[excon]

Bottom line .... dunking KSM exposed the 'next wave' which was a plot to attack LA with International Airliners . The question is ;since the technique most likey saved the lives of hundreds if not thousands in LA.. "Men sleep peacefully in their beds at night because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf."

Hello again, tom:

All unsubstantiated and uncorroborated reports from the people most likely to lie about it - the CIA, and the vice dufus his damn self. Believe me, if there WAS a memo that proves what vice is saying, and that exonerated the CIA, doncha think it would have been leaked by now??

Plus, the "technique", which you still miscast as "dunking", doesn't work any better than ordinary interrogation. Not a life was saved - not a one. In fact, it could be argued that since torture is a recruiting magnet for Al Quaida, it has endangered us substantially. I'm making that argument.

I have a great deal of respect for violent men who risk their lives on the battlefield. I have NO respect at all for violent bullies, who take NO risk when they slam their handcuffed victim against the wall. Where is the honor in that?

excon

[excon]

Hello again, tom:

You told me once, that the value of waterboarding is that the detainee thinks he's going to drown. You also told me that the problem with releasing information about the "techniques", is that they'll find out that they WON'T die when they're waterboarded...

Doncha think Zubydah figured out he wasn't going to die after the first waterboarding? Plus, if it works, how come it didn't work the first 82 times they did it??

excon

[tomder55]

All unsubstantiated and uncorroborated reports


Plus, the "technique", which you still miscast as "dunking", doesn't work any better than ordinary interrogation. Not a life was saved - not a one. In fact, it could be argued that since torture is a recruiting magnet for Al Quaida, it has endangered us substantially. I'm making that argument.

Obama's Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair, is a retired admiral who commanded the Navy in the Pacific and served on the White House's National Security Council .He wrote in his memo that the techniques employed were effective . He joins a list of high ranking military ,justice and intelligence directors who make the same claim. All I ever hear in rebute is field agents who by their own admission were often reporting 2nd hand information with prejudice.

Very simple remedy... release the unredacted documents that Cheney has requested. Why not if the Obamas have nothing to hide ? It will come out in evidentiary discovery anyway if Holder persues this .

In fact, it could be argued that since torture is a recruiting magnet for Al Quaida, it has endangered us substantially. I'm making that argument.

Those methods foiled terrorist plots, in particular KSM's 2nd wave plan to fly a passenger jet into the Library Tower in Los Angeles, the West Coast's tallest skyscraper.

How can "image" trump the saving of lives in national security policy?

[ETWolverine]

Excon,

Are you aware of the fact that last year Ted Kennedy tried to get waterboarding listed as "torture" via legislation?

If waterboarding actually was torture, why would he have to change the law to get it to be called torture?

BTW, the legislation failed BADLY in the Senate, with even a majority of Dems voting against it. There are two possibilities as to why that would be:

1) They don't really believe that it is torture themselves, or

2) By changing the law NOW, they would have to admitt that Bush and his people were within the bounds of the law at the time they performed these acts. To do that would mean that they would have to let Bush drop out of the limelight, and wouldn't have him as a whipping boy or a distraction from their miserably failed policies. Better for them to compromise on their beliefs regarding the legality or illegality of waterboarding, just as long as they can keep blaming Bush for everything that they do wrong, especially on national security.

Elliot

[speechlesstx]

Someone at Huffpo - an Air America host - is even asking "what would you NOT do to stop a nuke?"

I repeat: What would you not do to locate that nuclear device?

My answer is simple. I wouldn't not do anything to locate and defuse a nuclear devise to avoid its imminent detonation. But first on my list of interrogation techniques would not be torture or insects placed within a confinement box. (Hats off to the sick bastard who thought of that one.)

In fact, it was reported that a legal memorandum prepared for the CIA noted that along with said insect placement, approved interrogation techniques included inter alia: attention grasp, walling (hitting a detainee against a flexible wall), facial hold, facial slap, cramped confinement, wall standing, stress positions, sleep deprivation and waterboarding).

But would I proscribe Draconian treatment absolutely? In every case? When some experts and military types tell me it's effective? I'll eschew, all right. But how can I say that these techniques, call it "torture," are never to be used?

Amazing how the tone can change when their own side says it works.

[excon]

If waterboarding actually was torture, why would he have to change the law to get it to be called torture?

Hello again, El:

If waterboarding ISN'T torture, why did F.B.I. director, Robert Mueller pull his men off the project telling them "we don't do that"?

Speech. You can line up all the dufus's you want from either side saying that torture worked and it's a good thing. It's not. It never was. It never will be. That's so!

excon

[tomder55]

Richard Fernandez (aka Wrechard ) at Belmont Club once was involved in the anti-Marcos insurgency in the Philippines.

He has an interesting take on the subject.
( I will allow for the differences in definition in the terminologies over what torture ;under duress etc. It is safe to state that the rebels in the Philippines were subject to real torture as opposed to the techniques described by the memos... and address the issue of effectiveness.)

Belmont Club Terrorism and moral torture

When I ran safehouses in the anti-Marcos days the first order of business whenever a cell member was captured by the police was to alert the surviving members, move the safehouse and destroy all links to the captured person. That's because everyone knew that there was a great probability that the captive would talk under duress, however great his bravery and resistance. Nobody I know, or have heard of who has had experience in real-life situations has ever said, “our cell should continue as usual and the safehouse should remain open, despite the fact that one of our own is being tortured by the secret police, because I read in the New York Times that coercion never works.”

[excon]

Hello again, Speech:

I'm amazed that I, excon, am the only one in the world who can see that the emperor has no clothes.. When I was a kid, I read about a guy who could do that, but I never thought I'd become him.

Well, apparently, I have.

I'm going to try to show you the same thing I see. It isn't difficult to grasp. In fact it's easy, otherwise I never would have latched on to it, that's for sure. But, sometimes people refuse to see, even after their blindfolds have been removed. But, you're a smart guy. I KNOW you'll get it.

Let's see, the ticking time bomb... You've got somebody who knows where the bomb is. What do you do to him to get that information?? Is that the scenario?

Ok, here's the key question. How do you KNOW the guy you have has the information you want?

In fact, you don't. You may have to think about that for a while, because it's new information. But, by any logic you may choose to incorporate, you don't know - can't know - what the guy in front of you knows.

You can only surmise what he knows, and that's not reason enough to pull his fingernails out. Consequently, the "ticking time bomb", is a ruse to scare people and convince them they need to torture. It certainly sounds different, doesn't it, when said this way: You've got a guy in front of you who you THINK knows where the bomb is? Yeah, it does. This would be easier if people would watch PBS instead of Jack Bauer. But, I'm up to the task.

excon

[speechlesstx]

Ok, here's the key question. How do you KNOW the guy you have has the information you want?

You don't, I think we all know that. I also think we all know the shadow warriors do a pretty good job of figuring out whether a guy might have information.

You can only surmise what he knows, and that's not reason enough to pull his fingernails out.

I never said pull his fingernails out and I haven't seen anything to suggest that's what we're doing. I have seen throwing them against a false wall, tossing some bugs in with them and yes, waterboarding.

Consequently, the "ticking time bomb", is a ruse to scare people and convince them they need to torture.

That was the lefty from Air America's words, not mine. But care to answer his question? What you not do to stop a nuke?

It certainly sounds different, doesn't it, when said this way: You've got a guy in front of you who you THINK knows where the bomb is?

But you say that as if there is never any compelling evidence to suggest he does know something. Are they just grabbing guys off the street at random and asking, "hey you, do you know where the bomb is?"

Yeah, it does. This would be easier if people would watch PBS instead of Jack Bauer. But, I'm up to the task.

It is funny how the very people that whine the most love to use the idea it to make millions of dollars to entertain us. By the way, I don't watch Jack Bauer, but I do watch The Unit. They tend to not take many prisoners - they just shoot them.

One good thing about the left admitting to the fact that torture can indeed accomplish the objective is maybe we can finally have an honest discussion.

[speechlesstx]

Pelosi, who is pushing for investigations on torture, claims she knew nothing about the interrogation methods that were being used on detainees. "Flat out, they never briefed us that this was happening," she said.

In September 2002, four members of Congress met in secret for a first look at a unique CIA program designed to wring vital information from reticent terrorism suspects in U.S. custody. For more than an hour, the bipartisan group, which included current House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), was given a virtual tour of the CIA's overseas detention sites and the harsh techniques interrogators had devised to try to make their prisoners talk.

Among the techniques described, said two officials present, was waterboarding, a practice that years later would be condemned as torture by Democrats and some Republicans on Capitol Hill. But on that day, no objections were raised. Instead, at least two lawmakers in the room asked the CIA to push harder, two U.S. officials said.

"The briefer was specifically asked if the methods were tough enough," said a U.S. official who witnessed the exchange...

Yet long before "waterboarding" entered the public discourse, the CIA gave key legislative overseers about 30 private briefings, some of which included descriptions of that technique and other harsh interrogation methods, according to interviews with multiple U.S. officials with firsthand knowledge.

With one known exception, no formal objections were raised by the lawmakers briefed about the harsh methods during the two years in which waterboarding was employed, from 2002 to 2003, said Democrats and Republicans with direct knowledge of the matter. The lawmakers who held oversight roles during the period included Pelosi and Rep. Jane Harman (D-Calif.) and Sens. Bob Graham (D-Fla.) and John D. Rockefeller IV (D-W.Va.), as well as Rep. Porter J. Goss (R-Fla.) and Sen. Pat Roberts (R-Kan).

Individual lawmakers' recollections of the early briefings varied dramatically, but officials present during the meetings described the reaction as mostly quiet acquiescence, if not outright support. "Among those being briefed, there was a pretty full understanding of what the CIA was doing," said Goss, who chaired the House intelligence committee from 1997 to 2004 and then served as CIA director from 2004 to 2006. "And the reaction in the room was not just approval, but encouragement."

What a liar.

[ETWolverine]

Hello again, El:

If waterboarding ISN'T torture, why did F.B.I. director, Robert Mueller pull his men off the project telling them "we don't do that"?

Because it's the CIA and the Military's job. The FBI is a law enforcement agency, and it shouldn't be doing military style interrogations. The CIA and the military are free to use these techniques. Mueller was right... the FBI doesn't do that. The CIA and the military do.

Speech. You can line up all the dufus's you want from either side saying that torture worked and it's a good thing. It's not. It never was. It never will be. That's so!

Excon

Saying "that's so" doesn't make it so. The proof is in the pudding... terrorist attacks were stopped because of information garnered via these techniques. The saving of American lives is always a good thing.

Elliot

[excon]

Saying "that's so" doesn't make it so. The proof is in the pudding... terrorist attacks were stopped because of information garnered via these techniques.

Hello again, El:

What?? And, YOU'RE not just "saying it"?? Dude! There's NO proof. There's TALK of proof, and that (to quote a friend), doesn't make it so.

excon

[ETWolverine]

Eyewitness testimony is proof, excon, even in our current, liberal court system. We have eyewitness statements people who were there, who used the actionable intelligence gleaned from these interrogations, who are clearly saying that it worked. We may be talking about unreleased memos, but there is proof well beyond that that is public. It ain't me saying it, it's them.

Elliot

[excon]

Hello again:

Couple things.

Whether is works or not, ISN'T the issue for me, and I'm not going to discuss it further. I don't care if it DOES work. It's depraved, immoral, and inhuman. It's against everything we stand for as a country. It's against everything I went to war for, and spilled my blood on the battlefield for. It's as ANTI and UN-American as you get.

The people who support it do not understand the door they have opened. It will forever change the future of this country. It's a future that I, for one, WILL not go down.

The TORTURE that occurred under Bush must be totally, and absolutely repudiated by this nation. "Going forward" doesn't do that. I't leaves torture ON the table for some future demagogue to use again, in our name. I will not permit that.

I'm an American. We hold people to account here. My country does NOT torture. Nor does it change the meaning of the word simply because they want to do it. That's what happened here, plain and simple.

The people that did it, MUST be held to account!

excon

[ETWolverine]

Hello again:

Couple things.

Whether is works or not, ISN'T the issue for me, and I'm not going to discuss it further. I don't care if it DOES work. It's depraved, immoral, and inhuman. It's against everything we stand for as a country. It's against everything I went to war for, and spilled my blood on the battlefield for. It's as ANTI and UN-American as you get.

OK, then. What did you spill your blood on the battlefield for? Leaving aside the fact that you were drafted. (Or so you told me.) What was it you were fighting for?

I thought that you were fighting for the security of the USA. I thought that that was the primary goal of soldiers... keeping the USA safe. I thought that that was the reason for the military.

Seems that you were fighting for something else... something that has never actually existed in this or any other country. It seems you were fighting to be considered a nice guy. Which, to me, means you were never the proper person to be in battle in the first place. Which just proves my point about an all volunteer military being better at its job than a conscripted military.

In what way does what you are proposing fit the military goal of keeping the USA safe... which is the ONLY goal of the military.

"People sleep soundly at night because rough men stand ready to do battle."

The people who support it do not understand the door they have opened. It will forever change the future of this country. It's a future that I, for one, WILL not go down.

Fool! What we are supporting is exactly what has existed since the founding of this nation. It is not a door being opened. It is a door we are trying to keep suicidally idealistic nut jobs from closing.

The TORTURE that occurred under Bush must be totally, and absolutely repudiated by this nation. "Going forward" doesn't do that. I't leaves torture ON the table for some future demagogue to use again, in our name. I will not permit that.

Then you are committing national suicide. And I will not permit THAT. It's my life and those of my family that you are putting on the line for your misguided idealism.

I'm an American. We hold people to account here.

So will you be held accountable if we do get your way and the result is another major attack that kills thousands more Americans... or millions? Will Obama and his cronies? Who is responsible if, as a direct result of a change in our intelligence gathering policies, we get attacked? What level of accountability will you face as one who supports this change?

My country does NOT torture.

Really? What country do you live in. Because it ain't the good ol' U.S. of A.

Nor does it change the meaning of the word simply because they want to do it. That's what happened here, plain and simple.

I ask again... have you read the memo? Have you read the reports of what was actually done? (Not the MSM reports, the actual reports of the people involved.) It is VERY clear that what they did WASN'T torture. But you have to have actually done the research in order to accept that fact.

Are you aware of the number of restrictions put on waterboarding as performed by the interrogators at Gitmo?

-There had to be a medic on hand at all times.

-At no point could a "pour" last more than 40 seconds, and only three times in any session could it last more than twenty seconds.

-No session could last more than 2 hours.

-The total "pour" time could not last more than 20 minutes collectively in any 2 hour session.

-Sessions could not occur more than twice a day.

-No more than 6 sessions in a single week.

You asked why it tool so many times being dunked before KSM talked? The above restrictions are the answer. It is clear proof that no matter how unpleasant it may have been, it was NOT torture.

As a matter of important fact, the techniques used on the terrorists were based on the techniques used in SERE (Survival Evasion Resistance and Escape) training in the military, only with even more restrictions. Unless you are prepared to claim that the US military tortures its own men and women, the only conclusion is that these techniques are not torture.

Here is the technique described in the Office of Legal Council's 2002 memo:

"In this procedure, the individual is bound securely to an inclined bench, which is approximately four feet by seven feet. The individual's feet are generally elevated. A cloth is placed over the forehead and eyes. Water is then applied to the cloth in a controlled manner. As this is done, the cloth is lowered until it covers both the nose and mouth. Once the cloth is saturated and completely covers the mouth and nose, air flow is slightly restricted for 20 to 40 seconds due to the presence of the cloth… During those 20 to 40 seconds, water is continuously applied from a height of twelve to twenty-four inches. After this period, the cloth is lifted, and the individual is allowed to breathe unimpeded for three or four full breaths… The procedure may then be repeated. The water is usually applied from a canteen cup or small watering can with a spout… You have… informed us that it is likely that this procedure would not last more than twenty minutes in any one application."

The people that did it, MUST be held to account!

I agree. Every one of them should be given a medal.

Elliot

[galveston]

The idea that I have seen bandied about that Gitmo waterboarding and the water torture used by the Japanese in WW2 are somehow similar is absured.

Only the name water is the same.

Phooey! I can hold my breath much longer than 40 seconds!!

[excon]

Hello again, El and Gal:

You poor, poor lost souls. May God forgive you, for you know not what you speak.

excon

[galveston]

Hello again, El and Gal:

You poor, poor lost souls. May God forgive you, for you know not what you speak.

excon

I most certaily do know that I can hold my breath for more than 40 seconds!

And thanks to Obama, If I were in that position I now know that I wouldn't have to hold it longer than that.

[tomder55]

Galveston is right in that the disclosure of the memos and subsequent publicly announced policies advertise what jihadists need to train for. He is also right in earlier comments that humiliation is an underused resource ;and should not be considered torture.

[excon]

Hello again:

This thread has run its course. There can't be any rational discussion of these issues when one side isn't rational.

I can't tell if my opposition is saying that 1) torture isn't torture, that 2) torture is lawful and constitutional, that 3) they deserve it, or that 4) torture works.

Frankly, it matters not which of those it is, cause ALL of 'em are Orwellian and, an anathema to what America stands for. When they come up with something cogent, I'll take 'em on. But, right now, they've truly lost their minds.

excon