[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

[tomder55]

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 .

[tomder55]

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

washingtonpost.com

[ETWolverine]

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

[speechlesstx]

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.

[excon]

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.

[ETWolverine]

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

[ETWolverine]

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

[tomder55]

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.

[excon]

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

[ETWolverine]

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

[excon]

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

[ETWolverine]

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

[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.

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

[ETWolverine]

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

[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.

Hello El:

You are delusional.

excon

[ETWolverine]

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

[excon]

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

[ETWolverine]

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

[zippit]

machiavellian
.

Did you libs make that word up?