Hello:

I asked some of the righty's on this board, whether an interrogator would be a hero if he waterboarded somebody 2 seconds longer than the law allowed, but got good information because of those 2 seconds...

Nobody answered me. It looks like, even if he got a confession, that he's a crook. Whaddya think? Finally, a special prosecutor will be looking into it.

excon

If they did not follow established guidelines then there should be a determination if there is grounds for discipline.


Holder appointed John Durham to make a preliminary review of the investigators in question(timing of the announcement very suspect) . Hopefully Durham will not be an insane inspector Javert like Patrick Fitzgerald was.

Now ;since this information is from another conveniently declassified report ;I again insist that former VP Cheney's requests for declassification of information he thinks is relevant should also be honored. If not; I know that FOIA requests have been made .

Still waiting for calls for investigations and prosecutions of this treason.

washingtonpost.com (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/20/AR2009082004295.html)

I'm just going to cut and paste my response from the other thread. That's pretty much all I have to say on this right now.


First of all, let's make sure that we understand that what Holder is looking at is based on stuff that took place BEFORE Bush was in office. We are talking about the possible torture of one of the terrorists involved in the bombing of the USS Cole, which was a Clinton-era FUBAR. We are NOT talking about actions taken against Gitmo detainees.

Based on what I have heard, there were 3 methods of "torture" used in the specific case being "looked into" by Holder.

1) They turned on a drill and pointed it at the head of the detainee and threatened to drill holes in his head.

2) They played "Russian Roulette" with the detainee with an empty gun that was no threat to anyone.

3) They simulated (faked) an execution of another detainee to scare the detainee into talking.

Which of these DEADLY TORTURES do you object to?

Me? I actually object to all of them. First of all, they were stupid techniques to use.

Number 1 is nothing more than a frat prank. If you fall for it and talk, you're an idiot. I don't particularly think of it as a particularly successful interrogation technique.

Number 2 I've seen in movies too. They used it in the really awful "Starsky & Hutch" movie with Ben Stiller. Again, if you are being fooled by that old trick, you're an idiot. It's a crappy interrogation technique too.

Number 3 has actually been used by the Israelis successfully. That one MAY have some merit. But the backlash afterwards, when the detainee finds out he was suckered, usually ends up being that he clams up WORSE than before. So if you haven't sucked him dry very quickly, his utility to you as an information source wears off very quickly. It's a technique that burns too many bridges of communication.

Dumb techniques used stupidly.

But the real reason that I object to the use of these techniques?

They are illegal.

Excon's jaw is probably down below his knees right now.

Let me explain.

You see, when the guys from the USS Cole bombing were captured, the USA had not declared war. Therefore, anyone captured in relation to the Cole bombing was captured as a CIVILLIAN CRIMINAL, not a POW. Thus the rules and laws of the civillian criminal system are the ones in play, not the laws of the Geneva Conventions and the Rules of War. Such interrogation techniques, which are LEGAL to be used on unlawful combatants during a declared war are NOT legal to be used on civillian criminals.

That's why the declaration of war by Congress is so central to the arguments of those in favor of the EITs for Gitmo detainees. They make the legal difference between ILLEGAL TORTURE OF A CIVILLIAN CRIMINAL and the legal interrogation of an unlawful combatant POW.

So to address excon's comment about me, I happen to be in favor of an investigation and if necessary a prosecution of those involved in the use of these techniques. Because at the time they used them, those techniques were NOT legal in this case. That they were legal later for other detainees is not a defense of their actions.

Equal application of the law, excon. THAT is the standard.

---------------------

Now... here's a question for you, excon. Or actually several questions.

Obama's staff just announced last night that they are going to be forming a special secret "intelligence interrogation unit" that will be housed in the basement of the White House and that will be answerable directly to the National Security Advisor. They will be in charge of interrogating captured terrorists (by whatever name the Obama Admin is calling them this week). While they will be based in the White House, they will actually be in charge of interrogations that take place OUTSIDE the USA. They have no intention of bringing the terrorists into the USA for questioning.

My questions:

1) Do you think that the NSA and the President should be creating secret military or paramilitary units that operate in the White House basement? The last time we had that was when a guy by the name of Col. Olliver North was in charge of negotiations with the Contras regarding weapons trading. Do you want to see more shadow military units in the White House?

2) If Obama is creating such a unit so that he can be more directly in charge of interrogations, doesn't that indicate that Bush and Cheney were NOT directly in charge of such interrogations prior to this? And if Bush and Cheney were NOT in charge of such interrogations prior to this move, on what basis do you suggest that they be prosecuted for "war crimes"?

3) If the purpose of forming this shadow interrogation team answerable to the NSA and the President is to make sure that such interrogations are done "legally", why are they refusing to bring the terrorists into the USA in order to interrogate them? Why have they announced that all interrogations will take place OUTSIDE the USA, where a) there is less observation of what they will be doing, and b) the laws regarding how interrogations are performed are more lenient? If this unit is supposed to be above board in their techniques, what are they setting up to hide?

Just a few questions to ask yourself .

Elliot

Have you heard? Probably not, the only time liars in Washington are mentioned is if it's a Republican liar. The newly released CIA documents confirm AGAIN that Nancy Pelosi lied about what she knew (http://www.commentarymagazine.com/blogs/index.php/rubin/79351).

If they did not follow established guidelines then there should be a determination if there is grounds for discipline. .Hello tom:

Wasn't the whole idea of the torture memos to define exactly what IS and what ISN'T torture?? It couldn't be clearer - 30 seconds of waterboarding = GOOD - 31 seconds of waterboarding = FELONY.

Isn't that WHY they developed those machiavellian memos in the first place? Plus, nobody answered my question. I say 31 seconds of waterboarding = FELONY. I think the LAW does too. I want to know if you WINGERS think that 31 seconds of waterboarding is a CRIME, or is it a heroic act??

Come on. You can tell me.

excon

PS> Steve: Dude! They ALL lie. Maybe they'd stop if their terms were limited.

PPS> Please don't take my 30 seconds number above as sacrosanct. I used it just for illustrative value.

PPS> Please don't take my 30 seconds number above as sacrosanct. I used it just for illustrative value.

If the illustration isn't a correct representation of the facts on hand, it has no validity in proving a point regarding those facts on hand.

Furthermore, you say that if someone violated the "torture memo" protocals, that is a felony. Is that really the case? Or is it just that the information gleaned from such an interrogation has no legal value?

If a cop fails to mirandize a perp, he has violated the rules. Is the cop guilty of a felony? No. He just won't get the conviction he was trying to get. The perp will likely walk. But the cop hasn't committed a felony.

Similarly, if an interrogator uses waterboarding for 32 seconds instead of 30, is the interrogator guilty of a felony? Or has he just violated protocals that create a situation where the POW can no longer be interrogated at all? I don't know.

You MAY be right. It may, in fact, be a felony. In fact, I suspect that you are right. But you haven't PROVEN it. You made a statement without evidence to back it up. Until you do, it's just speculation.

In any case, I'm OK with investigating the interrogators in the USS Cole Bomber case, because at that time there was no war declaration, and use of wartime interrogation techniques had not been legally authorized.

Elliot

I wanna know if you WINGERS think that 31 seconds of waterboarding is a CRIME, or is it a heroic act????

Come on. You can tell me.

excon

I once told you (actually more than once) that if you are willing to break the law in defense of something you believe is right, you should have the convictions to take the consequences of breaking the law.

It may very well be that the interrogator who uses waterboarding for 31 seconds instead of 30 is a criminal. And he could be a hero TOO. It is possible to break a law for all the right reasons, be held to the full rigors of the law, have to be punished for it, and STILL be a hero for a) being willing to break the law for what you know is right, and b) being willing to take the consequences for doing so.

Cassius Clay/Muhammad Ali broke the law by dodging the draft. He suffered the consequences of that action, lost his belt, was shunned by the public, convinced by a lower court (overturned by SCOTUS 4 years later) and was stopped from fighting for 3 years. He was a criminal in that he broke the law, but a hero in that he was willing to follow his conviction AND willing to take the consequences of breaking the law in order to follow those convictions. I do not agree with Ali's position, but I respect a guy who is willing not just to break the law he finds inconvenient, but is also willing to take the consequences of doing so.

Another good example: Ollie North. He did what he thought was best for the country in the Iran Contra affair, even though doing so was against the orders of Congress and against the laws of the USA. He broke the law, yes, but he didn't run from the cconsequences. He ADMITTED TO and TOOK FULL RESPONSIBILITY for his part in Iran Contra. He was convicted, received a 3-year suspended prison term, 2 years probation, $150,000 in fines and 1200 hours of community service. He did what he thought was right in defense of his country and to follow the orders of his President, took responsibility for his actions, took the consequences, and remained true to his beliefs and his patriotism. He was both a criminal for breaking the law and a hero for being willing to do so in defense of his country and for being willing to deal with the consequences of doing so.

So... in answer to your question, is the guy who uses 32 seconds of waterboarding a hero or not? Depends. WHY was he breaking the law? What was the consequence of him breaking the law? Was he willing to accept responsibility for breaking the law? Did he hold his salt when it was time to face the punishment? Such a person is a criminal. But he can also be a hero... if he holds to the right values.

It is quite possible to be both a criminal and a hero at the same time with the same action, if the circumstances and the HEART OF THE PERSON IN QUESTION are right. Such men and women are rare, but they do exist. Men and women who are ready to defend what they know is right at ANY cost, including (or especially) the cost to themselves. Ali and North share that quality.

Elliot

Ex your hypothetical question is not really relevant . We aren't talking about going over the time limit of waterboarding .We are talking about methods that are clearly not permitted in the guidelines.

We are talking about methods that are clearly not permitted in the guidelines.Hello again, tom:

I thought waterboarding longer than the guidelines call for is EXACTLY what the probe is about.

We shall see.

excon

Hello again, tom:

I thought waterboarding longer than the guidelines call for is EXACTLY what the probe is about.

We shall see.

excon

Nope. As I have mentioned before, this has NOTHING TO DO WITH THE TORTURE MEMOS or the Gitmo detainees. The probe is for torture of a captured criminal involved in blowing up the USS Cole in Yemen. There were no EIT protocals in place at the time that the interrogation of this criminal took place, and even if there had been, it wouldn't have applied to this criminal. He wasn't a POW, he was a criminal.

Therefore, the basis of your question--- the propriety of the EIT Memos and the enforcement of the protocals thereof--- does not apply.

Elliot

Nope. As I have mentioned before, this has NOTHING TO DO WITH THE TORTURE MEMOS or the Gitmo detainees.Hello again, El:

I read where you said that. I don't believe it. Why would they investigate a mouse with a 600 lb. gorilla in the room. It makes no sense.

I'm happy to be wrong. Show me where I am.

excon

Hello again, El:

I read where you said that. I don't believe it. Why would they investigate a mouse with a 600 lb. gorilla in the room. It makes no sense.

Why? Cause Holder's an idiot.


I'm happy to be wrong. Show me where I am.


That would be pretty much every time you post something. I'm glad you're happy about it, though, as often as it happens. :D

But in this case, it is really self evident.

The bombing of the Cole took place in October 2000, before Bush ever took office, and before 9/11 ever took place. The Bybee Memo was written in August 2002. Therefore, the Bybee memo couldn't have been applied to anything that took place BEFORE it was written. You can't apply a legal opinion RETROACTIVELY. Oh, you could, but you'd be shot down in court for it.

Furthermore, the Bybee memo is specific to those people captured as a result of the War on Terror. Al-Nashiri, the guy complicit in the Cole bombing, wasn't captured due to the war on terror, he was captured due to the Cole bombing, which took place before the war declaration, and therefore isn't subject to that declaration.

So no, the Bybee memo never applied to the Al-Nashiri case.

Elliot

Hello again, El:

I read where you said that. I don't believe it. Why would they investigate a mouse with a 600 lb. gorilla in the room. It makes no sense. Hello again, El:

I don't know how you missed it, but you did... I understand about the memos and what happened BEFORE the memos...

The 600 lb. gorilla in the room is the gitmo detainees, which you say the abuse of ISN'T going to be investigated... It's THAT part I don't believe. Their torture was certainly POST the Bybee memo, no?

excon

Hello again, El:

I dunno how you missed it, but you did... I understand about the memos and what happened BEFORE the memos....

The 600 lb. gorilla in the room is the gitmo detainees, which you say the abuse of ISN'T going to be investigated.... It's THAT part I don't believe. Their torture was certainly POST the Bybee memo, no?

excon

Yep, it was. And it isn't going to be investigated BECAUSE THERE HAVE BEEN NO VIOLATIONS. It's already been looked into. The EITs were only used on 4 people. All 4 cases were already reviewed and deemed to be consistent with the protocals set forth in the Bybee memo. Therefore there's nothing to investigate. Holder tried a couple of months ago and got shot down for it.

End of story.

The only thing being investigated by Holder is the Al-Nashiri case. That's all he's got left.

Elliot

Yep, it was. And it isn't going to be investigated BECAUSE THERE HAVE BEEN NO VIOLATIONS. It's already been looked into. The EITs were only used on 4 people. All 4 cases were already reviewed and deemed to be consistent with the protocals set forth in the Bybee memo. Therefore there's nothing to investigate. Holder tried a couple of months ago and got shot down for it.Hello El:

You are delusional.

excon

Hello El:

You are delusional.

excon

No, that's what happened. You just can't deal with the fact that Bush and Cheney didn't do anything wrong. You're stuck on trying to find something to punish them for.

Please keep in mind that Holder's problem with Bush was the existence of the so-called "torture memos". He tried to say that the memos themselves are a violation of law. Once we have determined that the memos themselves were perfectly legal, the only question is whether anyone violated the protocals in the memos. That has already been investigated and dropped as well.

You got nothing to stand on, ex.

Elliot

That has already been investigated and dropped as well.Hello again, El:

I don't believe they've been investigated by a special prosecutor. Nope, as a matter of fact, they haven't. But, they WILL be.

You're still delusional.

excon

Hello again, El:

I don't believe they've been investigated by a special prosecutor. Nope, as a matter of fact, they haven't. But, they WILL be.

You're still delusional.

excon

No they won't. Obama has already realized that doing so would be political suicide. He's even reigned in Holder.

Holder is TRYING to find something he can hang a "Bush is a war criminal" accusation on that doesn't violate his promise to Obama to drop the EIT investigations. He is CLAIMING that he's only going after the lower level guys in the CIA in the Al Nashiri case, and not the Bush admin. But his hope is that he'll find someone to flip on Cheney or Bush to save their own butts. But he won't. It's a dead end being checked out by a guy desperate to get Bush at any cost. But there's nothing to get them on.

The EIT investigation is dead. There's nothing there. It's been investigated up the wazoo and the only person that has been found guilty of anything is Nancy Pelosi... guilty of lying about what she knew vis-à-vis "torture" of POWs. The investigations have hurt the DEMS more than the REPS. Pelosi's been burned. Obama has been burned by making a promise not to go after Bush et. al. and then ordering the EIT investigations anyway... and then backing off. He wants no part of it anymore.

It's over, excon. Pull up your big-girl panties and deal with it.

Elliot

machiavellian
.


Did you libs make that word up?

did you libs make that word up?Hello again, zip:

Yup. We also invented the word dictionary.

excon

Hello:

I asked some of the righty's on this board, whether an interrogator would be a hero if he waterboarded somebody 2 seconds longer than the law allowed, but got good information because of those 2 seconds...

Nobody answered me. It looks like, even if he got a confession, that he's a crook. Whaddya think? Finally, a special prosecutor will be looking into it.

excon

I'm not going to read the other responses, because I don't feel like it. ;)

Let me ask you something Exy dear, even though I already know the answer.

If a husband beats his wife because she won't put out, and breaking her nose is what finally seals the deal, is he a hero?

To me what you asked is pretty much the same thing I asked. Of course, other people won't see it that way, but I have a right to my opinion.

Waterboarding is cruel and unusual punishment. No one should have to suffer through it.

Abuse is also cruel and unusual punishment. Both of these methods get results, so, calling one man a hero means that you have to call the other one a hero as well.

You decide.

Clunk, off my soap box. ;)

Good word you can use it when it applies best

I'm not going to read the other responses, because I don't feel like it. ;)

Let me ask you something Exy dear, even though I already know the answer.

If a husband beats his wife because she won't put out, and breaking her nose is what finally seals the deal, is he a hero?

To me what you asked is pretty much the same thing I asked. Of course, other people won't see it that way, but I have a right to my opinion.

Waterboarding is cruel and unusual punishment. No one should have to suffer through it.

Abuse is also cruel and unusual punishment. Both of these methods get results, so, calling one man a hero means that you have to call the other one a hero as well.

You decide.

Clunk, off my soap box. ;)

The answer?
Did the broken nose prevent attacks on innocent civilians

the answer?
did the broken nose SAVE a country from terrorist

Question;

How many people that are put through waterboarding actually have information that can save a country from terrorism?

Torture is torture. You're either for it, or against it.

I will just let the record stand WE have not had another attack since...
Now obama is for the same pratices just for now on lets lie about it..
And I'm game I love it when my leaders lie to me

i will just let the record stand WE have not had another attack since...Hello z:

You say we tortured, and had no attacks. Ergo, torture prevents attacks...

However, your logic is flawed. I could say that the sun went down every night since 9/11. Ergo, sunsets prevent attacks.

excon

Proubably right,
However there are a lot with me on that
Nancy polosi included

proubably right,
however there are alot with me on that
nancy polosi included

There are a lot of people with me too. Excon included. ;)

Just because someone agrees with you doesn't mean you're right.

Have you ever seen someone being waterboarded?

Do you know what damage is done to a person that is subjected to
This type of torture?

Waterboarding - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waterboarding)

In 2005 and 2006, the bearded, pudgy man who calls himself the mastermind of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks discussed a wide variety of subjects, including Greek philosophy and al-Qaeda dogma. In one instance, he scolded a listener for poor note-taking and his inability to recall details of an earlier lecture.

Speaking in English, Mohammed "seemed to relish the opportunity, sometimes for hours on end, to discuss the inner workings of al-Qaeda and the group's plans, ideology and operatives," said one of two sources who described the sessions, speaking on the condition of anonymity because much information about detainee confinement remains classified. "He'd even use a chalkboard at times."

These scenes provide previously unpublicized details about the transformation of the man known to U.S. officials as KSM from an avowed and truculent enemy of the United States into what the CIA called its "preeminent source" on al-Qaeda. This reversal occurred after Mohammed was subjected to simulated drowning and prolonged sleep deprivation, among other harsh interrogation techniques.
washingtonpost.com (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/28/AR2009082803874.html)

Hello tom:

This is what Salon says about the Post article.

-----------------

If anyone ever tells you that they don't understand what is meant by "stenography journalism" -- or ever insists that America is plagued by a Liberal Media -- you can show them this article from today's Washington Post and, by itself, it should clear up everything. The article's headline is "How a Detainee Became An Asset -- Sept. 11 Plotter Cooperated After Waterboarding" -- though an equally appropriate headline would be: "The Joys and Virtues of Torture -- how Cheney Kept Us Safe." I defy anyone to identify a single way the article would be different if The Post had let Cheney write it himself. The next time someone laments the economic collapse of the modern American newspaper, one might point out that an industry which pays three separate reporters (Peter Finn, Joby Warrick and Julie Tate) and numerous editors to churn out mindless, inane tripe like this has brought about its own.

excon

Hello again, tom:

Look, I'm not going to argue that torture doesn't work, and THAT'S why we shouldn't use it. If somebody tortured me, I'd tell 'em everything they wanted to know...

But, torture is a felony and a war crime, and we don't actually have a country (at least we're not suppoesd to) where political leaders are free to commit serious crimes and then claim afterwards that it produced good outcomes. If we want to be a country that uses torture, then we should repeal our laws which criminalize it, withdraw from treaties which ban it, and announce to the world (not that they don't already know) that, as a country, we believe torture is justifiable and just. Let's at least be honest about what we are.

Let's explicitly repudiate Ronald Reagan's affirmation that "no exceptional circumstances whatsoever . . . may be invoked as a justification of torture" and that "each State Party is required to prosecute torturers."

excon

If the interogations were conducted within Justice Dept guidelines then it was done within the law.

Question;

How many people that are put through waterboarding actually have information that can save a country from terrorism?

Only the three people that waterboarding was actually used on. That's why it was only used on them and not ALL POWs.

You did know that all this stuff about "torture" at Gitmo is only about three cases where EITs were used, and in all three cases there was strong evidence that the POWs had actionable intelligence and weren't going to give up that intelligence except under harsh interrogation. Turns out that in all three cases, the interrogators were RIGHT because in all three cases we got intelligence that stopped actual attacks and allowed the capture of other high-level terrorists.

Were you aware of the fact that such "torture" was not random OR pervasive? That it was only used in 3 cases?


Torture is torture. You're either for it, or against it.

Then consider me to be FOR it. And PROUDLY so.

Furthermore, the metaphore you set up about an innocent wife being beaten by her husband is a false one. We're not talking about a husband who beat his innocent wife. We're talking about interrogations of TERRORISTS who are anything but innocent bystanders... who deliberately attacked and murdered civillians and knew of MORE attacks to take place.

The beating of an innocent housewife is a crime.

The interrogation through harsh techniques of KNOWN TERRORIST MURDERERS who are guilty of planning and executing attacks on innocents and who know of other such attacks does not fall into the same category as the beating of an innocent housewife.

If you would like a comparison, try this one:

Your child has been kidnapped and has only a short time to live. The guy who kidnapped your child has been captured, but isn't telling you or the cops where your child is. If you don't get to your child before time runs out, your child will DIE. Nothing short of waterboarding or similar harsh techniques is going to get the kidnapper to tell you where your kid is.

What do you do?

Do you use torture? Or do you follow the "rules" of societal norms in an abnormal situation? Do you follow the rules of civility with a person who lacks all civility?

What are you willing to do to save your own child?

Keep in mind that your primary goal is NOT to convict the criminal. Your primary goal is to save your child. You don't need to worry about whether you are going to get a conviction in court or not. That's something to worry about later. Right now, your only goal is to save your child.

It's called the "ticking time-bomb" scenario, and it is the REALITY that the intelligence community deals with every day. It is MUCH closer to the reality of what the CIA does and did in these three cases than your silly comparison to beating a housewife.

I can't believe that you really tried to draw that comparison, Altenweg.

Elliot

The interrogation through harsh techniques of KNOWN TERRORIST MURDERERS who are guilty of planning and executing attacks on innocents and who know of other such attacks does not fall into the same category as the beating of an innocent housewife.

Then consider me to be FOR it. And PROUDLY so.Hello again, El:

You keep using the above FALSE scenario, but I'm not going to let you get away with it...

You use the term "KNOWN", but you don't know anything... We were TOLD they were terrorists, by people we PAID to deliver them to us. MOST of the people we tortured never did a damn thing... We tortured them, and then released them... If we KNEW they were MURDERERS, why do you think we let MOST of 'em go?? We DID let them go, no??

What about the 12 year old kid Mohammed Jawad, who we picked up, tortured, held for 7 years, and let him go?? He's a KNOWN TERRORIST MURDERER?? What he IS, is an innocent boy who we screwed up for his entire life.

You're a sick puppy!


Only the three people that waterboarding was actually used on. That's why it was only used on them and not ALL POWs.

You did know that all this stuff about "torture" at Gitmo is only about three cases where EITs were used, and in all three cases there was strong evidence that the POWs had actionable intelligence PS> (edited) If you're saying that we used the EIT's on only three people, not only are you sick, you lie too.

excon

Hello again, El:

You keep using the above FALSE scenario, but I'm not gonna let you get away with it...

You use the term "KNOWN", but you don't know anything.... We were TOLD they were terrorists, by people we PAID to deliver them to us. MOST of the people we tortured never did a damn thing... We tortured them, and then released them.... If we KNEW they were MURDERERS, why do you think we let MOST of 'em go????? We DID let them go, no???

What about the 12 year old kid Mohammed Jawad, who we picked up, tortured, held for 7 years, and let him go???? He's a KNOWN TERRORIST MURDERER???????? What he IS, is an innocent boy who we screwed up for his entire life.

You're a sick puppy!

excon

Sorry, excon, but you are wrong.

They were KNOWN terrorists. You can try to spin it however you want. These guys made their living blowing people up for Allah and planning how others would do it. They were captured with other terrorists, in the company of terrorists, with the materials of terrorists in their possession, with cell phones and computers that had contact information for OTHER terrorists, and were hiding in terrorist safe-houses. OTHER terrorists had turned on them as well, giving them up as terrorists. The intelligence community had been keeping their eyes on these folks for a long time because they were active terrorists.

You can try to justify your hatred of the Bush admin all you want. But you can't fool anybody by trying to convince them that they don't know something that they do.

It's done, excon. It's over. There was no crime. There's nothing to prosecute. Turns out that, as usual, you were wrong about there being a crime that Bush and Cheney are guilty of.

Deal with it.

Elliot

Sorry, excon, but you are wrong.

They were KNOWN terrorists. You can try to spin it however you want. These guys made their living blowing people up for Allah and planning how others would do it. They were captured with other terrorists, in the company of terrorists, with the materials of terrorists in their possession, with cell phones and computers that had contact information for OTHER terrorists, and were hiding in terrorist safe-houses. OTHER terrorists had turned on them as well, giving them up as terrorists. The intelligence community had been keeping their eyes on these folks for a long time because they were active terrorists.Hello again, El:

So, after all that, we LET THEM GO... How come we did that, if they were so bad??

You don't even know how silly you sound.

excon

Hello again, El:

So, after all that, we LET THEM GO... How come we did that, if they were so bad??

Are you really asking that question? After the past 8 years of Bush-Bashing from the left, are you going to sit there and ask me why these terrorists were let go?

Because idiots like you DEMANDED it!! You wouldn't leave the Bush administration alone to do it's job, which it did very effectively DESPITE the pressure put on them from the left. But eventually the left won, and these KNOWN TERRORISTS were let go because of the pressure YOU AND YOUR LEFTIST BUDDIES PUT ON THE GOVERNMENT.


You don't even know how silly you sound.

Excon

You don't realize yet what damage you and your friends on the left have caused.

Unfortunately, I have a feeling that you're going to find out.

Elliot

One good thing is we got an admission finally that EIT is effective.
The debate is now if they were necessary ;not that they are ineffective in gathering intelligence.




Mohammed described plans to strike targets in Saudi Arabia, East Asia and the United States after the Sept. 11 attacks, including using a network of Pakistanis “to target gas stations, railroad tracks, and the Brooklyn bridge in New York.” Cross-referencing material from different detainees, and leveraging information from one to extract more detail from another, the CIA and FBI went on to round up operatives both in the United States and abroad.
“Detainees in mid-2003 helped us build a list of 70 individuals — many of who we had never heard of before — that al-Qaeda deemed suitable for Western operations,” according to the CIA summary.


In fact ;EIT gave the terrorist psycological cover to cooperate since they had fulfilled their sense of honor in resisting up to a point.




One former U.S. official with detailed knowledge of how the interrogations were carried out said Mohammed, like several other detainees, seemed to have decided that it was okay to stop resisting after he had endured a certain amount of pressure.
"Once the harsher techniques were used on [detainees], they could be viewed as having done their duty to Islam or their cause, and their religious principles would ask no more of them," said the former official, who requested anonymity because the events are still classified. "After that point, they became compliant. Obviously, there was also an interest in being able to later say, 'I was tortured into cooperating.' "

The debate is now if they were necessary ;not that they are ineffective in gathering intelligence. Hello again, tom:

No... The debate is whether they were legal.

Here's what YOUR Republican presidential candidate said about it yesterday:

"BOB SCHIEFFER: Do you-- do you agree with the vice president when he says this has kept the country safe all this time since this attack and it is because these interrogations worked and we found out information that helped us keep the country safe.

SENATOR JOHN MCCAIN: I think the interrogations were in violation of the Geneva Conventions and the convention against torture that we ratified under President Reagan. I think that these interrogations once publicized helped al Qaeda recruit. I got that from an al Qaeda operative in a prison camp in Iraq who told-- who told me that.

I think that the ability of us to work with our allies was harmed and so-- and I believe that information, according to the FBI and others, could have been gained through other methods.

BOB SCHIEFFER: When you say an al Qaeda operative told you it helped them. What-- what do you mean?

SENATOR JOHN MCCAIN: I was in-- Senator Lindsey Graham and I were in-- in Camp Bucca, the twenty-thousand-prisoner camp. We met with a former high-ranking member of al Qaeda. I said, "How did you succeed so well in Iraq after the initial invasions?" He said two things. One, the chaos that existed after the initial invasion, there was no order of any kind. Two, he said, Abu Ghraib pictures allowed me and helped me to recruit thousands of young men to our cause. Now that's al Qaeda.

And the second thing about it is, if you inflict enough pain on anyone, they'll tell you anything that to make the pain stop. So you not only get, perhaps, right information but you also get a lot of wrong information.

But the damage that it did to America's image in the world is something we're still on the way to repairing. This is an ideological struggle as well as a-- as a physical one, so.

McCain did add that he felt opening an investigation, as Attorney General Eric Holder is doing, into the past misdeeds was the wrong approach, that, as President Barack Obama said, we should move forward. However, as McCain said, "Well, the attorney general has a unique position in the cabinet, obviously. He can't be told what to do by the President of the United States."

Just in case anyone wants to blame Obama, he can't stop it, and has made it clear in the past he would prefer not to have these hearings Holder is planning."

---------------------

excon

And again... McCain as well as the rest of the critics makes the mistake of equating Abu Ghraib with the protocol for EIT . What happened at Abu Ghraib was indeed a violation ;but it is irrelevant to the debate.

Hello again, tom:

No.... The debate is whether they were legal.

Here's what YOUR Republican presidential candidate said about it yesterday:

"BOB SCHIEFFER: Do you-- do you agree with the vice president when he says this has kept the country safe all this time since this attack and it is because these interrogations worked and we found out information that helped us keep the country safe.

SENATOR JOHN MCCAIN: I think the interrogations were in violation of the Geneva Conventions and the convention against torture that we ratified under President Reagan. I think that these interrogations once publicized helped al Qaeda recruit. I got that from an al Qaeda operative in a prison camp in Iraq who told-- who told me that.

I think that the ability of us to work with our allies was harmed and so-- and I believe that information, according to the FBI and others, could have been gained through other methods.

BOB SCHIEFFER: When you say an al Qaeda operative told you it helped them. What-- what do you mean?

SENATOR JOHN MCCAIN: I was in-- Senator Lindsey Graham and I were in-- in Camp Bucca, the twenty-thousand-prisoner camp. We met with a former high-ranking member of al Qaeda. I said, "How did you succeed so well in Iraq after the initial invasions?" He said two things. One, the chaos that existed after the initial invasion, there was no order of any kind. Two, he said, Abu Ghraib pictures allowed me and helped me to recruit thousands of young men to our cause. Now that's al Qaeda.

And the second thing about it is, if you inflict enough pain on anyone, they'll tell you anything that to make the pain stop. So you not only get, perhaps, right information but you also get a lot of wrong information.

But the damage that it did to America's image in the world is something we're still on the way to repairing. This is an ideological struggle as well as a-- as a physical one, so.

McCain did add that he felt opening an investigation, as Attorney General Eric Holder is doing, into the past misdeeds was the wrong approach, that, as President Barack Obama said, we should move forward. However, as McCain said, "Well, the attorney general has a unique position in the cabinet, obviously. He can't be told what to do by the President of the United States."

Just in case anyone wants to blame Obama, he can't stop it, and has made it clear in the past he would prefer not to have these hearings Holder is planning."

---------------------

excon

1) What McCain said doesn't really matter. He's just plain wrong. The bottom line is that it WASN'T illegal, it wasn't a violation of the GC, and it's been determined that it wasn't a violation of any sort. That's why Holder isn't going after the guys involved with the "torture" of KSM and his ilk. Holder is sticking to the Nashiri case only in his investigation. That's all he's got left.

2) If "there's nothing Obama can do", that would make Obama the WEAKEST President in history, making him the first President to be dictated to by his AG. Do you really believe that if Obama didn't want these investigations he couldn't do something about it, up to and including firing Holder? Holder is a Cabinet Member. All Cabinet Members serve "at the Pleasure of the President" and no further. That means that OBAMA calls the shots, not Holder.

Elliot

All Cabinet Members serve "at the Pleasure of the President" and no further. That means that OBAMA calls the shots, not Holder.Hello again, El:

I've said it before, and I'll say it again. You have absolutely no understanding of how the laws in our country work. I don't know how you missed it, but you did.

It's OK. That's what I'm here for.

excon

Hello again, El:

I've said it before, and I'll say it again. You have absolutely no understanding of how the laws in our country work. I dunno how you missed it, but you did.

It's ok. That's what I'm here for.

excon

Then please explain to me how the President of the United States, whom Holder works for, and at who's pleasure Holder serves, is STUCK with these investigations if he doesn't want them?

Either Obama is WEAK, or he wants these investigations. Take your pick. Either one is a bad political situation for him to be in.

Elliot

Then please explain to me how the President of the United States, whom Holder works for, and at who's pleasure Holder serves, is STUCK with these investigations if he doesn't want themHello again, El:

Because, in a word - EMPATHY! As a great Attorney General, Holder HAS NONE. He follows the law, no matter what his boss wants. I'd think having a chief lawyer FOLLOWING the law would be something you righty's would applaud. No, huh? I figured.

excon

Hello again, El:

Because, in a word - EMPATHY! As a great Attorney General, Holder HAS NONE. He follows the law, no matter what his boss wants. I'd think having a chief lawyer FOLLOWING the law would be something you righty's would applaud. No, huh? I figured.

excon

There is no law that requires an investigation into something that isn't illegal.

So you're saying that Obama chose the wrong guy for the job, and should have gotten someone with "empathy"?

Someone with empathy would do what? He'd investigate the claims of torture being made by POWs.

As opposed to Holder, who is... investigating the claims of torture being made by POWs.

That would be a difference without a distinction.

And Obama is still Holder's boss. If Holder is acting in a way that is counter to the policies or wishes of Obama, Obama should either stop him or remove him. If he DOESN'T do so, Obama is at fault. If has the power to act and doesn't, he's guilty.

You can stop blaming everything Obama does on everyone else. Nobody's buying it.

Elliot

1) What McCain said doesn't really matter. He's just plain wrong. Hello again, El:

So, you'd rather listen to FIVE deferment Chickenhawk Cheney, who NEVER served a day in defense of his country, against a real war HERO, who WAS tortured??

Dude! Do you listen to yourself?

excon

Eric Holder is the guy who arranged the pardon of FALN terrorists so we know where his empathy lies.

As for the President ;it's called plausible deniability . He is letting Holder do the dirty work ;acting like he has no say in it . In truth this is a move to sate the base who have been howling at the moon seeking the blood of Cheney et al .

All they will accomplish is neuter the CIA further ,and take down some patriots who defended the country and prevented attacks on it's citizens .

All they will accomplish is neuter the CIA further ,and take down some patriots who defended the country and prevented attacks on it's citizens .Hello tom:

Finally! An answer to my question. You DO think the guys who tortured in our name ARE hero's and NOT crooks, even if they went beyond the particular limits set out for them in the legal memos...

I thought so... Cheney agrees with you.. He doesn't think the limits meant anything either.

excon

Hello again, El:

So, you'd rather listen to FIVE deferment Chickenhawk Cheney, who NEVER served a day in defense of his country, against a real war HERO, who WAS tortured???

Dude! Do you listen to yourself?

excon

Only when Cheney's right.

And frankly, the fact that McCain was tortured by the VietCong makes him biased. Based on his experience, he's OVERLY sensitive to how POWs are treated. Even well-treated POWs are, from his perspective, being poorly treated. It's understandable for him to have that position, but that doesn't make him right. There's a whole world of difference between what McCain suffered in the Hannoi Hilton and what the POWs at Gitmo have to deal with. But he can't recognize that difference... perhaps because he's flashing back to his own experiences, perhaps because he's too sensitized, whatever. The point is, he's TOO CLOSE TO THE SITUATION to make an unbiased, clear-headed, ANALYTICAL decision on the issue.

So yes, in this case I choose Cheney over McCain. Because Cheney is right and McCain isn't.

Do you usually choose your positions based on personalities rather than facts? I don't.

Elliot

Hello tom:

Finally! An answer to my question. You DO think the guys who tortured in our name ARE hero's and NOT crooks, even if they went beyond the particular limits set out for them in the legal memos...

I thought so... Cheney agrees with you.. He doesn't think the limits meant anything either.

excon

But excon, the limits don't mean anything to you either. The very existence of such "limits" was a crime, according to you. The memos setting those limits were themselves a war crime that should have been prosecuted. That's why you wanted Yoo and Bybee to be prosecuted, and if possible to have them turn on Cheney and Bush.

You have no respect for "the limits". Who are you trying to kid here?

This is all politics. It has nothing to do with breaking any laws, and you know it.

Elliot

But excon, the limits don't mean anything to you either. The very existence of such "limits" was a crime, according to you. The memos setting those limits were themselves a war crime that should have been prosecuted.

This is all politics. It has nothing to do with breaking any laws, and you know it.Hello again, El:

You're actually RIGHT!

But, it has nothing to do with "care". It has to do with reality... I never could grasp the concept of enhanced interrogation... I never could get how you could parse the word torture... I never could get how anyone could determine that 30 seconds of waterboarding was torture, but 29 seconds isn't... I never could grasp the concept that the government could hurt someone a little bit, as long as you don't produce major organ failure, and it's fine. To me, it's all bizarre. It's the law turned upside down.

You might convince SOME people that you can redefine the word torture to include the stuff you want to do, but you'll NEVER convince me. I don't think I'm alone either. And, I don't care if I am. I know the law. I can read.

Given that these "limits", make absolutely no sense in terms of the law, no matter WHO attempted to redefine the law, the limits themselves are clearly illegal. The only way to right the ship is to prosecute the lawbreakers... Otherwise, it remains an option. Of course, to civilized people, torture NEVER is an option.

excon

Hello again, El:

You're actually RIGHT!

But, it has nothing to do with "care". It has to do with reality... I never could grasp the concept of enhanced interrogation... I never could get how you could parse the word torture... I never could get how anyone could determine that 30 seconds of waterboarding was torture, but 29 seconds isn't... I never could grasp the concept that the government could hurt someone a little bit, as long as you don't produce major organ failure, and it's fine. To me, it's all bizarre. It's the law turned upside down.

Luckily, what you think doesn't really matter. Neither does what McCain thinks. The law is the law. Cheney is right, and you're not.


You might convince SOME people that you can redefine the word torture to include the stuff you want to do, but you'll NEVER convince me. I don't think I'm alone either. And, I don't care if I am. I know the law. I can read.

Apparently not. You are STILL insisting that someone broke the law when they clearly didn't. Ergo, either you can't read or you don't know the law.


Given that these "limits", make absolutely no sense in terms of the law, no matter WHO attempted to redefine the law, the limits themselves are clearly illegal. The only way to right the ship is to prosecute the lawbreakers... Otherwise, it remains an option. Of course, to civilized people, torture NEVER is an option.

Excon

That being your argument, there's no reason to even bring up the limits set in the memo. It's a non issue being used by you for a political point. It doesn't matter what Yoo, Bybee or the Tooth Fairy wrote in a memo, because, according to your argument, the memo has no legal bearing. ANY EITs, according to you, are illegal, regardless of what the memo says. That said, Yoo, Bybee, Bush and Cheney are off the hook for writing any memos. And any mention of prosecuting Yoo and Bybee is purely political, not an action of right and wrong.

Face it, excon, you've argued yourself into another corner.

If the memos have legal bearing, then they are legal, and you aren't going to get anyone in the Bush administration based on those memos.

If the memos have no legal bearing, then they are meaningless, and their existence isn't a crime either, and you aren't get anyone in the Bush administration based on those memos.

Either way, your quest to get Bush and Cheney is dead.

Elliot

Hello again:

tomorrow.png (image) (http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_MnYI3_FRbbQ/Sp_kq6M04OI/AAAAAAAACGY/B232XJ6mUH8/s1600-h/tomorrow.png)

excon

I've got a better story for you.

Once upon a time, 19 terrorists flew airplains into the Twin Towers, the Pentagon and a field in Pa.

3000 people died that day.

MOST people in the country woke up that day and realized that a bunch of fundamentalist Islamic terrorists had been fighting a war against them for decades for no reason, and they had missed the whole thing. And they decided that they needed to do something about it.

But a few believed that the terrorists were in the right... that the USA were the bad guys.

And a few others felt that fighting against the terrorists would MAKE us the bad guys.

But despite those few people who couldn't wake up to the fact that terrorists wanted THEM dead as much as everyone else, the President took action to protect the country... including the fools who couldn't seem to wake up to reality. That action included military incursions into foreign lands to kill the terrorists and eliminate those who supported the terrorists. It also included actions taken on the domestic front designed to both protect civillians and find terrorists.

And from that day forward, there were no more terrorist attack against the USA. We have been terrorism-free for 2,914 days.

The end.

Elliot

And from that day forward, there were no more terrorist attack against the USA. We have been terrorism-free for 2,914 days.Hello again, El:

Right wing logic always slays me... We've done lots of things to fight terrorism. I could pick one of them too, and say that's the reason we weren't attacked. Whose to say I'm wrong?

Ok, I pick invading Afghanistan - and we have been terrorism free since then. Or, how about if I pick killing Saddam and rooting out all those WMD's. Since we did that, we've been terrorism free.

Why is it that TORTURE is the only thing that kept us free? You guys are silly.

excon

Hello again, El:

Right wing logic always slays me.... We've done lots of things to fight terrorism. I could pick one of them too, and say that's the reason we weren't attacked. Whose to say I'm wrong?

Ok, I pick invading Afghanistan - and we have been terrorism free since then. Or, how about if I pick killing Saddam and rooting out all those WMD's. Since we did that, we've been terrorism free.

Why is it that TORTURE is the only thing that kept us free? You guys are silly.

excon

Actually, if you will read what I wrote instead of what you THINK I wrote, you will notice that I said:

the President took action to protect the country... including the fools who couldn't seem to wake up to reality. That action included military incursions into foreign lands to kill the terrorists and eliminate those who supported the terrorists. It also included actions taken on the domestic front designed to both protect civillians and find terrorists.

That's ACTIONS... as in MULTIPLE. And I used the word "included" meaning that there were many more actions taken than the ones I listed.

But you are STUCK in your own preconceptions... so much so that you can't even read clearly... and nobody is going to break you out of that except you. And you don't want to be broken out of it.

My post wasn't for your benefit. You are clearly not ready to derive any benefit from it. It was for the benefit of everyone else who reads your post and wants to see the other side of the story.

Elliot

Hello again, El:

Don't you worry. My posts aren't for your benefit either. I know a stone wall when I see one.

Look. I don't know what you're yelling at. You said actions, as in multiple... I did too. You picked one and said that's why we weren't attacked... I picked another one and said that's why we weren't attacked. What's the difference?

Wassa matter? You don't think invading Afghanistan had anything to do with keeping us attack free?? Really?? Only torture did that, huh? Silly, silly fellow.

Let's keep it up. I'm loving it.

excon

Hello again, El:

Don't you worry. My posts aren't for your benefit either. I know a stone wall when I see one.

Look. I dunno what you're yelling at. You said actions, as in multiple... I did too. You picked one and said that's why we weren't attacked... I picked another one and said that's why we weren't attacked. What's the difference?

Wassa matter? You don't think invading Afghanistan had anything to do with keeping us attack free???? Really??? Only torture did that, huh? Silly, silly fellow.

Let's keep it up. I'm loving it.

excon

Actually, I DO think that Afghanistan was a huge part of what has kept us from being attacked.

So is the Iraq war... but you won't accept that one.

EITs played a part too.
So did the USA Patriot Act.
And GITMO.
And wire-tapping.
And Special Renditions.
And so did the "If You See Something, Say Something" campaigns.

ALL of it worked.

But YOU picked Afghanistan... and did so snidely... while at the same time saying that it's unwinable... Just like the Iraq war was supposedly unwinable...

Why?

You are the one with logic that is faulty here. My position is clear across the board.

Where did you get the idea that I was only picking one thing?

Elliot

Where did you get the idea that I was only picking one thing?Hello again, El:

I don't know. Somewhere a long the way... So, your saying that we COULD be just as safe if we DIDN'T torture anybody, is that what you're saying??

Cause that's all I'M saying.

excon

Hello again, El:

I dunno. Somewhere a long the way... So, your saying that we COULD be just as safe if we DIDN'T torture anybody, is that what you're saying????

Cause that's all I'M sayin.

excon

And I'm saying that neither you nor I are in a position to question it.

I am also saying that it would SEEM that if we hadn't used EITs, there would have been 10 flights out of London that would have been either blown up or used as missiles to attack other buildings, and the Brooklyn Bridge authorities would be in perpetual discussions on what type of memorial should be put in place of the rubble that is left.

I believe that ALL the actions taken by the Bush administration served to protect us. You seem to believe we should have cherry-picked which ones we used... and if you are wrong, well, oops.

I believe that ALL the actions taken by the Bush administration served to protect us. You seem to believe we should have cherry-picked which ones we used... and if you are wrong, well, oops.Hello again, El:

There's an editorial in the NY Times today, written by Ali H. Soufan, who was an F.B.I. special agent from 1997 to 2005, who ACTUALLY was the guy who QUESTIONED the detainees.. He says something entirely different than you do. Of course, I'm sure you'd rather believe vice than a guy who had his boots on the ground.

But, I didn't post this for YOUR benefit. You're too closed minded to get it, and you probably won't even read the editorial. That's cool. Fortunately for the world, most of the readers here aren't like you.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/06/opinion/06soufan.html?th&emc=th

excon

Thanks for posting Ex. Pretty compelling article!!

Update . Holder has decided that his investigation into the already-investigated detainee abuse cases is narrowing and winding down.



Before his decision to reopen the cases, Holder did not read detailed memos that prosecutors drafted and placed in files to explain their decision to decline prosecutions. That issue has rankled GOP lawmakers and some career lawyers in the Justice Department, who question whether Holder's order was made based on the facts or on his political instincts.

Inquiry Into CIA Practices Narrows - washingtonpost.com (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/18/AR2009091802510_2.html)

Hello tom:

There's no question, that the right wing doesn't want the CIA prosecuted for crimes because they want to ensure the CIA is willing to act illegally in the future. The problem is, the next ILLEGAL act they do, just might NOT be in our interest, assuming torture IS in our interest... And, who's going to tell 'em to stop?

I don't know why the right wing law and order dudes don't get that, but they don't.

excon

Hello tom:

There's no question, that the right wing doesn't want the CIA prosecuted for crimes because they want to ensure the CIA is willing to act illegally in the future. The problem is, the next ILLEGAL act they do, just might NOT be in our interest, assuming torture IS in our interest... And, who's gonna tell 'em to stop?

I dunno why the right wing law and order dudes don't get that, but they don't.

excon

You're still stuck on it being torture... which it ain't.

You're still stuck on their actions being illegal... which they ain't.

You're still stuck on the POWs being legally no different from criminals... which they are.

And you're still stuck on starting investigations... when such investigations have already been completed with no illegal activity found.

Elliot

Hello again, El:

You got me figured out. What took you so long?

excon