sick bastard who thought of that one.)

In fact, it was reported that a legal memorandum prepared for the CIA noted that along with said insect placement, approved interrogation techniques included inter alia: attention grasp, walling (hitting a detainee against a flexible wall), facial hold, facial slap, cramped confinement, wall standing, stress positions, sleep deprivation and waterboarding).

But would I proscribe Draconian treatment absolutely? In every case? When some experts and military types tell me it's effective? I'll eschew, all right. But how can I say that these techniques, call it "torture," are never to be used?

Amazing how the tone can change when their own side says it works.

If waterboarding actually was torture, why would he have to change the law to get it to be called torture?Hello again, El:

If waterboarding ISN'T torture, why did F.B.I. director, Robert Mueller pull his men off the project telling them "we don't do that"?

Speech. You can line up all the dufus's you want from either side saying that torture worked and it's a good thing. It's not. It never was. It never will be. That's so!

excon

Richard Fernandez (aka Wrechard ) at Belmont Club once was involved in the anti-Marcos insurgency in the Philippines.

He has an interesting take on the subject.
( I will allow for the differences in definition in the terminologies over what torture ;under duress etc. It is safe to state that the rebels in the Philippines were subject to real torture as opposed to the techniques described by the memos... and address the issue of effectiveness.)

Belmont Club Terrorism and moral torture (http://pajamasmedia.com/richardfernandez/2009/04/22/terrorism-and-moral-torture/)


When I ran safehouses in the anti-Marcos days the first order of business whenever a cell member was captured by the police was to alert the surviving members, move the safehouse and destroy all links to the captured person. That's because everyone knew that there was a great probability that the captive would talk under duress, however great his bravery and resistance. Nobody I know, or have heard of who has had experience in real-life situations has ever said, “our cell should continue as usual and the safehouse should remain open, despite the fact that one of our own is being tortured by the secret police, because I read in the New York Times that coercion never works.”

Hello again, Speech:

I'm amazed that I, excon, am the only one in the world who can see that the emperor has no clothes.. When I was a kid, I read about a guy who could do that, but I never thought I'd become him.

Well, apparently, I have.

I'm going to try to show you the same thing I see. It isn't difficult to grasp. In fact it's easy, otherwise I never would have latched on to it, that's for sure. But, sometimes people refuse to see, even after their blindfolds have been removed. But, you're a smart guy. I KNOW you'll get it.

Let's see, the ticking time bomb... You've got somebody who knows where the bomb is. What do you do to him to get that information?? Is that the scenario?

Ok, here's the key question. How do you KNOW the guy you have has the information you want?

In fact, you don't. You may have to think about that for a while, because it's new information. But, by any logic you may choose to incorporate, you don't know - can't know - what the guy in front of you knows.

You can only surmise what he knows, and that's not reason enough to pull his fingernails out. Consequently, the "ticking time bomb", is a ruse to scare people and convince them they need to torture. It certainly sounds different, doesn't it, when said this way: You've got a guy in front of you who you THINK knows where the bomb is? Yeah, it does. This would be easier if people would watch PBS instead of Jack Bauer. But, I'm up to the task.

excon

Ok, here's the key question. How do you KNOW the guy you have has the information you want?

You don't, I think we all know that. I also think we all know the shadow warriors do a pretty good job of figuring out whether a guy might have information.


You can only surmise what he knows, and that's not reason enough to pull his fingernails out.

I never said pull his fingernails out and I haven't seen anything to suggest that's what we're doing. I have seen throwing them against a false wall, tossing some bugs in with them and yes, waterboarding.


Consequently, the "ticking time bomb", is a ruse to scare people and convince them they need to torture.

That was the lefty from Air America's words, not mine. But care to answer his question? What you not do to stop a nuke?


It certainly sounds different, doesn't it, when said this way: You've got a guy in front of you who you THINK knows where the bomb is?

But you say that as if there is never any compelling evidence to suggest he does know something. Are they just grabbing guys off the street at random and asking, "hey you, do you know where the bomb is?"


Yeah, it does. This would be easier if people would watch PBS instead of Jack Bauer. But, I'm up to the task.

It is funny how the very people that whine the most love to use the idea it to make millions of dollars to entertain us. By the way, I don't watch Jack Bauer, but I do watch The Unit. They tend to not take many prisoners - they just shoot them.

One good thing about the left admitting to the fact that torture can indeed accomplish the objective is maybe we can finally have an honest discussion.

Pelosi, who is pushing for investigations on torture, claims she knew nothing about the interrogation methods that were being used on detainees. "Flat out, they never briefed us that this was happening," she said.


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 (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/08/AR2007120801664_pf.html) (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.

"The briefer was specifically asked if the methods were tough enough," said a U.S. official who witnessed the exchange...

Yet long before "waterboarding" entered the public discourse, the CIA gave key legislative overseers about 30 private briefings, some of which included descriptions of that technique and other harsh interrogation methods, according to interviews with multiple U.S. officials with firsthand knowledge.

With one known exception, no formal objections were raised by the lawmakers briefed about the harsh methods during the two years in which waterboarding was employed, from 2002 to 2003, said Democrats and Republicans with direct knowledge of the matter. The lawmakers who held oversight roles during the period included Pelosi and Rep. Jane Harman (D-Calif.) and Sens. Bob Graham (D-Fla.) and John D. Rockefeller IV (D-W.Va.), as well as Rep. Porter J. Goss (R-Fla.) and Sen. Pat Roberts (R-Kan).

Individual lawmakers' recollections of the early briefings varied dramatically, but officials present during the meetings described the reaction as mostly quiet acquiescence, if not outright support. "Among those being briefed, there was a pretty full understanding of what the CIA was doing," said Goss, who chaired the House intelligence committee from 1997 to 2004 and then served as CIA director from 2004 to 2006. "And the reaction in the room was not just approval, but encouragement."

What a liar.

Hello again, El:

If waterboarding ISN'T torture, why did F.B.I. director, Robert Mueller pull his men off the project telling them "we don't do that"?

Because it's the CIA and the Military's job. The FBI is a law enforcement agency, and it shouldn't be doing military style interrogations. The CIA and the military are free to use these techniques. Mueller was right... the FBI doesn't do that. The CIA and the military do.


Speech. You can line up all the dufus's you want from either side saying that torture worked and it's a good thing. It's not. It never was. It never will be. That's so!

Excon

Saying "that's so" doesn't make it so. The proof is in the pudding... terrorist attacks were stopped because of information garnered via these techniques. The saving of American lives is always a good thing.

Elliot

Saying "that's so" doesn't make it so. The proof is in the pudding... terrorist attacks were stopped because of information garnered via these techniques. Hello again, El:

What?? And, YOU'RE not just "saying it"?? Dude! There's NO proof. There's TALK of proof, and that (to quote a friend), doesn't make it so.

excon

Eyewitness testimony is proof, excon, even in our current, liberal court system. We have eyewitness statements people who were there, who used the actionable intelligence gleaned from these interrogations, who are clearly saying that it worked. We may be talking about unreleased memos, but there is proof well beyond that that is public. It ain't me saying it, it's them.

Elliot

Hello again:

Couple things.

Whether is works or not, ISN'T the issue for me, and I'm not going to discuss it further. I don't care if it DOES work. It's depraved, immoral, and inhuman. It's against everything we stand for as a country. It's against everything I went to war for, and spilled my blood on the battlefield for. It's as ANTI and UN-American as you get.

The people who support it do not understand the door they have opened. It will forever change the future of this country. It's a future that I, for one, WILL not go down.

The TORTURE that occurred under Bush must be totally, and absolutely repudiated by this nation. "Going forward" doesn't do that. I't leaves torture ON the table for some future demagogue to use again, in our name. I will not permit that.

I'm an American. We hold people to account here. My country does NOT torture. Nor does it change the meaning of the word simply because they want to do it. That's what happened here, plain and simple.

The people that did it, MUST be held to account!

excon

Hello again:

Couple things.

Whether is works or not, ISN'T the issue for me, and I'm not going to discuss it further. I don't care if it DOES work. It's depraved, immoral, and inhuman. It's against everything we stand for as a country. It's against everything I went to war for, and spilled my blood on the battlefield for. It's as ANTI and UN-American as you get.

OK, then. What did you spill your blood on the battlefield for? Leaving aside the fact that you were drafted. (Or so you told me.) What was it you were fighting for?

I thought that you were fighting for the security of the USA. I thought that that was the primary goal of soldiers... keeping the USA safe. I thought that that was the reason for the military.

Seems that you were fighting for something else... something that has never actually existed in this or any other country. It seems you were fighting to be considered a nice guy. Which, to me, means you were never the proper person to be in battle in the first place. Which just proves my point about an all volunteer military being better at its job than a conscripted military.

In what way does what you are proposing fit the military goal of keeping the USA safe... which is the ONLY goal of the military.

"People sleep soundly at night because rough men stand ready to do battle."


The people who support it do not understand the door they have opened. It will forever change the future of this country. It's a future that I, for one, WILL not go down.Fool! What we are supporting is exactly what has existed since the founding of this nation. It is not a door being opened. It is a door we are trying to keep suicidally idealistic nut jobs from closing.


The TORTURE that occurred under Bush must be totally, and absolutely repudiated by this nation. "Going forward" doesn't do that. I't leaves torture ON the table for some future demagogue to use again, in our name. I will not permit that. Then you are committing national suicide. And I will not permit THAT. It's my life and those of my family that you are putting on the line for your misguided idealism.


I'm an American. We hold people to account here. So will you be held accountable if we do get your way and the result is another major attack that kills thousands more Americans... or millions? Will Obama and his cronies? Who is responsible if, as a direct result of a change in our intelligence gathering policies, we get attacked? What level of accountability will you face as one who supports this change?


My country does NOT torture. Really? What country do you live in. Because it ain't the good ol' U.S. of A.


Nor does it change the meaning of the word simply because they want to do it. That's what happened here, plain and simple.I ask again... have you read the memo? Have you read the reports of what was actually done? (Not the MSM reports, the actual reports of the people involved.) It is VERY clear that what they did WASN'T torture. But you have to have actually done the research in order to accept that fact.

Are you aware of the number of restrictions put on waterboarding as performed by the interrogators at Gitmo?

-There had to be a medic on hand at all times.

-At no point could a "pour" last more than 40 seconds, and only three times in any session could it last more than twenty seconds.

-No session could last more than 2 hours.

-The total "pour" time could not last more than 20 minutes collectively in any 2 hour session.

-Sessions could not occur more than twice a day.

-No more than 6 sessions in a single week.

You asked why it tool so many times being dunked before KSM talked? The above restrictions are the answer. It is clear proof that no matter how unpleasant it may have been, it was NOT torture.

As a matter of important fact, the techniques used on the terrorists were based on the techniques used in SERE (Survival Evasion Resistance and Escape) training in the military, only with even more restrictions. Unless you are prepared to claim that the US military tortures its own men and women, the only conclusion is that these techniques are not torture.

Here is the technique described in the Office of Legal Council's 2002 memo:

"In this procedure, the individual is bound securely to an inclined bench, which is approximately four feet by seven feet. The individual's feet are generally elevated. A cloth is placed over the forehead and eyes. Water is then applied to the cloth in a controlled manner. As this is done, the cloth is lowered until it covers both the nose and mouth. Once the cloth is saturated and completely covers the mouth and nose, air flow is slightly restricted for 20 to 40 seconds due to the presence of the cloth… During those 20 to 40 seconds, water is continuously applied from a height of twelve to twenty-four inches. After this period, the cloth is lifted, and the individual is allowed to breathe unimpeded for three or four full breaths… The procedure may then be repeated. The water is usually applied from a canteen cup or small watering can with a spout… You have… informed us that it is likely that this procedure would not last more than twenty minutes in any one application."



The people that did it, MUST be held to account!

I agree. Every one of them should be given a medal.

Elliot

The idea that I have seen bandied about that Gitmo waterboarding and the water torture used by the Japanese in WW2 are somehow similar is absured.

Only the name water is the same.

Phooey! I can hold my breath much longer than 40 seconds!!

Hello again, El and Gal:

You poor, poor lost souls. May God forgive you, for you know not what you speak.

excon

Hello again, El and Gal:

You poor, poor lost souls. May God forgive you, for you know not what you speak.

excon

I most certaily do know that I can hold my breath for more than 40 seconds!

And thanks to Obama, If I were in that position I now know that I wouldn't have to hold it longer than that.

Galveston is right in that the disclosure of the memos and subsequent publicly announced policies advertise what jihadists need to train for. He is also right in earlier comments that humiliation is an underused resource ;and should not be considered torture.

Hello again:

This thread has run its course. There can't be any rational discussion of these issues when one side isn't rational.

I can't tell if my opposition is saying that 1) torture isn't torture, that 2) torture is lawful and constitutional, that 3) they deserve it, or that 4) torture works.

Frankly, it matters not which of those it is, cause ALL of 'em are Orwellian and, an anathema to what America stands for. When they come up with something cogent, I'll take 'em on. But, right now, they've truly lost their minds.

excon

I guess I've lost my mind because I think it's despicable for members of Congress to be fully aware of what was taking place and then turn their backs on their country, their soldiers and intelligence personnel in lying through their teeth about it in manufactured political outrage.


Security Before Politics (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/24/AR2009042403339_pf.html)

By Porter J. Goss
Saturday, April 25, 2009

Since leaving my post as CIA director almost three years ago, I have remained largely silent on the public stage. I am speaking out now because I feel our government has crossed the red line between properly protecting our national security and trying to gain partisan political advantage. We can't have a secret intelligence service if we keep giving away all the secrets. Americans have to decide now.

A disturbing epidemic of amnesia seems to be plaguing my former colleagues on Capitol Hill. After the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, members of the committees charged with overseeing our nation's intelligence services had no higher priority than stopping al-Qaeda. In the fall of 2002, while I was chairman of the House intelligence committee, senior members of Congress were briefed on the CIA's "High Value Terrorist Program," including the development of "enhanced interrogation techniques" and what those techniques were. This was not a one-time briefing but an ongoing subject with lots of back and forth between those members and the briefers.

Today, I am slack-jawed to read that members claim to have not understood that the techniques on which they were briefed were to actually be employed; or that specific techniques such as "waterboarding" were never mentioned. It must be hard for most Americans of common sense to imagine how a member of Congress can forget being told about the interrogations of Sept. 11 mastermind Khalid Sheik Mohammed. In that case, though, perhaps it is not amnesia but political expedience.

Let me be clear. It is my recollection that:

-- The chairs and the ranking minority members of the House and Senate intelligence committees, known as the Gang of Four, were briefed that the CIA was holding and interrogating high-value terrorists.

-- We understood what the CIA was doing.

-- We gave the CIA our bipartisan support.

-- We gave the CIA funding to carry out its activities.

-- On a bipartisan basis, we asked if the CIA needed more support from Congress to carry out its mission against al-Qaeda.

I do not recall a single objection from my colleagues. They did not vote to stop authorizing CIA funding. And for those who now reveal filed "memorandums for the record" suggesting concern, real concern should have been expressed immediately -- to the committee chairs, the briefers, the House speaker or minority leader, the CIA director or the president's national security adviser -- and not quietly filed away in case the day came when the political winds shifted. And shifted they have.

Circuses are not new in Washington, and I can see preparations being made for tents from the Capitol straight down Pennsylvania Avenue. The CIA has been pulled into the center ring before. The result this time will be the same: a hollowed-out service of diminished capabilities. After Sept. 11, the general outcry was, "Why don't we have better overseas capabilities?" I fear that in the years to come this refrain will be heard again: once a threat -- or God forbid, another successful attack -- captures our attention and sends the pendulum swinging back. There is only one person who can shut down this dangerous show: President Obama.

Unfortunately, much of the damage to our capabilities has already been done. It is certainly not trust that is fostered when intelligence officers are told one day "I have your back" only to learn a day later that a knife is being held to it. After the events of this week, morale at the CIA has been shaken to its foundation.

We must not forget: Our intelligence allies overseas view our inability to maintain secrecy as a reason to question our worthiness as a partner. These allies have been vital in almost every capture of a terrorist.

The suggestion that we are safer now because information about interrogation techniques is in the public domain conjures up images of unicorns and fairy dust. We have given our enemy invaluable information about the rules by which we operate. The terrorists captured by the CIA perfected the act of beheading innocents using dull knives. Khalid Sheik Mohammed boasted of the tactic of placing explosives high enough in a building to ensure that innocents trapped above would die if they tried to escape through windows. There is simply no comparison between our professionalism and their brutality.

Our enemies do not subscribe to the rules of the Marquis of Queensbury. "Name, rank and serial number" does not apply to non-state actors but is, regrettably, the only question this administration wants us to ask. Instead of taking risks, our intelligence officers will soon resort to wordsmithing cables to headquarters while opportunities to neutralize brutal radicals are lost.

The days of fortress America are gone. We are the world's superpower. We can sit on our hands or we can become engaged to improve global human conditions. The bottom line is that we cannot succeed unless we have good intelligence. Trading security for partisan political popularity will ensure that our secrets are not secret and that our intelligence is destined to fail us.

The terrorists captured by the CIA perfected the act of beheading innocents using dull knives. Hello again, Steve:

In other words, they deserved it. I think I mentioned that. See reason 3), above.

But, thanks for a new reason to torture; 5) it was OK because we told the Democrats. Noooo, Steve. Telling someone you're breaking the law doesn't excuse you from breaking the law. It really doesn't.

excon

excon,

"[A] strict observance of the written law is doubtless one of the high duties of a good citizen, but it is not the highest. The laws of necessity, of self-preservation, of saving our country when in danger, are of higher obligation. To lose our country by a scrupulous adherence to the written law, would be to lose the law itself, with life, liberty, property and all hose who are enjoying them with us; thus absurdly sacrificing the ends to the means."

--- Thomas Jefferson

"[An insurrection] in nearly one-third of the States had subverted the whole of the laws.. . Are all the laws, but one, to go unexecuted, and the government itself go to pieces, lest that one [Constitutional law] be violated?"

--- Abraham Lincoln


[Congressman Clement Vallandigham was arrested] because he was laboring, with some effect, to prevent the raising of troops, to encourage desertions from the army, and to leave the rebellion without an adequate military force to suppress it.. . Must I shoot a simple-minded deserter, while I must not touch a hair of a wily agitator who induces him to desert [because of Constitutional law]?"

--- Abraham Lincoln

(In both of these statements, Lincoln was defending his violation of the Constitution because it made no sense to follow the Constitution to the point of destruction of the Nation. He was saying, in essence, that the Constitution is not a suicide pact.)



"The choice is not between order and liberty. It is between liberty with order and anarchy without either. There is danger that, if the court does not temper its doctrinaire logic with a little practical wisdom, it will convert the constitutional Bill of Rights into a suicide pact."

---Justice Robert Houghwout Jackson, 1949, Terminiello v. Chicago


"The Constitution is silent about the permissibility of involuntary forfeiture of citizenship rights. While it confirms citizenship rights, plainly there are imperative obligations of citizenship, performance of which Congress in the exercise of its powers may constitutionally exact. One of the most important of these is to serve the country in time of war and national emergency. The powers of Congress to require military service for the common defense are broad and far-reaching, for while the Constitution protects against invasions of individual rights, it is not a suicide pact. Similarly, Congress has broad power under the Necessary and Proper Clause to enact legislation for the regulation of foreign affairs. Latitude in this area is necessary to ensure effectuation of this indispensable function of government."

--- Justice Arthur Goldberg, 1963, Kennedy v. Mendoza-Martinez


I am still trying to figure out where in our history you get the idea that our country has to be better vis-à-vis human rights than our enemies, unto the point of committing suicide. Can you please tell me WHERE you got this idea? Can you show me a time when this idea was ever true and not some sort of idealistic fantasy? When have we ever agreed to commit suicide in order to uphold the Constitution for our ENEMIES?

Elliot

I am still trying to figure out where in our history you get the idea that our country has to be better vis-a-vis human rights than our enemies, unto the point of committing suicide. When have we ever agreed to commit suicide in order to uphold the Constitution for our ENEMIES?Hello El:

Couple things.

Dude! We don't HAVE to be better. We CHOOSE to be.

Bush was supposed to uphold the Constitution. It's got nothing to do with our enemy.

But, you are to be commended by offering reason to torture 6); OK, we broke the law, but the Constitution isn't a suicide pact.

I guess that makes you feel better... You guys only seem to glom onto that old rightwing saw when you want to VIOLATE the Constitution. But, when it comes to your Second Amendment rights, you're all over it.

Your hypocrisy is manifest. It's here for all to read. I say again, you guys have lost your minds.

excon

I am still trying to figure out where in our history you get the idea that our country has to be better vis-a-vis human rights than our enemies, unto the point of committing suicide. Can you please tell me WHERE you got this idea? Can you show me a time when this idea was ever true and not some sort of idealistic fantasy? When have we ever agreed to commit suicide in order to uphold the Constitution for our ENEMIES?

"Unto the point of committing suicide." Exactly, and I have to ask what would you NOT do to protect your family from imminent danger? I certainly would not whip out my pocket constitution and give it a read through, I'd do whatever was necessary to protect them.

"Unto the point of committing suicide." Exactly, and I have to ask what would you NOT do to protect your family from imminent danger? I certainly would not whip out my pocket constitution and give it a read through, I'd do whatever was necessary to protect them.Hello again, Steve:

My gosh, my gosh. Nobody is asking YOU to take out your pocket Constitution... Whether YOU violate somebody's rights ISN'T the issue.

The issue IS, if you're the president, and you're about to make a big decision, you'd BETTER WHIP OUT YOUR POCKET CONSTITUTION!! If you don't, you go to jail. That's the law.

So, you TOO are admitting now that the dufus broke the law?? I'm sure you're not, but it looks that way. Let me know when you find your minds again, and want to have a RATIONAL discussion.

excon

I certainly would not whip out my pocket constitution and give it a read through, I'd do whatever was necessary to protect them.

Did you get your copy from the Heritage Foundation too?

Funny, it is only excon who feels that we need to follow the Constitution until we go down with the ship. I guess he knows better than Jefferson, Lincoln and various Justices of the Supreme Court, as well as many lower judges. AND he knows better than the military and the CIA what the military and intelligence ramifications are.

Hello again, El:

We are a nation of laws and not men.

Yes, I DO know better than the men you list... I know, because every time we've made law out of fear, we've been wrong.

You're afraid. The policy we're speaking of here was born out of fear. The men you list are, or were afraid. I'm not. The Constitution has served us well for over 200 years, and I think it's good for another 200.

excon

PS> Your post DOES suggest that the Constitution WAS violated by somebody. Would that be the dufus in chief?? I think it would be.

Hello again,

I just want to make SURE that I've got your reasoning correctly:

1) enhanced interrogation isn't torture, 2) besides that, it's lawful and Constitutional, 3) they deserve it, 4) torture works, 5) it was OK to torture because we told the Democrats, and finally, 6) OK we DID torture, and we DID break the law, but the Constitution isn't a suicide pact.

Do I have it right?

excon

Hello again:

Help me out here, righty's. Now I'm a real intelligence type guy. I actually worked in intelligence when I served. So I know a little about it...

I can't figure out what intelligence distaster will unfold because Al Quaida knows what will happen to them if their caught... I'm having a real hard time with that. I can't believe that that information will do ANYTHING to embolden or strengthen their resolve, or do us harm in any way...

Please, tell me what that information does to a hardened Al Quaida warrior, and how whatever it does makes us more susceptible to attack or endangers our troops.

Now, I understand if they found out what our troop strength is, that would be bad. Or if they found out when we were going to attack them next, that would be bad...

But, I don't understand how it's bad that they know we're going to use enhanced interrogation techniques on them if we catch them. Can you explain it to me in ways I, as a former intelligence officer can understand?

If anything, it seems to me it would dissuade fighters from continuing.

It also seems evident that it's a recruiting tool that has put us and our troops in harms way...

You say no... But, if you were an Iraqi who was glad the US liberated him, as soon as you saw the pictures of Abu Grahib, you would have joined a resistance movement. Certainly, if you were a proud Iraqi, you would have. I would have. Steve, tom and the Wolverine would have. What makes you think an ordinary Iraqi won't do the same thing you would?

excon

Hello again,

I just want to make SURE that I've got your reasoning correctly:

1) enhanced interrogation isn't torture,

Correct


2) besides that, it's lawful and Constitutional,

Also correct.


3) they deserve it,

Incorrect. Whether they deserved it or not is irrelevant. They had information we needed, and they didn't want to share it. We needed that information in order to keep American citizens alive. Weighing the value of American lives against the civil rights of terrorists, the decision was made that American lives are more important than the civil rights of terrorists.


4) torture works,

It does. If it didn't work, the point would be moot. That is the ONLY reason for torture... the fact that it works and that it saves American lives. (Incidentally, that is also the only reason for animal testing for drugs is that it works and it saves lives. If it didn't work, there would be no reason to do it.)


5) it was OK to torture because we told the Democrats,

No, that is merely a statement on the hypocrisy of the left... they were all for it before they were against it. That's not a justification, just a statement of historical fact.


and finally, 6) OK we DID torture, and we DID break the law, but the Constitution isn't a suicide pact.

Slight mistake here. It wasn't torture, and the terrorists do not have Constitutional rights. But EVEN IF IT WAS TORTURE and EVEN IF THE TERRORISTS HAD CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS, it still wouldn't matter, because the Constitution isn't a suicide pact.


Do I have it right?

excon

Not very often.

The issue IS, if you're the president, and you're about to make a big decision, you'd BETTER WHIP OUT YOUR POCKET CONSTITUTION!!!!!!!! If you don't, you go to jail. That's the law.

Wasn't that the purpose of the memos, to run it by the OLC so they could advise the president? Wasn't that the purpose of briefing Congress so everyone was aware of the situation, to lay it all out on the table, provide opportunities for feedback and to raise objections? If there were none as Goss said, then if the law was broken than everyone involved was culpable - not just "the Dufus." You said so yourself I believe, so let's stop pretending this is all about Bush crimes.

The nation cannot have an honest discussion about it if the Democrats that were in on this just want to play partisan politics with manufactured outrage, outright lies and self-righteous self-promotion to cover their own a$$es

Abu Ghraib

I noticed on Matthews that he kept on going back to the Abu Ghraib issue which really is different than CIA interrogation .

No one suggests that what happened there was sanctioned. In fact investigations related to prisoner abuse by the military have resulted in 400 disciplinary actions including imprisonment, bad-conduct discharges, forfeiture of pay and other punitive actions.

Another thing that is NOT true is that the CIA agents waterboarded KSM and Abu Zubaydah 266 times combined .They were waterboarded fewer than 15 times in all, according to the Red Cross, which has spoken to them.The large number the MSM ran with is the number of times water was poured on them, with each pour lasting only seconds.