 |
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
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ETWolverine
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.
Hello tom:Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
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 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.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
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.
Hello again, tom:Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
Therefore, the basis of your question--- the propriety of the EIT Memos and the enforcement of the protocals thereof--- does not apply.
Elliot
Hello again, El:Quote:
Originally Posted by ETWolverine
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
Why? Cause Holder's an idiot.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
That would be pretty much every time you post something. I'm glad you're happy about it, though, as often as it happens. :DQuote:
I'm happy to be wrong. Show me where I am.
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:Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
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
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
End of story.
The only thing being investigated by Holder is the Al-Nashiri case. That's all he's got left.
Elliot
Hello El:Quote:
Originally Posted by ETWolverine
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
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
Hello again, El:Quote:
Originally Posted by ETWolverine
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
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
Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
Did you libs make that word up?
Hello again, zip:Quote:
Originally Posted by zippit
Yup. We also invented the word dictionary.
excon
I'm not going to read the other responses, because I don't feel like it. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
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
The answer?Quote:
Originally Posted by Altenweg
Did the broken nose prevent attacks on innocent civilians
Question;Quote:
Originally Posted by zippit
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
Hello z:Quote:
Originally Posted by zippit
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
There are a lot of people with me too. Excon included. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by zippit
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
washingtonpost.comQuote:
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.
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.
Only the three people that waterboarding was actually used on. That's why it was only used on them and not ALL POWs.Quote:
Originally Posted by Altenweg
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?
Then consider me to be FOR it. And PROUDLY so.Quote:
Torture is torture. You're either for it, or against it.
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
Hello again, El:Quote:
Originally Posted by ETWolverine
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!
PS> (edited) If you're saying that we used the EIT's on only three people, not only are you sick, you lie too.Quote:
Originally Posted by ETWolverine
excon
Sorry, excon, but you are wrong.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
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
Hello again, El:Quote:
Originally Posted by ETWolverine
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
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?Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
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 realize yet what damage you and your friends on the left have caused.Quote:
You don't even know how silly you sound.
Excon
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.
In fact ;EIT gave the terrorist psycological cover to cooperate since they had fulfilled their sense of honor in resisting up to a point.Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.' "
Hello again, tom:Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
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
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:36 PM. |