Check out some similar questions!

tomder55 · Apr 19, 2009, 03:13 AM

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.

excon · Apr 19, 2009, 06:28 AM

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

tomder55 · Apr 19, 2009, 12:52 PM

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"

inthebox · Apr 19, 2009, 07:56 PM

Originally Posted by excon

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 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

tomder55 · Apr 20, 2009, 07:34 AM

The Memos Prove We Didn't Torture - WSJ.com

excon · Apr 20, 2009, 08:05 AM

Originally Posted by tomder55

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

tomder55 · Apr 20, 2009, 08:09 AM

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.

excon · Apr 20, 2009, 08:15 AM

Originally Posted by tomder55

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

tomder55 · Apr 20, 2009, 08:24 AM

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.

excon · Apr 20, 2009, 08:44 AM

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

speechlesstx · Apr 20, 2009, 09:09 AM

Originally Posted by 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 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?

excon · Apr 20, 2009, 09:12 AM

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

tomder55 · Apr 20, 2009, 09:44 AM

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

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.

ETWolverine · Apr 20, 2009, 02:47 PM

Originally Posted by excon

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

speechlesstx · Apr 20, 2009, 02:55 PM

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
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.”

excon · Apr 20, 2009, 03:15 PM

Hello again Steve/tom:

I STILL don't believe vice.

excon

inthebox · Apr 20, 2009, 08:52 PM

Originally Posted by 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

tomder55 · Apr 21, 2009, 03:41 AM

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.

speechlesstx · Apr 21, 2009, 05:05 AM

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.

excon · Apr 21, 2009, 06:30 AM

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