Originally Posted by
ETWolverine
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