View Full Version : Red Cross Torture Report
The Red Cross's confidential torture report has been leaked, and the full version can be read here (http://www.nybooks.com/icrc-report.pdf) (PDF warning). This was never intended as a public document, but rather as a statement to the appropriate authorities in the U.S. government, a way of saying, "We know this much. Now you know what we know."
Needless to say, it is damning. You might want to give it a read before you order another Club Gitmo shirt (https://members.premiereinteractive.com/store/28566/41841.html) from Rush Limbaugh's online store.
Other news:
A Spanish court may hand down indictments for officials who authorized torture. (http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id=7198396)
One of Bush's State Department lawyers states the obvious (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29917234/).
Last, and certainly not least, is the news that the entire rationale behind state-authorized torture was baloney ("We need to do this to protect teh childrens! Do you want teh childrens to die?"). Washington Post: (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/28/AR2009032802066_pf.html)
When CIA officials subjected their first high-value captive, Abu Zubaida, to waterboarding and other harsh interrogation methods, they were convinced that they had in their custody an al-Qaeda leader who knew details of operations yet to be unleashed, and they were facing increasing pressure from the White House to get those secrets out of him.
The methods succeeded in breaking him, and the stories he told of al-Qaeda terrorism plots sent CIA officers around the globe chasing leads.
In the end, though, not a single significant plot was foiled as a result of Abu Zubaida's tortured confessions, according to former senior government officials who closely followed the interrogations. Nearly all of the leads attained through the harsh measures quickly evaporated, while most of the useful information from Abu Zubaida -- chiefly names of al-Qaeda members and associates -- was obtained before waterboarding was introduced, they said.
Proletariat
04-10-2009, 04:29
At first I wasn't going to post because I thought this was another boring torture thread but then I reread and saw that even the SPANISH COURTS were involved?! Does it get more serious than this??
:help:
Oh and a Bush state department lawyer doesn't approve in hindsight either. :no:
Good article on waterboarding itself, somewhat OT. Fun for Hitchens lovers and haters
http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2008/08/hitchens200808
Vladimir
04-10-2009, 13:12
Another objective thread from Lemur.
How many times does the word "alleged" appear? We all know that good Muslims would never lie about things like torture or desecration of the Koran, and would never do those things themselves. Yet again we are confronted with the question of what torture is. Is physical abuse (and if so, what kind?), sleep deprivation, or shaving a beard? The Red Cross doesn't state it was, but Lemur knows better.
What laws were broken?
Spanish courts? Nobody expects the Spanish courts!
master of the puppets
04-10-2009, 13:28
Hmmm, its a fairly detailed report. How ingrained is the red cross in this. Is the red cross responsable for the inmates care? is that how they got the testimonials?
ok, read more of the article, the reports of the convicts is consistant despite the isolation maintained between them. And i've heard of the waterboarding and slapping but to me the most nasting sounding one is the Beating with a leash.
Beatings by use of a collar held around the detainees neck and used to bang the head and body against the wall, alleged by six of the fourteen.
What laws were broken?
Did you follow any of the links provided? 'Cause it sounds as though you did not.
HoreTore
04-10-2009, 17:21
How many times does the word "alleged" appear? We all know that good Muslims would never lie about things like torture or desecration of the Koran, and would never do those things themselves. Yet again we are confronted with the question of what torture is. Is physical abuse (and if so, what kind?), sleep deprivation, or shaving a beard? The Red Cross doesn't state it was, but Lemur knows better.
Psychological torture isn't torture in your opinion?
You don't think it's possible to screw someone up just as bad with psychology as with physical pain?
Tribesman
04-11-2009, 00:40
Did you follow any of the links provided?
But if someone followed links they would have to read stuff and digest what was written .
It has been shown that such action can be harmful as it may impact on the blissful state of ignorance.
Tribes, you're not exactly the king of documented sources, so I don't see where you have any moral standing on this. I'd like to see you actually link to an article once before I die.
KukriKhan
04-11-2009, 02:39
He did, actually... about 2-3 months ago. I saw it with my own incredulous eyeballs. And in response to someone's query.
I feel bad about the ICRC report. It wasn't supposed to be leaked; most of their other (often scathing) reports have not been - this has been what has lent those previous reports more credibility with policy-makers.
It rests completely on the unchallenged and un-cross-checked testimony of incarcerated subjects, making it too easy for powers-that-be to dismiss it as "jailhouse lawyer talk". If we wanna go after the whack-jobs who crafted law, regulation and policy to allow torture and unaccountable apprehension and imprisionment (and I, for one, do wanna), we need a better, more thorough, check-able, detailed effort. In my opinion.
"A" for intent, but "D" for content.
I don't entirely agree, Kukri. When you've got guys from different countries and different training groups who've all been held in isolation, unable to communicate with each other or the outside world, all offering the same version of events, it has some credibility. I don't buy the overly convenient version where they were all drilled in what to say by their dark overlords.
If you read some of the internal AQ docs that have leaked, you'll see that they're a dysfunctional bunch of back-biters (as many small groups are), not uber-terrorist masterminds. They even succeeded in getting ripped off by a Hong Kong web hosting company, which was hilarious to read. I've got to see if I can re-locate the article where they reprinted AQ's emails; it made for a strangely amusing read.
KukriKhan
04-11-2009, 03:20
I'm not saying those guys were lying. Their veracity at this point is irrelevant. The premature, and (presumeably) unauthorized leak of this report, which sold a few newspapers, actually works at cross-purposes to actually investigating, identifying, indicting, prosecuting, and punishing those responsible for letting, authorizing and (maybe) ordering what should (imo) be seen as unlawful apprehensions, interrogations and imprisionments.
In other words: because this report can be dismissed so easily as an exercise in "I were framed, I was, Guv, honest!" by the American authorities who could bring charges, it delays the day when we citizens can say, with a straight face: "We don't torture. Ever. If one of us ever does, he/she is a 'loose cannon' and will be punished".
Mind: I don't blame the ICRC. They're doing what they do. I blame the leaker.
rasoforos
04-11-2009, 04:46
Another objective thread from Lemur.
How many times does the word "alleged" appear? We all know that good Muslims would never lie about things like torture or desecration of the Koran, and would never do those things themselves. Yet again we are confronted with the question of what torture is. Is physical abuse (and if so, what kind?), sleep deprivation, or shaving a beard? The Red Cross doesn't state it was, but Lemur knows better.
What laws were broken?
Spanish courts? Nobody expects the Spanish courts!
The capacity of people to justify abuse in an effort to retain the validity of their views never ceases to amaze me...
I will answer your question 'what torture is'. What you ve read is torture. End of story. Either admit that you support or condemn it. Playing mental games with such actions is a hit blow the belt.
Yet again we are confronted with the question of what torture is. Is physical abuse (and if so, what kind?), sleep deprivation, or shaving a beard? The Red Cross doesn't state it was, but Lemur knows better.
I've responded to this at length in previous threads, which I'm guessing you didn't read. I'll do a condensed version here:
"Torture" is intent, in the same way that "first degree homicide" is intent. You can kill someone by accident, and it isn't homicide, it's manslaughter. By the same token, you can make a prisoner's life hell unintentionally and it isn't torture.
If your intent is to cause pain and suffering, it's torture.
But let's delve into this a little more deeply before we go on. I'd like to turn the question around and hear your responses:
If I slap you lightly, is it torture? How about if I slap you 100 times and turn your face into a swollen, bloody mess? How many slaps, exactly, does it take to meet your non-existent definition of torture? Please take into account that different interrogators will have different arm strength and hand size. Factor that into your answer.
How about if I prevent you from sleeping? Obviously 24–48 hours is nothing, grad students do it all the time. But keep a person awake long enough and they will die. So when, exactly, does it become appropriate to call sleep deprivation "torture"? Please be specific.
What if I can control the temperature of your room? A fully-clothed human being is fine in a cold room. How about if I take your clothes away and don't give them back for a week? What if I douse you with cold water to make the shivering and hypothermia start earlier? I can kill you this way, so obviously at some point it becomes torture. When? How about if I give you an icewater enema? (This has been documented in a case where the Navy SEALS accidentally killed a detainee.) It's going to be agonizing, especially if I've already got you naked and wet in a 50 degree room. Does near-freezing water in your lower intestine qualify as torture?
How about sensory deprivation? You can quite easily drive another human being insane with this technique. By the same token, yuppies do sensory deprivation tanks for fun. So when does the 30-minute sensory deprivation vacation become torture? Please give me a specific time, and back it up with scientific data.
If you can successfully answer any of these questions, I'll give you a shiny nickel. 'Cause let's face it, you're demanding a definition for something you have given no serious thought to, and which you are not able to define yourself. Not only have you avoided exploring the moral and ethical ramifications of torture, you haven't demonstrated that you have devoted any rational thought to what it is. Your question demonstrates a moral, ethical and intellectual blind spot.
Tribesman
04-11-2009, 09:23
Tribes, you're not exactly the king of documented sources, so I don't see where you have any moral standing on this.
But this is about people not reading sources that are posted isn't it .:yes:
As for me not posting links . Well thats simple , since in general the most vocal ranters will go off on one without reading the link let alone having even the most basic understanding of the issue then what is the point in posting links for them to not read ?
A prime example from recently .....
edit: didn't even click on article when I posted that, 'occupied territory', says enough. A country occupying land after a war that it didn't even provoke, outragious who would have thought. There is no official peace it's a cease fire. Within Israel's borders arabs have the same rights. Outside Israel's borders 'rights' lol.
....a simple pattern to follow isn't it . Didn't look at it at all .....looked at it but didn't read it ...carrying on with a typical nonsensical position even though a quick read of the link or any knowledge of the situation and history surrounding it shoots that arguement to pieces .
So compare that with another approach to posted links .
Nice video , far too many factual errors though to be taken seriously .
:2thumbsup:
Louis VI the Fat
04-11-2009, 14:29
A Spanish court may hand down indictments for officials who authorized torture. (http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id=7198396)It's Garzon again! :jumping:
He is my favourite judge. He, like my beloved Louis Michel of Belgium before him, try to find legal means of prosecuting gross infringements of human rights anywhere. After Rwandese genociders, Al-Qaida (the 'War on Crusaders'), Chilean and Argentine junta members (the 'War on Communism'), Garzon is now devoting his energy to excesses of the War on Terror. :2thumbsup:
Garzon meets (as Michel met) much mockery at home. Derision abroad. Michel was laughed away from Belgium. ('What, you want to prosecute mass murderers!? Don't you know that if only you kill enough people you are above the law!?')
Despite meeting much initial reservations, they both, however, belong to an intellectual current that is gaining in strength I think. Bernard Kouchner and Louis VI share their radical human rights interventionist opinion. The courts in the Hague, the international prosecution of war crimes commited in Yugoslavia and Rwanda also show that prosecution is more a matter of power than of absense of political will or legal means.
Of course, Garzon will fail today. The political will, and the distribution of power prevent his succeeding in going after the Americans. Except, perhaps, for those that tortured Spanish citizens. But his work is also one of raising consiousness: 'hey, crickey, yes we can. Yes we CAN actually prosecute torture camp runners'. The simple act of seeing Pinochet arrested greatly strengthened the movements in Latin America that seek to overthrow legal immunities for junta torturers.
My money's on us seeing some interesting criminal prosecution and civil lawsuits concerning the use of torture and unaccountable imprisonment in the coming years, or decades.
Meneldil
04-11-2009, 19:21
At first I wasn't going to post because I thought this was another boring torture thread but then I reread and saw that even the SPANISH COURTS were involved?! Does it get more serious than this??
Spanish courts? Nobody expects the Spanish courts!
Do you think you can try to look even more stupidly arrogant than that?
The fact that the US is the current top dog doesn't mean that you aren't bound by laws. Baltasar Garzon will probably achieve nothing, but at least he has the balls to do it.
So yeah, stick to your self-righteousness and enjoy it while you can. The rest of the world will keep making fun of you and of your so-called principles and values.
Marshal Murat
04-11-2009, 19:59
Marine calls about Torture (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/04/07/republican-caller-tells-l_n_184244.html)
Disgusting oblivious. Mr. Limbaugh, you've dropped several pegs in my books.
CALLER: Thanks Rush. Rush listen, I voted Republican and I really didn't want to see Obama get in office. But you know Rush, you're one reason to blame for this election, for the Republicans losing. First of all, you kept harping about voting for Hillary. The second big issue was the torture issue. I'm a veteran. We're not supposed to be torturing these people. This is not Nazi Germany, Red China, North Korea. There's other ways of interrogating people, and you just kept harping about, it's okay, or it's not really torture. And it was just more than waterboarding. Some of these prisoners will killed under torture.
And it was crazy for you to go on and on like Levin and Hannity and Hewitt. It's like you're all brainwashed. And my last comment is, no matter what Obama does, you will still criticize him because I believe you are brainwashed. You're just -- and I hate to say it -- but I think you're a brainwashed Nazi. Anyone who can believe in torture has got to be -- there has got to be something wrong with them.
.....
LIMBAUGH: Charles, if anybody is admitting that they are brainwashed it would be you.
.....
LIMBAUGH: Charles, you said at the beginning of your phone call that you didn't want Obama in there. But you voted for him because of me.
Tribesman
04-11-2009, 20:57
Mr. Limbaugh, you've dropped several pegs in my books.
Well paint me pink bugger me sideways with a yardbrush and call me Sandra , Rush had a peg that he could drop off ?????
I thought he was a bottom freeding scum sucker that couldn't get any lower without the aid of some seriously stronger drugs.
Seamus Fermanagh
04-11-2009, 21:16
Well paint me pink bugger me sideways with a yardbrush and call me Sandra , Rush had a peg that he could drop off ?????
I thought he was a bottom freeding scum sucker that couldn't get any lower without the aid of some seriously stronger drugs.
Sadly, Sandy, he's far from the bottom of the rung in that genre. Try dialing in Michael Savage on the "savagenation.com" or G Gordon Liddy. Rush is a genteel pundit compared to the real right-wing radio loons.
Sadly, the torture point is a good one. The only time torture ever has ANY moral justification is in a known "ticking bomb" situation. No such situations were known or suspected. Any of the answers generated could have been generated -- albeit more slowly -- via normal interrogation. The caller had a better point then Mr. Limbaugh.
I have an opinion on most political issues, but torture is one of those things I am hung up on. I think torture is thouroughly disgusting, even if used for a good purpose. Unfortunately sometimes disgusting methods need to be used though. The problem is that if you arm someone with something so disgusting and powerful, how hard is it for them to misuse it? IMO, torture should be used only when absolutely necassary, to the minimal extent, on the worst scum, to stop innocents from being harmed. The problem is that it is not that simple, because someone has to make that call, and everyone is human and subject to error and greed. Just too many variables for me to form a solid opinion yet. (I have been thinking about it and reading about it and reading historical examples of it for years too, and I still have not decided :P)
EDIT: and I think it should NEVER be used as a punishment.
Tribesman
04-11-2009, 21:36
Sadly, Sandy, he's far from the bottom of the rung in that genre.
But he has the largest audience , swimming in the cess pit is no different from swimming in the cess pit, in his case he is worse because he gets more people to take a dip with him , splashing excrement around and calling it patriotism .
Rush is a genteel pundit compared to the real right-wing radio loons.
So Rush is a fruitbat but not like the realoutaspace fruitbats , thats some commendation:2thumbsup:
Strike For The South
04-11-2009, 23:10
I'm glad Spain has decided to give these officials some much needed time off and a European vacation. It's the least they could TBH.
Do you think you can try to look even more stupidly arrogant than that?
The fact that the US is the current top dog doesn't mean that you aren't bound by laws. Baltasar Garzon will probably achieve nothing, but at least he has the balls to do it.
So yeah, stick to your self-righteousness and enjoy it while you can. The rest of the world will keep making fun of you and of your so-called principles and values.
I don't think you are getting the reference (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gldlyTjXk9A).
Vladimir
04-12-2009, 00:52
I've responded to this at length in previous threads, which I'm guessing you didn't read. I'll do a condensed version here:
"Torture" is intent, in the same way that "first degree homicide" is intent. You can kill someone by accident, and it isn't homicide, it's manslaughter. By the same token, you can make a prisoner's life hell unintentionally and it isn't torture.
If your intent is to cause pain and suffering, it's torture.
But let's delve into this a little more deeply before we go on. I'd like to turn the question around and hear your responses:
If I slap you lightly, is it torture? How about if I slap you 100 times and turn your face into a swollen, bloody mess? How many slaps, exactly, does it take to meet your non-existent definition of torture? Please take into account that different interrogators will have different arm strength and hand size. Factor that into your answer.
How about if I prevent you from sleeping? Obviously 24–48 hours is nothing, grad students do it all the time. But keep a person awake long enough and they will die. So when, exactly, does it become appropriate to call sleep deprivation "torture"? Please be specific.
What if I can control the temperature of your room? A fully-clothed human being is fine in a cold room. How about if I take your clothes away and don't give them back for a week? What if I douse you with cold water to make the shivering and hypothermia start earlier? I can kill you this way, so obviously at some point it becomes torture. When? How about if I give you an icewater enema? (This has been documented in a case where the Navy SEALS accidentally killed a detainee.) It's going to be agonizing, especially if I've already got you naked and wet in a 50 degree room. Does near-freezing water in your lower intestine qualify as torture?
How about sensory deprivation? You can quite easily drive another human being insane with this technique. By the same token, yuppies do sensory deprivation tanks for fun. So when does the 30-minute sensory deprivation vacation become torture? Please give me a specific time, and back it up with scientific data.
If you can successfully answer any of these questions, I'll give you a shiny nickel. 'Cause let's face it, you're demanding a definition for something you have given no serious thought to, and which you are not able to define yourself. Not only have you avoided exploring the moral and ethical ramifications of torture, you haven't demonstrated that you have devoted any rational thought to what it is. Your question demonstrates a moral, ethical and intellectual blind spot.
By popular request!
I know you're posting your opinion, which is fine, therefore my "What is torture" question is a response to your implication that the Red Cross declared the treatment of these prisoners as torture. It did not. Far from providing substantiated claims the report included several allegations (and correctly called them so) of abuse. It's great that you have a mind of your own but expect the pendulum to swing back. I'm not making allegations of illegal activity so I don't need to provide evidence or declare how many slaps upon one's buttocks constitutes torture.
There are techniques like the infamous waterboarding, physical abuse, and prolonged sleep deprivation which are (or at least certainly were) a part of military training. Sometimes the intent of legal civilian and military training is to cause pain and suffering; it then becomes a matter of degree. By your rather naive definition, we torture our own people every day.
I'm entertained that you think I have a blind spot, I really am. However you represent the .org, so try to limit the personal attacks please.
In other words, you can't answer any of my questions, but will retreat behind a hastily erected barricade of "You shouldn't call me out!" with a little dash of "I don't have to answer anything, ever." Lovely.
Vladimir, it is 100% legitimate for me to demand your definition of torture, since you have repeatedly dismissed the notion that (a) it ever happened and (b) if it happened it wasn't quite "torture" and (c) "What is torture anyway?" and (d) "Define torture, or go home!" to which we can now add (e) "I'm only denying torture, so it's unfair to ask me to define what I'm saying didn't happen!"
For you to glibly declare that you don't need to answer any questions, contribute to the discussion or provide your own definition of the term you abuse so regularly is mendacity of a truly Rovian order. It's safe to say that you are not only unserious on this issue, but that you are not even debating in good faith.
HoreTore
04-12-2009, 03:19
I have to say I am disappointed.
I've been eagerly awaiting your response to Lemur's questions almost as much as I've been awaiting that chick I met at the bar a week ago. Now I'm twice as disappointed...
KukriKhan
04-12-2009, 04:30
...mendacity of a truly Rovian order.
First time I've seen that in the wild. :)
Louis VI the Fat
04-17-2009, 13:20
Barack Obama today released four top secret memos that allowed the CIA under the Bush administration to torture al-Qaida and other suspects held at Guantánamo and secret detention centres round the world.
But, in an accompanying statement, Obama ruled out prosecutions against those who had been involved. It is a "time for reflection, not retribution," he said.
The memos provide an insight into the techniques used by the CIA and the legal basis on which the Bush administration gave the go-ahead.
In the first of the memos, dated 1 August 2002, the justice department gave the go-ahead to John Rizzo, then acting general counsel to the CIA, for operatives to move to the "increased pressure phase" in interrogating an al-Qaida suspect.
Ten techniques are approved, listed as: attention grasp, walling (in which the suspect could be pushed into a wall), a facial hold, a facial slap, cramped confinement, wall standing, sleep deprivation, insects placed in a confinement box (the suspect had a fear of insects) and the waterboard. In the latter, "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........produces the perception of 'suffocation and incipient panic'."The Gruniad (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/apr/16/torture-memos-bush-administration)
KukriKhan
04-17-2009, 14:51
But, in an accompanying statement, Obama ruled out prosecutions against those who had been involved. It is a "time for reflection, not retribution," he said.
I find the authors blameless, too. They were paid for their opinions, so they were obliged to imagine the worst, and provide them. It's the "deciders", those who authorized the use of the techniques, that require accountability.* In my opinion. However high up the chain that goes.
I suspect we might see Presidential pardons issued in coming weeks, in the interest of national healing and reconciliation. How those will play to the Left and Right... I dunno (and frankly, don't care. The principles involved are more important than the politics involved).
-edit-
*we've already prosecuted the Privates, PFC's and Sgt's for the Abu-G mistreatments. Time now for the Big Boys.
rory_20_uk
04-17-2009, 16:34
Ah yes, we establish principles. Better this than assign blame to anyone, although they take a massive salary due to the burdens of their job... The next time there's a crisis we can again ignore the principles and wring hands later.
~:smoking:
I don't suppose it's even worth pointing out that corporals and sergeants at Abu Ghraib were prosecuted for far less than is outlined in these memos. Moral of the story: Don't be a grunt who takes pictures.
ICantSpellDawg
04-17-2009, 19:47
Torture - Egregiously destructive and repetitive abuse.
My definition. I used to define it as too much homework or having to go to church. I guess those wern't too bad in hindsight.
I wouldn't consider putting someone through waterboarding for a few minutes as torture. A few hours and we are talking torture. I wouldn't call someone being hit in the face while tied to a chair once torture. I WOULD call someone being hit in the face repetetively while tied to a chair torture.
Removing even 1 fingernail with pliers? torture. The physical destruction and pain last. Telling someone that their parents and children have been killed or will be killed while under the perp is under arrest? Not torture. Showing them pictures of their bodies being defiled for weeks? Torture.
The "stand around naked and feel bad about yourself" thing isn't torture. It is weird and unsettling, but I think it should be governed by a different description.
TuffStuff, you do know that waterboarding is effective in minutes rather than hours, right? Point of fact, if you waterboarded someone continuously for half an hour, the odds are quite high he would die.
Given your definition of torture, should any of the soldiers at Abu Ghraib have been tried in a court martial?
ICantSpellDawg
04-17-2009, 19:58
Given your definition of torture, should any of the soldiers at Abu Ghraib have been tried in a court martial?
Yes. I think punishing people in a degrading, amoral and unusual way should be grounds for court martial. They should be ashamed of themselves, but most of it wasn't torture.
Torture is essentially putting someone with no recourse into physical/emotional shock that lasts and lasts. It elicits a serious and unequivocal response with duration.
I do believe that waterboarding to an extent is a gray area.
I'm not trying to be dense, TuffStuff, but I don't understand. Your definition of torture is egregiously destructive and repetitive abuse. There's a lot of room in that definition, and I'm curious about the coupling of "destructive" with "repetitive." So if I chop your foot off, it's certainly destructive, but it's not repetitive. Is that torture?
Going back to Abu Ghraib, I don't understand what was done by those soldiers that meets your definition. Enforced nudity? Ritual humiliation? A light beating or two? Dragging a detainee around on a leash? Human pyramids?
None of this seems to approach your definition. None of it is nearly as bad as some of the stuff authorized in the Bybee Memo (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bybee_memo). Why should Lynndie England have gone to the brig?
I want to understand where you're coming from.
Seamus Fermanagh
04-17-2009, 20:04
Given your definition of torture, should any of the soldiers at Abu Ghraib have been tried in a court martial?
They should have been court-martialed for dereliction of duty and general lack of sense, regardless of whether or not the abuses they heaped on prisoners rose to the level of torture -- and there is zero doubt that their behavior was abusive.
Dereliction of duty? According to the soldiers and their C.O., they were specifically asked by Army interrogators to "soften up" the prisoners. "General lack of common sense" is not a criminal offense in the UMCJ (http://usmilitary.about.com/od/justicelawlegislation/l/blucmj.htm), last I checked. "Abusive"? So what? President 43, Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld all announced in public that the Geneva Conventions did not apply to detainees.
So: The detainees were not tortured. The non-coms at Abu Ghraib broke no laws. By all reputable accounts they were obeying lawful orders from fellow soldiers. The abuse they heaped on their detainees was absolutely nothing compared to what went down at Baghram and Guantanamo. So why did they go to jail? Why is anybody shocked at what they did?
Is it just the pictures?
ICantSpellDawg
04-17-2009, 20:22
I'm not trying to be dense, TuffStuff, but I don't understand. Your definition of torture is egregiously destructive and repetitive abuse. There's a lot of room in that definition, and I'm curious about the coupling of "destructive" with "repetitive." So if I chop your foot off, it's certainly destructive, but it's not repetitive. Is that torture?
Going back to Abu Ghraib, I don't understand what was done by those soldiers that meets your definition. Enforced nudity? Ritual humiliation? A light beating or two? Dragging a detainee around on a leash? Human pyramids?
None of this seems to approach your definition. None of it is nearly as bad as some of the stuff authorized in the Bybee Memo (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bybee_memo). Why should Lynndie England have gone to the brig?
I want to understand where you're coming from.
Chopping a foot off is egregiously destructive and the pain lasts for quite a while in a serious way and it doesnt grow back. I would consider it torture.
I don't see how most of that stuff is torture. It is weird, has no place anywhere, and should be punished, but c'mon.
I think you understand my personal definition. It is a common sense defenition. I used to dunk my brothers head under water for prolonged periods of time when I was a kid. Some jerk held my head under water over and over again until I inhaled water and cried and cried. I wouldn't want him to be tried on torture charges because it wasn't torture. I can't imagine a few minutes of waterboarding being torturous. Exasperating and horrifying, yes - torturous, no.
We should keep "torture" rather specific, otherwise it loses its meaning. If forcing someone to stand around naked or be shaven is torture, I don't buy all of the cosmic condemnation of torture. It desensetizes.
Constant beatings and bone breakings ARE torture. Lets use our common sense like a civ.
I can't imagine a few minutes of waterboarding being torturous.
You'll pardon me, but that sounds kinda ill-informed. Here's a journalist being waterboarded (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4LPubUCJv58&feature=related). Enjoy.
ICantSpellDawg
04-17-2009, 20:34
You'll pardon me, but that sounds kinda ill-informed. Here's a journalist being waterboarded (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4LPubUCJv58&feature=related). Enjoy.
Pardon me if I don't take a fat, posh and scuzzy drunk seriously in what he "can't bare".
I'm sure that it is aweful, I'm not contesting that - I just don't believe it is as cut and "dry" as people are making it. It rides the line. Almsot all of the other stuff listed is nonsense. Next thing you know you'll want to make shooting the enemy illegal because a gut shot or serious wound could take hours to die from or suffer through.
Repetetive, however could be the clincher. Water board someone for hours and you've got yourself a case. Doesn't real torture usually have a mortality rate significantly higher than merely talking to someone just because of overdoing it and mistakes?
You asked for opinions, here they are.
Almsot all of the other stuff listed is nonsense.
Slamming someone's head into a wall is "nonsense"? Hypothermia is "nonsense"? Putting someone in a blacked-out coffin with insects is "nonsense"?
Next thing you know you'll want to make shooting the enemy illegal because a gut shot or serious wound could take hours to die from or suffer through.
When, in this entire conversation about torture, has anyone suggested that battlefield rules be changed? You make it sound as thought a bunch of soppy humanitarians want to change the rules of war. Excuse me, but the people who introduced a re-definition weren't on the left; it was President 43 who excused us from the Geneva Conventions. It was President 43 who side-stepped the Convention Against Torture, to which we are a signatory. If you want to get irritated at someone for fundamentally altering how we handle prisoners, you'd do better to glance right than left.
Water board someone for hours and you've got yourself a case. Doesn't real torture usually have a mortality rate significantly higher than merely talking to someone just because of overdoing it and mistakes?
Um, no. Incorrect. Leave-no-marks torture, as perfected by the Soviets and the Schutzstaffel, has a very low mortality rate. And while it's very hard to get hard numbers about it, something around a hundred detainees have died in "suspicious circumstances" at Baghram and Abu Ghraib. Many of those deaths were ruled homicides by Army investigators. I'll link to the pathology reports if you need backup for that assertion.
ICantSpellDawg
04-17-2009, 22:00
Slamming someone's head into a wall is "nonsense"? Hypothermia is "nonsense"? Putting someone in a blacked-out coffin with insects is "nonsense"?
Um, no. Incorrect. Leave-no-marks torture, as perfected by the Soviets and the Schutzstaffel, has a very low mortality rate. And while it's very hard to get hard numbers about it, something around a hundred detainees have died in "suspicious circumstances" at Baghram and Abu Ghraib. Many of those deaths were ruled homicides by Army investigators. I'll link to the pathology reports if you need backup for that assertion.
Well sure. A significantly higher mortality rate than questioning would indicate passing the line into torture. If you have a much higher chance of dying AND it is painful, then it is probably torture.
Physical abuse like punching and kicking is much easier to ascertain as torture. Leave no marks torture actually does leave marks - people die from it.
I want to see physical evidence. Evidence such as bruises, gashes and corpses that far outpace normal mortality. If any of those are present, most likely torture is going on.
Bring on the corpse rate vs general pop in their country. If it is much higher, I'll agree with you that torture is going on in a way that needs to be addressed urgently.
HoreTore
04-17-2009, 22:06
It amazes me that some people still think that you can only cause pain to a body, not a brain.
Unfortunately, torturers world-wide have found out that you can cause far more pain and suffering to a brain... And as an added bonus, it's much harder to detect.
Bring on the corpse rate vs general pop in their country. If it is much higher, I'll agree with you that torture is going on in a way that needs to be addressed urgently.
Hmm, an interesting challenge. Here is a report from 2005, indicating that 108 people had died (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/03/16/terror/main680658.shtml) in U.S. custody in Iraq and Afghanistan. That's 108 confirmed detainee deaths in less than two years. If you can tell me how many people we were holding, you're doing better than the Department of Defense.
Here are some autopsy reports (http://action.aclu.org/torturefoia/released/102405/) from Abu Ghraib and Baghram. I've posted some of these before, but let's skim over the highlights. Remember, these are reports by U.S. military investigators.
DOD 003146 - DOD003155; DOD003299: Multiple blunt force injuries. Abrasion in upper right forehead. Abrasion on right lower forehead above eyebrow. Multiple contusions on right cheek and lower nose, left upper forehead, back of head. Abrasions on chest, lower costal margin. Contusions on arm, elbow, forearm, wrist, upper inner arm, groin, inner thigh, right back of knee and calf, left calf, left lower leg. Cause of death was pulmonary embolism due to blunt force injuries.
DOD003156 - DOD 003163; DOD 003296 - 003297: Detainee was found unresponsive restrained in his cell. Death was due to blunt force injuries to lower extremities complicating coronary artery disease.Contusions and abrasions on forehead, nose, head, behind ear, neck, abdomen, buttock, elbow, thigh, knee, foot, toe, hemorrhage on rib area and leg. Detainee died of blunt force injuries to lower extremities, complicating underlying coronary artery disease. The blunt force injuries to the legs resulted in extensive muscle damage, muscle necrosis and rhabomyolysis. Electrolyte disturbances primarily hyperkalemia (elevated blood potassium level) and metabolic acidosis can occur within hours of muscle damage. Massive sodium and water shifts occur, resulting in hypovolemic shock and casodilatation and later, acute renal failure. The decedent's underlying coronary artery disease would compromise his ability to tolerate the electrolyte and fluid abnormalities, and his underlying malnutrition and likely dehydration would further exacerbate the effects of the muscle damage. The manner of death is homicide.
DOD003164 - DOD003170; DOD 003301: Died as a result of asphyxia (lack of oxygen to the brain) due to strangulation as evidenced by the recently fractured hyoid bone in the neck and soft tissue hemorrhage extending downward to the level of the right thyroid cartilage. Autopsy reveleaved bone fracture, rib fractures, contusions in mid abdomen, back and buttocks extending to the left flank, abrasions, lateral buttocks. Contusions, back of legs and knees; abrasions on knees, left fingers and encircling to left wrist. Lacerations and superficial cuts, right 4th and 5th fingers. Also, blunt force injuries, predominatnly recent contusions (bruises) on the torso and lower extremities. Abrasions on left wrist are consistent with use of restraints. No evidence of defense injuries or natural disease. Manner of death is homicide.
DOD003171 - DOD3177; DOD003298: Death caused by the multiple blunt force injuries of the lower torso and legs complicated by rhabdommyolisis (release of toxic byproducs into the system due to destruction of muscle). Manner of death is homicide. Decedent was not under the pharmacologic effect of drugs or alcohol at the time of death.
DOD 003220 - DOD 003227; DOD003305: Male detainee died while in U.S. custody. The details surrounding the circumstances at the time of death are classified. Cause of death: Asphyxia due to smothering and chest compression. Manner of Death: Homicide. Significant findings of the autopsy included rib fractures and numerous bruises, some of which were patterned due to impacts with a blunt object. DOD 003329 refers to this case as "1 blunt force trauma and choking; died during interrogation." DOD 003325 refers to this case with note "Q[uestioned] by MI [Military Intelligence], died during interrogation."
There are lots more where those came from.
ICantSpellDawg
04-17-2009, 23:02
Hmm, an interesting challenge. Here is a report from 2005, indicating that 108 people had died (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/03/16/terror/main680658.shtml) in U.S. custody in Iraq and Afghanistan. That's 108 confirmed detainee deaths in less than two years. If you can tell me how many people we were holding, you're doing better than the Department of Defense.
Here are some autopsy reports (http://action.aclu.org/torturefoia/released/102405/) from Abu Ghraib and Baghram. I've posted some of these before, but let's skim over the highlights. Remember, these are reports by U.S. military investigators.
DOD 003146 - DOD003155; DOD003299: Multiple blunt force injuries. Abrasion in upper right forehead. Abrasion on right lower forehead above eyebrow. Multiple contusions on right cheek and lower nose, left upper forehead, back of head. Abrasions on chest, lower costal margin. Contusions on arm, elbow, forearm, wrist, upper inner arm, groin, inner thigh, right back of knee and calf, left calf, left lower leg. Cause of death was pulmonary embolism due to blunt force injuries.
DOD003156 - DOD 003163; DOD 003296 - 003297: Detainee was found unresponsive restrained in his cell. Death was due to blunt force injuries to lower extremities complicating coronary artery disease.Contusions and abrasions on forehead, nose, head, behind ear, neck, abdomen, buttock, elbow, thigh, knee, foot, toe, hemorrhage on rib area and leg. Detainee died of blunt force injuries to lower extremities, complicating underlying coronary artery disease. The blunt force injuries to the legs resulted in extensive muscle damage, muscle necrosis and rhabomyolysis. Electrolyte disturbances primarily hyperkalemia (elevated blood potassium level) and metabolic acidosis can occur within hours of muscle damage. Massive sodium and water shifts occur, resulting in hypovolemic shock and casodilatation and later, acute renal failure. The decedent's underlying coronary artery disease would compromise his ability to tolerate the electrolyte and fluid abnormalities, and his underlying malnutrition and likely dehydration would further exacerbate the effects of the muscle damage. The manner of death is homicide.
DOD003164 - DOD003170; DOD 003301: Died as a result of asphyxia (lack of oxygen to the brain) due to strangulation as evidenced by the recently fractured hyoid bone in the neck and soft tissue hemorrhage extending downward to the level of the right thyroid cartilage. Autopsy reveleaved bone fracture, rib fractures, contusions in mid abdomen, back and buttocks extending to the left flank, abrasions, lateral buttocks. Contusions, back of legs and knees; abrasions on knees, left fingers and encircling to left wrist. Lacerations and superficial cuts, right 4th and 5th fingers. Also, blunt force injuries, predominatnly recent contusions (bruises) on the torso and lower extremities. Abrasions on left wrist are consistent with use of restraints. No evidence of defense injuries or natural disease. Manner of death is homicide.
DOD003171 - DOD3177; DOD003298: Death caused by the multiple blunt force injuries of the lower torso and legs complicated by rhabdommyolisis (release of toxic byproducs into the system due to destruction of muscle). Manner of death is homicide. Decedent was not under the pharmacologic effect of drugs or alcohol at the time of death.
DOD 003220 - DOD 003227; DOD003305: Male detainee died while in U.S. custody. The details surrounding the circumstances at the time of death are classified. Cause of death: Asphyxia due to smothering and chest compression. Manner of Death: Homicide. Significant findings of the autopsy included rib fractures and numerous bruises, some of which were patterned due to impacts with a blunt object. DOD 003329 refers to this case as "1 blunt force trauma and choking; died during interrogation." DOD 003325 refers to this case with note "Q[uestioned] by MI [Military Intelligence], died during interrogation."
There are lots more where those came from.
US Military and CIA personel should not get carried away. If those deaths can be linked to persons acting on behalf of the United States, whomever is responsible should be held to account. I don't believe that an investigation should be off limits.
US Military and CIA personel should not get carried away. If those deaths can be linked to persons acting on behalf of the United States, whomever is responsible should be held to account. I don't believe that an investigation should be off limits.
What about their superiors in the U.S. Guv who authorized "harsh interrogation measures"? Should they face consequences? Or should we just convict another round of corporals and sergeants and call it a day?
Seamus Fermanagh
04-18-2009, 04:19
Lemur:
Take it easy. I am aware of your firm beliefs on this issue and respect them. You will no doubt recall a post I made when this last came up.
You know the lessons of history -- it is a rare thing when the high-level decision makers in any government wrong doing are jailed for these actions, unless they are on the losing side of a war.
President Obama has specifically repudiated these actions, and is moving to close those facilities wherein these events took place. The prisoners currently held will be put into the Civil Justice system in the USA and will be released (save in those instances where untainted evidence actually is available). Many of them will likely receive compensation from the taxpayer.
What more is likely to happen? You don't seriously expect public trials for the 12-20 top level officials responsible for those policies in the Bush White House, DoD, and DoJ to stand trial do you? However "just" it would be on one level, it would only compound the damage already wreaked upon our national image and psyche. I don't see Obama going there.
You're quite right, of course, President 44 does not want to go there. He's too much of a pragmatist. But I am confounded by the legal/moral side of the equation.
If I walk up to someone on the street and shoot him in the head, am I allowed to argue in court that we shouldn't look back at the past, but instead go forward, because spending time talking about me shooting someone on the head is unproductive? How would that stand up?
Addington, Yoo, Feith, Bybee, these are men who created the (by all accounts sloppy and flimsy) legal framework for torturing detainees. Yes, they should be brought to trial. We Americans have put people on trial for far less, and in more difficult circumstances.
And it really does bother me that we convicted and imprisoned some corporals and sergeants for doing just this sort of thing, while letting their masters walk away to consulting gigs and tenured professorships. "Unfair" doesn't even begin to cover it.
President Obama has specifically repudiated these actions, and is moving to close those facilities wherein these events took place. Yeah, but I hear (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/13/opinion/13mon1.html?ref=opinion) our prison in Bagram is getting pretty crowded lately.
Oh heck. If the description of the ruling is accurate, I don't understand why they're fighting it:
The ruling essentially grants all non-Afghan Bagram detainees captured outside Afghanistan and held over six years without due process the same right to federal court review that the Supreme Court gave last year to similarly situated prisoners at Guantánamo.
-edit-
Going back to Seamus' (as usual) thoughtful comment:
You don't seriously expect public trials for the 12-20 top level officials responsible for those policies in the Bush White House, DoD, and DoJ to stand trial do you?
There are three classes of people who should face (at the very least) professional censure: the lawyers who authored some of these memos, the psychologists who helped craft the techniques (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/17/AR2009041703690.html), and the doctors who kept detainees alive (mostly) as they were abused. A lawyer discusses the Bybee memo:
I am a lawyer who has practiced in Washington for more than 20 years. I'm not sure I have the words to describe my reaction upon reading the Bybee memo, but it's fair to say it sent chills down my spine.
Lawyers are a cynical lot - it comes with the territory - but we all know that we have some basic obligations to our clients. One of them is to tell them the truth, and not to conceal facts or law that the client should know about. Even as you must represent your client zealously in disputes, you are required as an officer of the court not to hide adverse precedent. And failing to tell your client about cases that run against the client's preferred result is a profound dereliction of duty.
In that context, the Bybee memo is a lawyer's worst nightmare. It's an F-minus in law school, a zero on the bar exam, grounds for firing a first-year lawyer for an utter lack of understanding of what the practice of law requires.
It is beyond conception to imagine a competent lawyer not even mentioning the cases when the U.S. prosecuted Japanese soldiers for waterboarding, let alone asserting that "there have been no prosecutions" under the specific statute. It is nearly as inconceivable that the memo concludes that the insect technique, used against someone with a known insect phobia, would not cause "severe mental pain."
The only rational conclusion is that this memo is not, in fact, legal advice at all, at least not in the sense that a lawyer would use the term. None of the people involved in writing are incompetent, after all, and none of them would have made these kinds of elementary mistakes in writing for a private client. It was written purely to provide cover. To do that, Bybee and the others involved in these memos knowingly subordinated their oaths as officers of the court and their ethical obligations to give carte blanche to the interrogators and those who directed them. Perhaps they thought it was their patriotic duty; perhaps they thought that the "chatter" mentioned in the memo created an exigent circumstance that demanded that shortcuts be taken; or perhaps they expected that the memos never would see the light of day. I doubt we'll ever really know. Regardless of the reason, though, the dull legalese conceals an utter lack of respect for the law and for any constraints that the law might require. And that's what's really chilling about it.
KukriKhan
04-18-2009, 13:47
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh:
You don't seriously expect public trials for the 12-20 top level officials responsible for those policies in the Bush White House, DoD, and DoJ to stand trial do you?
I do, indeed. I expect the process to begin, charges be laid, evidence publicly revealed - and probably Presidential Pardon(s) issued, ala Ford for Nixon.
If the process is good enough for the enlisted swine, it's good enough for the rest of the chain-of-command too. No one is above the law.
Tribesman
04-18-2009, 21:47
Pardon me if I don't take a fat, posh and scuzzy drunk seriously in what he "can't bare".
Thats funny , since that fat git took a similar line on torture to yours .
He underwent that little test because people were suggesting the line he was spinning about torture was bollox
He soon changed his mind about torture didn't he:yes:
HoreTore
04-18-2009, 22:22
No one is above the law.
Sadly, we live in a democracy, and, as it turns out, democracy means that you are above the law if you are in the right position or have the right connections....
Seamus Fermanagh
04-19-2009, 01:09
Sadly, we live in a democracy, and, as it turns out, democracy means that you are above the law if you are in the right position or have the right connections....
We live in a republic, about which I am not saddened at all.
To date, there have been ZERO human polities where all laws and regulations have been enforced with complete and total impartiality. EVERY historical polity has had members who were "more equal" than others for one reason on another (power, connections, money, lineage, whatever).
In principle, no one should be above the law. It is something for which we should all strive. However, expecting to attain that level of impartiality and to then keep it at that level is quixotic at best.
If, as seems likely based on what we now know, those lower echelons who got hammered for their abusive (and in some instances torturous) efforts were indeed following instructions from those in the chain of command above them, then the charges and punishments should also head up the chain. Such would be mete and fair -- but I'm not gonna hold my breath and wait for it to happen.
Repetetive, however could be the clincher. Water board someone for hours and you've got yourself a case.
According to page 37 of the OLC Memo:
The CIA used the waterboard "at least 83 times during August 2002" in the interrogation of Zubaydah. IG Report at 90, and 183 times during March 2003 in the interrogation of KSM, see id. at 91.
Digest that for a moment. A detainee who proved to have no actionable intelligence was waterboarded 183 times in a single month. (Certainly clarifies why doctors were on 24-hour call.)
I don't have a soft spot for Khaleed Sheikh Mohammed, and I don't think he should have been treated like he was staying at the Hilton. Frankly, if he were dead the world would probably be a better place. However, it's degrading to us to have him treated this way.
Another thing I don't understand: If waterboarding is so freakin' effective, why apply it 183 times in a single month? Maybe it's because torturing a guy who has no new data for you yields bupkiss?
If, as seems likely based on what we now know, those lower echelons who got hammered for their abusive (and in some instances torturous) efforts were indeed following instructions from those in the chain of command above them, then the charges and punishments should also head up the chain. Such would be mete and fair -- but I'm not gonna hold my breath and wait for it to happen.I still don't agree with conflating the insanity at Abu Ghraib with the deliberate and methodical interrogations carried out by the CIA.
The much publicized guards at Abu Ghraib were sick perverts, plain and simple. They took torture pictures "for fun", posed with dead bodies, posed with naked detainees, filmed detainees masturbating, and even photographed themselves having sex with each other. They're disgusting and deserve every bit of punishment they got and then some- they broke every rule by which people in the military were supposed to live by. It's also worth noting that not just the perpetrators, but their superiors were also punished for their lack of oversight- probably not as much as they should have been though.
You're free to think that waterboarding, etc (as outlined in the OP) is morally reprehensible and should be punished, but please don't put abusive interrogations on the same level as these sickos. They weren't making porno under orders- they were completely out of control.
Factual problems with the above post:
"Enhanced interrogations" (that's verschärfte Vernehmung (http://www.harpers.org/archive/2007/05/hbc-90000179) to those of you with a sense of history) have not been exclusively carried out by the C.I.A., and nobody has made any serious argument that this is the case. Organizations known to have been carrying out "enhanced interrogation": various elements of the Army, the C.I.A., private military contractors and the Navy SEALS. (The Marine Corps, with its usual savvy, has avoided stepping into this tar pit.)
The C.O. of Abu Ghraib was merely demoted; a serious punishment for a career officer, but hardly the same as imprisonment and conviction. The theater commander received no punishment of any sort ever.
With the exception of taking pictures and having sex with each other, absolutely nothing done by the guards at Abu Ghraib was outside the scope of the newly released torture memos. Once again, I think what makes everybody get prickly is the fact that they took pictures. Enforced nudity? Legal, says the Bybee memo. Sexual humiliation? Perfectly legitimate. Beatings? Legal. Tying someone up and leaving them there for days? Authorized.
I have this funny feeling that if pictures had been taken at Baghram or Guantanamo, we would be hearing from torture apologists how the "bad frat party" had happened there too. Heaven forbid we consider the possibility that legalizing and instituting torture might have had something to do with the excesses. That's just unthinkable.
-edit-
Not that much of anyone in my country seems to care, but by releasing the torture memos and then declaring that we will not investigate or prosecute anyone involved, we appear to be in breach of the Convention Against Torture (http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5j4Ejd9oAFE1osxxYu3b7f9cI_7eQD97KRMP00). But that's just a treaty we signed, like the Geneva Convention. Who reads those meaningless scraps of paper anyway?
Reference:
Just so we're all clear on what we're talking about, here are some of the newly released memos. PDF warning.
18-page memo, dated August 1, 2002, from Jay Bybee, Assistant Attorney General, OLC (Office of Legal Counsel), to John A. Rizzo, General Counsel CIA. (http://stream.luxmedia501.com/?file=clients/aclu/olc_08012002_bybee.pdf&method=dl)
46-page memo, dated May 10, 2005, from Steven Bradbury, Acting Assistant Attorney General, OLC, to John A. Rizzo, General Counsel CIA. (http://stream.luxmedia501.com/?file=clients/aclu/olc_05102005_bradbury46pg.pdf&method=dl)
20-page memo, dated May 10, 2005, from Steven Bradbury, Acting Assistant Attorney General, OLC, to John A. Rizzo, General Counsel CIA. (http://stream.luxmedia501.com/?file=clients/aclu/olc_05102005_bradbury_20pg.pdf&method=dl)
40-page memo, dated May 30, 2005, from Steven Bradbury, Acting Assistant Attorney General, OLC, to John A. Rizzo, General Counsel CIA. (http://stream.luxmedia501.com/?file=clients/aclu/olc_05302005_bradbury.pdf&method=dl)
With the exception of taking pictures and having sex with each other, absolutely nothing done by the guards at Abu Ghraib was outside the scope of the newly released torture memos.How about keeping a mentally handicapped man on a leash and dragging him around the prison as their pet? That on there? Desecrating a corpse?
Taking the Yoo perspective, show me how any of this is illegal with detainees who are effectively non-persons. Look at the autopsy reports. People were getting killed in these interrogations. How is putting someone a leash legally more reprehensible than driving a detainee's core temp down until he dies?
According to the memos, it's perfectly legitimate to keep a detainee from sleeping for 11 days. This was common practice. It's not nearly as shocking as a picture of a guy on a leash, but it's far worse for the individual who's on the receiving end.
Desecrating corpses? So what? These are legal non-persons. Why should their bodies receive more respect after life than during?
-edit-
Oh, and lest I forget, should charges be brought on the people who waterboarded a (most likely) mentally ill detainee 83 times in a single month? According to most everyone except some people with a vested interest in President 43's "enhanced interrogation" regime, Abu Zubidayah (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Zubaydah) was not even remotely sane, unless sane people maintain journals in which multiple personalities discuss their feelings.
Zubaydah turned out to be mentally ill, keeping a diary "in the voice of three people: Hani 1, Hani 2, and Hani 3" -- a boy, a young man and a middle-aged alter ego. The book also quotes Dan Coleman, then the FBI's top al-Qaeda analyst, telling a senior bureau official, "This guy is insane, certifiable, split personality." According to Suskind, this judgment was "echoed at the top of CIA and was, of course, briefed to the President and Vice President," yet two weeks later Bush gave a speech and labeled Zubaydah as "one of the top operatives plotting and planning death and destruction on the United States."
So which is worse: Being naked and on a leash when you're mentally disabled, or being waterboarded 83 times in a month while you're mentally disabled?
LittleGrizzly
04-20-2009, 00:03
In principle, no one should be above the law. It is something for which we should all strive. However, expecting to attain that level of impartiality and to then keep it at that level is quixotic at best.
I can't tell if by this you are justifying not going for the upper echelons of command or if you simply are explaining why it is not happening ?
Obama it seems in the view of people here is being pragmatic and quite sensible by letting the previous administration away with its torturing...
To me this seems anything but sensible (i wan't quite sure of the definition of pragmatic and an online dictionary didn't paticularly help) this is some great propaganda for Al Qaeda and anyone who dislike America, but if Obama were to prosecute anyone and everyone involved in torture and allowing its use it would be the greatest PR move against Al Qaeda and American haters everywhere...
What better way to prove that America is not the great satan by prosecuting thier own who have done wrong... what better way to prove that we are far and above Al Qaeda on the moral high ground...
All Obama is doing is ceeding more of the moral high ground and giving a great pr coup to the islamic fundamentalists..
Oh, and lest I forget, should charges be brought on the people who waterboarded a (most likely) mentally ill detainee 83 times in a single month?What are you basing that on? You cite the OLC memo, page 37.... but there are four (http://www.aclu.org/safefree/general/olc_memos.html) memos, two of which go as high as page 37. I didn't see any references to how much anyone was subjected to anything. I did see some guidelines on waterboarding on one of them, but again, nothing I saw said anything about anyone being waterboarded 83x in 1 month. What am I missing?
I am referring to the 5/30/05 memo. Here's a better scan (http://ccrjustice.org/files/05-30-2005_bradbury_40pg_OLC%20torture%20memos.pdf) of it. "The CIA used the waterboard 'at least 83 times during August 2002' in the interrogation of Zubidayah, IG Reports at 90, and 183 times during March 2003 in the interrogation of KSM, see id at 90."
Does that help?
-edit-
A SERE instructor (http://www.nydailynews.com/opinions/2009/04/19/2009-04-19_why_the_bush_torture_architects_must_be_prosecuted_a_counterterror_expert_speaks.html) demands that prosecutions take place. Note that SERE (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survival,_Evasion,_Resistance_and_Escape) was the basis for the torture enhanced interrogation program. (And note that SERE derived its techniques from various forms of torture used on our soldiers by the North Koreans and the Vietnamese, among others. The irony should be self-evident.)
I have been engaged in the hunt for al-Qaeda for almost two decades. And, as I once wrote in the Daily News, I have personally led, witnessed and supervised waterboarding of hundreds of people - as we trained our own fighting men and women to endure and resist the interrogation tactics they might be subjected to by our enemies. I know waterboarding is torture because I have been on the giving and receiving end of the practice. [...]
Despite all the gyrations - the ducking, dodging and hiding from the facts - there is no way to say that these people were not authorizing torture. Worse yet, they seem to have not cared a wit that these techniques came from the actual manuals of communist, fascist and totalitarian torturers. It is now clear how clearly - how coldly - Bush's lawyers could authorize individual techniques from past torture chambers, claim they came from the safe SERE program, and not even wet their beds at night. That many U.S. service members over the years have died as a result of these same techniques was never considered.
This is about more than one tactic, waterboarding, that has gotten the lion's share of attention. As a general rule, interrogations without clearly defined legal limits are brutal. Particularly when they have an imperative to get information out of a captive immediately. Wearing prisoners out to the point of mental breakdown; forcing confessions through sleep deprivation; inflicting pain by standing for days on end (not minutes like in SERE); beating them against flexing walls until concussion; applying humiliation slaps (two at a time), and repeating these methods over and over. [...]
Worst of all was that an agency advising the Justice Department, the Joint Personnel Recovery Agency, knew that these coercive techniques would not work if captives devoutly trusted in their God and kept faith with each other. Yet those two characteristics are pre-qualifications for being allowed into al-Qaeda. Other non-coercive methods - the central focus of which is humanely deprogramming them of their religious ideological brainwashing - are now turning al-Qaeda members in Indonesia, Iraq and Saudi Arabia. But they were never considered. Perhaps they were not macho enough.
FactionHeir
04-20-2009, 12:25
Some more discussion on the topic: http://roomfordebate.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/04/16/the-memos-torture-redefined/#more-4909
Also reading through the comments section, what struck me was the assertion that Obama essentially pardoned the CIA and torturers for "following orders" when the US of A did not allow that argument at the Nuremberg trials.
And of course that Congress has yet to introduce a bill classifying these methods as torture and banning them.
Lastly, I'm also interested how many of the detainees who "died of natural causes" actually died as a result of these methods and how many were detained and never accounted for officially (i.e. caught, not recorded, died under torture, thrown into some mass grave)
One cable news channel has mounted a non-stop defense of torture. I bet you can't guess which one it is (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=spNxeOoHPKk).
-edit-
I'll just point out that many people thought it appropriate to impeach a sitting President over perjury in a civil suit. But hold any administration members accountable for authorizing what are inarguably war crimes? Heaven forbid. We must move forward. Mustn't look back.
FactionHeir
04-20-2009, 18:40
Heaven forbid Pelosi and other democrats are indicted for authorizing the use :grin:
By all means, indict them if they did. But I haven't yet seen the evidence for that; all of these memos are intra-executive, with no CC to anyone in the legislative branch. Point of fact is that President 43 and his Vice were keen on freezing out Congress even when they had a Republican majority.
But if any Senator or Representative signed off on this stuff, hell yeah, they should be held responsible.
FactionHeir
04-20-2009, 18:50
One of the main opinions in the report I linked to suggested they were in attendance, but again its difficult to verify I suppose.
And of course that Congress has yet to introduce a bill classifying these methods as torture and banning them.
Say wha? Last I checked a very specific anti-torture bill was passed in 2005 (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10480690/). Sponsored by that known liberal extremist, John McCain.
Note that most of the newly released OLC memos are also from 2005. I get the impression that President 43 was of the same mindset as Pompeius Magnus: "Don't quote laws, we carry swords."
As for the discussion you linked to, which one are you pulling from? There are six essays.
-edit-
Another legal thought: Congress had no need to draft a new anti-torture law, even though they did. We are already signatory to the Geneva Conventions and the Convention Against Torture. The executive has no right to re-define how we handle prisoners, at least if you pay attention to that quaint and outdated document we call the Constitution (http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.articlei.html):
The Congress shall have power [...] To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water
Nothing in there about judges making rules for captives, or Presidents for that matter. Seems pretty open-and-shut to me, although it may dismay the fans of Imperial Presidency.
FactionHeir
04-20-2009, 19:45
The one from Kenneth Anderson "Congress knew all along"
Thanks, FactionHeir. Giving it a quick read, there are some factual problems. The author claims that there is no law forbidding waterboarding, which is incorrect (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Detainee_Treatment_Act#Legislative_details). The 2007 article (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/08/AR2007120801664.html) he bases his essay on has this crucial line: "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." It would be mighty instructive to know what, exactly was said and shown in those meetings:
"Congressional officials say the groups' ability to challenge the practices was hampered by strict rules of secrecy that prohibited them from being able to take notes or consult legal experts or members of their own staffs. And while various officials have described the briefings as detailed and graphic, it is unclear precisely what members were told about waterboarding and how it is conducted."
Interesting, to say the least. In no way should members of Congress be given a pass, especially if they signed off with full knowledge.
I will, however, point out something blindingly obvious: The torture deniers follow a very predictable pattern, with the following excuses:
We don't torture.
Okay, this may be something that looks exactly like torture, but it isn't.
What is "torture" anyway?
Maybe we tortured once or twice, but it was to save lives. Evidence? No, we can't show anybody any evidence. (Ooops, looks like we destroyed all of the interrogation tapes (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/mar/03/cia-admits-destroying-terrorism-interrogation-tape/). Whoopsie!)
Everybody knew and agreed on it. No really, we briefed everybody. Really we did. So I guess we're all torturers, okay?
Maybe we did, maybe we didn't, why dwell on the past?
I think you will find that every torture denier falls somewhere on this six-point scale. Rush Limbaugh, for instance is somewhere around point 3. Dick Cheney is definitely at point 4. Fox News seems to have taken a corporate decision to support points 2 through 4. President Obama has landed at point 6.
None of these defenses stand up if you subject them to an even mild round of evidence, sanity and law.
Furunculus
04-20-2009, 23:52
I am happy that society does not tolerate torture.
At the same time i am glad that governments secretly engage in acts of torture when they feel the public good is worth the risk of the public finding out.
Pulling peoples finger nails out is a bad way of extracting accurate information, so the received wisdom goes.
At the same time western intelligence services made an art form of breaking spies via methods that would probably be considered torture if only psychologically so.
So when I say I support the British governments involvement in torture I am pretty sure it doesn't include smashing peoples genitals into a pulp, because received wisdom says that kind of thing is counter-productive.
At the same time, were i an investigator witnessing the aftermath of something like 911, with a suspect in front of me who won't talk and no sophisticated interrogation training to fall back on, I am pretty sure i'd take a pair of pliers to every single one of his fingers in the hope of extracting something that might prevent another such attack.
I don't pretend to view the world in black and white, but i'm glad the vast majority of of the UK does.
Seamus Fermanagh
04-21-2009, 00:23
Furunculus:
I don't know that I agree with you, or that anyone should, but I do think you are providing an excellent short summary of the frame of mind that led to the use of torture during this timeframe.
KukriKhan
04-21-2009, 04:47
...were i an investigator witnessing the aftermath of something like 911, with a suspect in front of me who won't talk and no sophisticated interrogation training to fall back on, I am pretty sure i'd take a pair of pliers to every single one of his fingers in the hope of extracting something that might prevent another such attack.
This, or something like this, will be the defense offered, in the upcoming US v. Bush and Co. trial. A US trial, I emphasize.
Stand by for either a recovery, or a refutation of the policy of "how it looked at the time".
Swoosh So
04-21-2009, 05:43
Well i hope there will be a trial but very much doubt it, its a disgrace that america has used torture and a disgrace for anyone to back it. Its also a disgrace for obama to turn a blind eye considering the information he must be privy too.
Furunculus
04-21-2009, 08:40
I am happy that society does not tolerate torture.
At the same time i am glad that governments secretly engage in acts of torture when they feel the public good is worth the risk of the public finding out.
Pulling peoples finger nails out is a bad way of extracting accurate information, so the received wisdom goes.
At the same time western intelligence services made an art form of breaking spies via methods that would probably be considered torture if only psychologically so.
So when I say I support the British governments involvement in torture I am pretty sure it doesn't include smashing peoples genitals into a pulp, because received wisdom says that kind of thing is counter-productive.
At the same time, were i an investigator witnessing the aftermath of something like 911, with a suspect in front of me who won't talk and no sophisticated interrogation training to fall back on, I am pretty sure i'd take a pair of pliers to every single one of his fingers in the hope of extracting something that might prevent another such attack.
I don't pretend to view the world in black and white, but i'm glad the vast majority of of the UK does.
the important point here is that i am not an investigator, and the people who are DO have sophisticated interrogation training, so they will be using every trick in the book to psychologically 'break' a suspect (which probably includes techniques classed as torture), but which almost certainly does not include physical violence likely to cause lasting harm (you know, the stuff we traditionally consider torture like bamboo shoots under the finger nails, and the rack, etc).
From what Obama has released I am perfectly happy. I am happier still that there is public outrage because it would be a very unhealthy civic society that tolerated torture.
Furunculus
04-21-2009, 08:46
its a disgrace that america has used torture and a disgrace for anyone to back it.
that's ok. i don't come here to make friends, and i have joined no clubs or cliques.
i come here for friendly discussion only.
Louis VI the Fat
04-21-2009, 13:18
Good news for the Americans, who, no doubt, have been quakeing in their boots the past few weeks.
Spain: No torture probe of US officials (http://www.mg.co.za/article/2009-04-17-spain-no-torture-probe-of-us-officials)
Spanish prosecutors on Friday formally recommended against an investigation into allegations that six senior Bush administration officials gave legal cover for the torture of terror suspects at Guantanamo Bay.
While their ruling is not binding, the announcement all but dooms prospects for the case against the men going forward. On Thursday Spain's top law-enforcement official Candido Conde-Pumpido said he would not support an investigation against the officials -- including former United States Attorney General Alberto Gonzales.
Prosecutors said any such investigation ought to be conducted in the US, not Spain. They also questioned the idea of bringing charges against lawyers and presidential advisers who neither carried out the alleged torture themselves, nor were ultimately responsible for ordering it.
The prosecutors wrote that going after lawyers who wrote non-binding recommendations for the president and his senior staff, rather than targeting higher-ranking officials who authorised the alleged torture, "raises important problems from a legal standpoint".
It also questioned the appropriateness of a case that would effectively put on trial "all of the policies of the past US administration [as reproachable as they may be]," saying such an endeavour would go beyond the scope of the Spanish legal system.
KukriKhan
04-21-2009, 13:43
Prosecutors said any such investigation ought to be conducted in the US, not Spain.
I agree.
Seamus Fermanagh
04-21-2009, 14:20
Note: Welcome back Swoosh So, I don't believe we've heard your voice here in some time.
Furunculus
04-21-2009, 15:48
JFYI:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/5192090/Dick-Cheney-calls-for-release-of-CIA-waterboarding-success-memos.html
JFYI:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/5192090/Dick-Cheney-calls-for-release-of-CIA-waterboarding-success-memos.html
This is an excellent development. Get it all out there. One of the last-ditch defenses of the torture apologists is that it works in a way no other technique can. If that's true, let's hear about it. If, as I suspect, it's yet another false excuse for an inexcusable practice, let's hear about it. Lay it all out, and let the American people decide for themselves.
For instance, by every reliable account, Abu Zubidayah gave up everything of worth before he was tortured. And yet he was waterboarded 83 times in a single month, yielding nothing new. If that isn't psychotic behavior, I don't know what is. Also, imagine what it must have been like to be the CIA operative strapping him down, knowing full well the man was insane, and that he was babbling useless intel in an attempt to stop the pain. I would imagine that the men who did the waterboarding are pretty messed up at this point as well.
Swoosh So
04-21-2009, 16:54
I just cant agree with torture no matter the circumstance, If your country tortures you have no moral ground for objecting to treatment of your own soldiers when they are captured. I know that "terrorists" chop off heads and stuff of civilians when they capture them but thats them and not us, if america and the west cannot be an example to others then who can and where is it all headed...
An interesting video (http://cosmos.bcst.yahoo.com/up/player/popup/?rn=3906861&cl=13075969&ch=4226716&src=news) I think is worth posting. If he is right, maybe some of these documents will be declassified. I think it will shed light on the argument about whether torture works or not (and if you look at the East Roman use of torture, the answer that yes, it does). That is totally seperate from whether the knowledge gained justifies torturing people, that is up to you do decide (I already stated my opinion on it). I just think it is dumb when all these people say torture does not work. If you look at history, it does work. Not 100%, not all the time, but it works and generally yields good results. This does not affect the moral argument at all, but I just think it is worth knowing.
JFYI:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/5192090/Dick-Cheney-calls-for-release-of-CIA-waterboarding-success-memos.html
An interesting snippet, for me at least:
One memo said waterboarding had been used a total of 266 times on two of the three al Qaeda suspects. So the total number of suspects waterboarded is still 3?
Apparently so, (http://articles.latimes.com/2008/feb/06/nation/na-terror6) unless Hayden lied before the senate. Considering that he wasn't in charge of the CIA until after waterboarding had stopped, I don't know why he'd perjure himself over it.
Here's an article from Time, that I also thought was interesting: How Waterboarding Got Out of Control (http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/20090420/us_time/08599189270800)
I'm still confused by the frequency that's been reported- in KSM's case, 183 times in one month? That would work out to six sessions a day. First of all, it flies in the face of earlier reports (http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2007/09/cia-bans-water-.html)...."KSM lasted the longest under waterboarding, about a minute and a half, but once he broke, it never had to be used again," said a former CIA official familiar with KSM's case.But those were anonymous sources, so we can set them aside for now. Even still 183 sessions in one month would mean that he averaged 6 sessions a day, every day of the month. That doesn't even sound possible. Maybe we'll get more clarification on those numbers later, since they're already out in the public. Perhaps it was 183 applications of water? That would make more sense considering multiple applications would occur per session- but it's still far more usage than was outlined in the guildelines from the OLC.
That would work out to six sessions a day. First of all, it flies in the face of earlier reports (http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2007/09/cia-bans-water-.html).... "KSM lasted the longest under waterboarding, about a minute and a half, but once he broke, it never had to be used again," said a former CIA official familiar with KSM's case.
This, too, is predictable. "We never did it. Okay, we did it, but it wasn't torture. Okay, maybe it was torture, but we did it really briefly, so don't get upset. Okay, maybe we did it hundreds of times, but it was worth it."
Honestly, I think there are only two questions left:
Was it as efficient as the torture apologists claim in yielding useful, confirmable intel? We all know torture is the best tool available for breaking a man. What stands untested and unproved is whether it yields better results than traditional interrogation in terms of actionable intelligence.
Will anyone above the rank of Sergeant ever be held accountable?
This, too, is predictable. "We never did it. Okay, we did it, but it wasn't torture. Okay, maybe it was torture, but we did it really briefly, so don't get upset. Okay, maybe we did it hundreds of times, but it was worth it."
Honestly, I think there are only two questions left:
Was it as efficient as the torture apologists claim in yielding useful, confirmable intel? We all know torture is the best tool available for breaking a man. What stands unconfirmed is whether it yields better results than traditional interrogation.
Will anyone above the rank of Sergeant ever be held accountable?
1) The funny thing about human beings is once they become exposed to an idea or practice, however impractical or far fetched, that can illicit spectacular results they will pursue it relentlessly in the hopes of achieving those fleeting results rather than opting for more sensible or unorthodox strategies that require hard work, patience or creative thinking. For proof of this behavior see gambling, lotteries, pyramid & ponzi schemes, utopias, etc.
2) So long as the trail of red tape leading down the rabbit hole doesn't go too deep and involve too many elected officials, past or present (Republican or Democrat), then sure, some more sacrificial lambs are to be expected.
An interesting video (http://cosmos.bcst.yahoo.com/up/player/popup/?rn=3906861&cl=13075969&ch=4226716&src=news) I think is worth posting.
Side-note: It seems that the Vice President is once again factually incorrect (http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/torture/source-despite-claim-cheney-didnt-really-ask-cia-to-release-torture-intelligence/).
Did Dick Cheney really “formally” ask the CIA to release reams of intelligence allegedly showing that the torture program worked, as Cheney claimed last night on Fox News?
An intelligence source familiar with the situation says the answer is No.
“The agency has received no request from the former Vice President to release this information,” the source told me a few moments ago. [...]
According to the source, there are several ways this could happen: Cheney could lodge a Freedom of Information Request (which is hard to imagine a former Veep doing); he could contact CIA officials; or he could submit the request via the White House. Cheney said he’d made the request to the CIA.
The source, however, tells me that the CIA didn’t get any such request from Cheney. So barring the unlikely possibility that Cheney submitted his request to the Obama White House, it seems fair to assume for now that the only target of this request was the Fox News television audience.
Update: A Cheney spokesperson is refusing to say what he meant when he claimed to have made a “formal” request for this info.
Update: Okay, this whole thing has been at least partially clarified (http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/torture/happy-hour-open-thread-cheney-mystery-solved/):
That whole question of whether Dick Cheney asked the CIA to declassify and release intelligence supposedly proving that the torture worked? Turns out Cheney made the request through the National Archives, a spokesperson for the archives confirms.
That means that we may, in fact, see the documents that Cheney claims will demonstrate that the Bush torture program collected a whole bunch of useful intelligence, though it may take awhile.
National Archives spokesperson Susan Cooper confirms that Cheney did submit a request for unspecified documents on March 31st. Cooper said that the National Archives had asked the relevant agency — she wouldn’t say which one, but there’s little reason to doubt that it’s the CIA — for the relevant documents this morning.
Cooper confirmed that the docs Cheney asked for were in fact classified. Keep in mind we have no way of knowing what Cheney actually asked for or whether they really say what Cheney claims. It’s now up to the CIA to make the determination whether to declassify the docs Cheney wants. So this could get very, very interesting in various ways.
-edit-
An insider makes an important point (http://shadow.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2009/04/21/the_olc_torture_memos_thoughts_from_a_dissenter):
The focus on water-boarding misses the main point of the program.
Which is that it was a program. Unlike the image of using intense physical coercion as a quick, desperate expedient, the program developed "interrogation plans" to disorient, abuse, dehumanize, and torment individuals over time.
The plan employed the combined, cumulative use of many techniques of medically-monitored physical coercion. Before getting to water-boarding, the captive had already been stripped naked, shackled to ceiling chains keeping him standing so he cannot fall asleep for extended periods, hosed periodically with cold water, slapped around, jammed into boxes, etc. etc. Sleep deprivation is most important.
Furunculus
04-21-2009, 22:43
What stands untested and unproved is whether it yields better results than traditional interrogation in terms of actionable intelligence.
[/LIST]
what is torture, and what is a traditional interrogation?
is it tough questions?
is it tough questions while slamming your fist on the table?
is it tough questions whilst threatening to deport your mother?
is it tough questions from a woman who fondles you balls and tells you that your willy is pretty small
is it tough questions while slamming you against a wall?
is it tough questions after 48 hours of happy hardcore induced sleep deprivation?
is it tough questions while you are waterboarded?
is it tough questions after you have spent five hours in a tiny mesh cage whilst captors beat the cage with chains and dogs bark aggressively?
or is it bamboo shoots under the finger nails?
or being strapped to a rack?
or having electrodes attached to your balls?
or being beaten until you can't move?
what is torture?
what is torture, and what is a traditional interrogation?
Traditional interrogation, as perfected by the FBI and MI5 involves coopting the detainee, making him think that you are there with his best interests at heart, and then squeezing him dry. It's quite effective.
As for "what is torture," you have read the rest of the thread, right?
Furunculus
04-22-2009, 00:01
i've flicked thru it, and i've seen people complaining about the techniques which obama graciously admitted his nation has partaken in, and i've been left unconcerned by those revelations.
people like the rest of you guys that get your knickers in a twist over a little waterboarding are precisely the reason why i have no objection to beardy fellows with cemtex and flight plans getting a little rough treatment when caught.
Alexander the Pretty Good
04-22-2009, 00:02
nevermind
Furunculus
04-22-2009, 00:04
Which is that it was a program. Unlike the image of using intense physical coercion as a quick, desperate expedient, the program developed "interrogation plans" to disorient, abuse, dehumanize, and torment individuals over time.
The plan employed the combined, cumulative use of many techniques of medically-monitored physical coercion. Before getting to water-boarding, the captive had already been stripped naked, shackled to ceiling chains keeping him standing so he cannot fall asleep for extended periods, hosed periodically with cold water, slapped around, jammed into boxes, etc. etc. Sleep deprivation is most important.
good, someone put some thought into it, into how to conduct interrogation without it resorting to barbarism.
Furunculus
04-22-2009, 00:05
nevermind
what?
Tribesman
04-22-2009, 00:26
Well said Alexander:yes:
Alexander the Pretty Good
04-22-2009, 00:43
what?
I retracted something silly, and Tribesman compliments me. :laugh4:
Finally, a mainstream news source points out the blindingly obvious (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/22/us/politics/22detain.html?partner=rss&emc=rss), that the SERE techniques used on detainees were duplications of the torture techniques used by the North Koreans, Vietnamese and Chinese. About time.
According to several former top officials involved in the discussions seven years ago, they did not know that the military training program, called SERE, for Survival, Evasion, Resistance and Escape, had been created decades earlier to give American pilots and soldiers a sample of the torture methods used by Communists in the Korean War, methods that had wrung false confessions from Americans.
Even George J. Tenet, the C.I.A. director who insisted that the agency had thoroughly researched its proposal and pressed it on other officials, did not examine the history of the most shocking method, the near-drowning technique known as waterboarding.
The top officials he briefed did not learn that waterboarding had been prosecuted by the United States in war-crimes trials after World War II and was a well-documented favorite of despotic governments since the Spanish Inquisition; one waterboard used under Pol Pot was even on display at the genocide museum in Cambodia.
They did not know that some veteran trainers from the SERE program itself had warned in internal memorandums that, morality aside, the methods were ineffective. Nor were most of the officials aware that the former military psychologist who played a central role in persuading C.I.A. officials to use the harsh methods had never conducted a real interrogation, or that the Justice Department lawyer most responsible for declaring the methods legal had idiosyncratic ideas that even the Bush Justice Department would later renounce.
The process was “a perfect storm of ignorance and enthusiasm,” a former C.I.A. official said.
Today, asked how it happened, Bush administration officials are finger-pointing. Some blame the C.I.A., while some former agency officials blame the Justice Department or the White House.
Philip D. Zelikow, who worked on interrogation issues as counselor to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice in 2005 and 2006, said the flawed decision-making badly served Mr. Bush and the country.
“Competent staff work could have quickly canvassed relevant history, insights from the best law enforcement and military interrogators, and lessons from the painful British and Israeli experience,” Mr. Zelikow said. “Especially in a time of great stress, walking into this minefield, the president was entitled to get the most thoughtful and searching analysis our government could muster.”
-edit-
The Senate Armed Services Committee just released its newly declassified report on the treatment of detainees in U.S. custody (http://armed-services.senate.gov/Publications/Detainee%20Report%20Final_April%2022%202009.pdf) (PDF warning). Haven't read it yet (and it's hundreds of pages, so I may never get around to it). An interesting tidbit:
On October 2, 2002, Lieutenant Colonel Morgan Banks, the senior Army SERE psychologist warned against using SERE training techniques during interrogations in an email to personnel at GTMO, writing that:
[T]he use of physical pressures brings with it a large number of potential negative side effects... When individuals are gradually exposed to increasing levels of discomfort, it is more common for them to resist harder... If individuals are put under enough discomfort, i.e. pain, they will eventually do whatever it takes to stop the pain. This will increase the amount of information they tell the interrogator, but it does not mean the information is accurate. In fact, it usually decreases the reliability of the information because the person will say whatever he believes will stop the pain... Bottom line: the likelihood that the use of physical pressures will increase the delivery of accurate information from a detainee is very low. The likelihood that the use of physical pressures will increase the level of resistance in a detainee is very high... (p. 53).
Furunculus
04-22-2009, 08:18
Finally, a mainstream news source points out the blindingly obvious (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/22/us/politics/22detain.html?partner=rss&emc=rss), that the SERE techniques used on detainees were duplications of the torture techniques used by the North Koreans, Vietnamese and Chinese. About time.
According to several former top officials involved in the discussions seven years ago, they did not know that the military training program, called SERE, for Survival, Evasion, Resistance and Escape, had been created decades earlier to give American pilots and soldiers a sample of the torture methods used by Communists in the Korean War, methods that had wrung false confessions from Americans.
Even George J. Tenet, the C.I.A. director who insisted that the agency had thoroughly researched its proposal and pressed it on other officials, did not examine the history of the most shocking method, the near-drowning technique known as waterboarding.
The top officials he briefed did not learn that waterboarding had been prosecuted by the United States in war-crimes trials after World War II and was a well-documented favorite of despotic governments since the Spanish Inquisition; one waterboard used under Pol Pot was even on display at the genocide museum in Cambodia.
They did not know that some veteran trainers from the SERE program itself had warned in internal memorandums that, morality aside, the methods were ineffective. Nor were most of the officials aware that the former military psychologist who played a central role in persuading C.I.A. officials to use the harsh methods had never conducted a real interrogation, or that the Justice Department lawyer most responsible for declaring the methods legal had idiosyncratic ideas that even the Bush Justice Department would later renounce.
The process was “a perfect storm of ignorance and enthusiasm,” a former C.I.A. official said.
Today, asked how it happened, Bush administration officials are finger-pointing. Some blame the C.I.A., while some former agency officials blame the Justice Department or the White House.
Philip D. Zelikow, who worked on interrogation issues as counselor to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice in 2005 and 2006, said the flawed decision-making badly served Mr. Bush and the country.
“Competent staff work could have quickly canvassed relevant history, insights from the best law enforcement and military interrogators, and lessons from the painful British and Israeli experience,” Mr. Zelikow said. “Especially in a time of great stress, walking into this minefield, the president was entitled to get the most thoughtful and searching analysis our government could muster.”
-edit-
The Senate Armed Services Committee just released its newly declassified report on the treatment of detainees in U.S. custody (http://armed-services.senate.gov/Publications/Detainee%20Report%20Final_April%2022%202009.pdf) (PDF warning). Haven't read it yet (and it's hundreds of pages, so I may never get around to it). An interesting tidbit:
On October 2, 2002, Lieutenant Colonel Morgan Banks, the senior Army SERE psychologist warned against using SERE training techniques during interrogations in an email to personnel at GTMO, writing that:
[T]he use of physical pressures brings with it a large number of potential negative side effects... When individuals are gradually exposed to increasing levels of discomfort, it is more common for them to resist harder... If individuals are put under enough discomfort, i.e. pain, they will eventually do whatever it takes to stop the pain. This will increase the amount of information they tell the interrogator, but it does not mean the information is accurate. In fact, it usually decreases the reliability of the information because the person will say whatever he believes will stop the pain... Bottom line: the likelihood that the use of physical pressures will increase the delivery of accurate information from a detainee is very low. The likelihood that the use of physical pressures will increase the level of resistance in a detainee is very high... (p. 53).
good read.
certainly gross incompetence involved if they are using ineffective interrogation techniques that were known to be ineffective. if that includes waterboarding so be it.
Tribesman
04-22-2009, 08:35
I retracted something silly, and Tribesman compliments me.
yes
Reason: Not worth it
Now more to the topic .
That pillock Cheney said he has seen evidence about how the illegal use of torture was good , leaving aside that this is the same prick who claimed he had seen the evidence that proved Saddam still had WMDs and was a good buddy with Al-qaida so isn't exactly reliable .
Is it time to publish all the evidence so people can see for themselves and that way less people will be willing to defend to indefensible , except of course the muppets who will try and defend it no matter what .
It really would be interesting to see how accurate and useful it was given this from Lemurs post....
Bottom line: the likelihood that the use of physical pressures will increase the delivery of accurate information from a detainee is very low.
I think Cheney is kind of cute. :embarassed:
KukriKhan
04-22-2009, 14:30
Now more to the topic .
That pillock Cheney said he has seen evidence about how the illegal use of torture was good , leaving aside that this is the same prick who claimed he had seen the evidence that proved Saddam still had WMDs and was a good buddy with Al-qaida so isn't exactly reliable .
Is it time to publish all the evidence so people can see for themselves and that way less people will be willing to defend to indefensible , except of course the muppets who will try and defend it no matter what .
It really would be interesting to see how accurate and useful it was given this from Lemurs post....
Good point. They (Bush, Cheney & Co) were always saying: "If you knew what we knew, you would make the same decision." Now Obama presumeably knows what they knew, and apparently thinks he would have decided differently. Otherwise, why release the memo's?
Looking ahead, I wonder: if charges are ever levied against any of the "deciders", what exact US law will they have alleged to have broken? Conspiracy to... ?
I can't tell if this guy's intent is to be a torture apologist or what. His logic: By prosecuting torture, you're prosecuting conservatism. Which means that torture = conservatism. I doubt any thoughtful conservatives would agree with him. Anyway (http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2009/04/023377.php):
Criminalizing Conservatism
Many liberals don't just want to defeat conservatives at the polls, they want to send them to jail. Toward that end, they have sometimes tried to criminalize what are essentially policy differences. President Obama hinted at another step in that direction when he said today that he is open to the idea of bringing criminal charges against the Justice Department lawyers who wrote opinions to the effect that waterboarding and other harsh interrogation methods could legally be used on al Qaeda detainees. Obama said the question was a complicated one, and the decision will ultimately be made by Attorney General Eric Holder.
The idea of prosecuting a lawyer because a wrote a legal analysis with which the current Attorney General disagrees is so outrageous that I can't believe it would be seriously considered. Still, President Obama and his party may achieve another objective by publicly making this kind of threat: deterring Republicans from serving in public life. For many Republicans considering whether to accept an appointment to government office, the prospect that they may be subjected to criminal prosecution if the next administration is Democratic could well tip the balance in favor of remaining in private life.
ONE MORE THING: Is Obama also "open to" criminal investigation and prosecution of the members of the House and Senate leadership and Intelligence committees who were repeatedly briefed on the interrogation tactics that were used by the CIA?
HoreTore
04-22-2009, 15:52
I want what he's smoking.
Assuming this is true, I'm guessing the interrogators are not going to get off easy either.
Harsh Tactics Readied Before Their Approval (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/21/AR2009042104055.html?hpid=topnews)
Intelligence and military officials under the Bush administration began preparing to conduct harsh interrogations long before they were granted legal approval to use such methods -- and weeks before the CIA captured its first high-ranking terrorism suspect, Senate investigators have concluded.
Previously secret memos and interviews show CIA and Pentagon officials exploring ways to break Taliban and al-Qaeda detainees in early 2002, up to eight months before Justice Department lawyers approved the use of waterboarding and nine other harsh methods, investigators found.
The findings are contained in a Senate Armed Services Committee report scheduled for release today that also documents multiple warnings -- from legal and trained interrogation experts -- that the techniques could backfire and might violate U.S. and international law.
ad_icon
One Army lieutenant colonel who reviewed the program warned in 2002 that coercion "usually decreases the reliability of the information because the person will say whatever he believes will stop the pain," according to the Senate report. A second official, briefed on plans to use aggressive techniques on detainees, was quoted the same year as asking: "Wouldn't that be illegal?"
...
The report also repeats, but does not confirm, long-held suspicions that the interrogation of Abu Zubaida became coercive before the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel issued a memo on Aug. 1, 2002, sanctioning the use of 10 escalating techniques, culminating in waterboarding.
The if the timing is correct, Abu Zubaida was tortured before the OLC memo covered the legal backside of the interrogators.
Cheney is right, the enhanced interrogation works. They extracted false confessions from prisoners, just like they are supposed to. ~;)
The reason for repeatedly torturing men who had already given up everything they knew? Apparently it was in hopes of establishing an Al Qaeda/Iraq link (http://www.mcclatchydc.com/227/story/66622.html). It is true that if you need men to confess to something that does not exist, torture is the best tool possible.
A former senior U.S. intelligence official familiar with the interrogation issue said that Cheney and former Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld demanded that the interrogators find evidence of al Qaida-Iraq collaboration.
"There were two reasons why these interrogations were so persistent, and why extreme methods were used," the former senior intelligence official said on condition of anonymity because of the issue's sensitivity.
"The main one is that everyone was worried about some kind of follow-up attack (after 9/11). But for most of 2002 and into 2003, Cheney and Rumsfeld, especially, were also demanding proof of the links between al Qaida and Iraq that (former Iraqi exile leader Ahmed) Chalabi and others had told them were there."
It was during this period that CIA interrogators waterboarded two alleged top al Qaida detainees repeatedly — Abu Zubaydah at least 83 times in August 2002 and Khalid Sheik Muhammed 183 times in March 2003 — according to a newly released Justice Department document.
Swoosh So
04-22-2009, 16:36
i've flicked thru it, and i've seen people complaining about the techniques which obama graciously admitted his nation has partaken in, and i've been left unconcerned by those revelations.
people like the rest of you guys that get your knickers in a twist over a little waterboarding are precisely the reason why i have no objection to beardy fellows with cemtex and flight plans getting a little rough treatment when caught.
That makes no sense at all.
LittleGrizzly
04-22-2009, 20:07
people like the rest of you guys that get your knickers in a twist over a little waterboarding are precisely the reason why i have no objection to beardy fellows with cemtex and flight plans getting a little rough treatment when caught.
TBH i read this one of two ways...
I support rough treatment (like waterboarding) because people get upset about it... which doesn't make to much sense unless your someone who argues for the sake of winding other people up...
or
I support rough treatment (stuff worse than waterboarding) because people get upset about waterboarding... can take this one of two ways... either your a really big wind up merchant... or you support harsher torture because everyone else supports none at all.. thus to make up for everyone else's moderation you make yourself far more extreme...
I think you were right that it would be terrible to live in a society that approves of torture, guess i should just be more thankful other britons put more thought into the subject...
Well, it looks like KSM has gotten a sponsorship deal (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sj_6HZX9BmI) out of all this. :laugh4:
KukriKhan
04-23-2009, 02:43
Well, it looks like KSM has gotten a sponsorship deal (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sj_6HZX9BmI) out of all this. :laugh4:
I don' care who ya are....
tha's funny!!
-edit-
To the topic: I just want it to be a true statement of fact, like I thought it had been for decades: "We are American. We get tortured sometimes. But we don't torture. Ever. Because torture and individual liberty are incompatible."
I don't give a flying figleaf for the argument that such acts, perpetrated by MY agents, got valuable information quicker, or more actionably than standard interrogations. That's irrelevant to the strangling of the soul of my country that such brutality, performed in my name, wreaks upon us. When I take a life, sure: what does it do to the human I killed, or their family, or society or the world - but also, what did it do to me, the killer (or in this case, the torturer)?
And the folks who put forward the atrocities committed by the enemy (whomsoever today's is) as justification? I can only sadly stare in rheumy-eyed, slack-jawed disbelief at the lack of understanding for the principles that motivated the sacrifices made by our revolutionaries.
Alexander the Pretty Good
04-23-2009, 03:24
You mean the revolutionaries who tarred and feathered tax collectors?
KukriKhan
04-23-2009, 03:35
You mean the revolutionaries who tarred and feathered tax collectors?
Nope, the pencil-necked geeks who wrote words like: "Life, Liberty, and the Pusuit of....".
You know: the representatives of the revolutionaries who tarred and feathered tax collectors.
Alexander the Pretty Good
04-23-2009, 03:39
And it's citizens under arms torturing people, not our representatives.
KukriKhan
04-23-2009, 03:52
And it's citizens under arms torturing people, not our representatives.
Exactly. The rule of law (also known as: the expressed, written, will of the people), prevailing.
Thugs, monsters, and other ne'erdowell violators of that law being found and appropriately punished.
Devastatin Dave
04-23-2009, 03:58
The Red Cross's confidential torture report has been leaked, and the full version can be read here (http://www.nybooks.com/icrc-report.pdf) (PDF warning). This was never intended as a public document, but rather as a statement to the appropriate authorities in the U.S. government, a way of saying, "We know this much. Now you know what we know."
Needless to say, it is damning.
Uh-hu, I'm sure it was never meant to be leaked!!! Lemur, you are the Kieth Olberman of the backroom.
Lemur, you are the Kieth Olberman of the backroom.
You and Don C and Vladimir need to form a support group. By all means, when you're incapable of responding to the subject, just start making ad hominems. That'll teach me to be so crass and un-American as to disapprove of state-sponsored torture. (I need to add another bullet to my earlier 6-point torture denial script: 7. You're a librul tool of the Obamessiah, so everything you put forward is invalid, and I don't need to consider or read it.")
To move away from the personal flailings of patrons too busy or too threatened by primary evidence to read the content of the thread, a blogger sums up the legal and constitutional ramifications quite nicely:
The Western anathema on torture began as a way to ensure the survival of truth. And that is the root of the West's entire legal and constitutional system. Remove a secure way to discover the truth—or create a system that can manufacture it or render it indistinguishable from lies—and the entire system unravels. That's why in the West suspects are innocent before being found guilty; and that's why in the West even those captured in wartime have long been accorded protection from forced confessions. Because it creates a world where truth is always the last priority and power is always the first.
This is not a policy difference. It is a foundational element of Western civilization.
Strike For The South
04-23-2009, 04:26
I agree Kurki.
If we are forced to lower ourselves to torture, we become no better than the men who attacked us. America is a great experiment and sometimes experiments fail.
While I am a fan of realpolitik I do hold to some truths and one of them is getting away from this tribal show of power. Maybe it works for Mossad but not for us.
Every war America has fought in the 20th century has been sold to the public as us saving some poor souls under the thumb of some powerful despot as he tortured, maimed, and killed them. I'm not so naive as to believe this but I would like to be so naive as to believe that Americans treat there enemies the way we do our criminals. At least.
There is no honor in this.
Kadagar_AV
04-23-2009, 04:39
There are 3 reasons why the US treatment of their prisoners is wrong.
A) The information you get from torture is worth very little.
B) What you do to others, others do to you. You have just set the standards for what it is ok to do to US militarymen caught in combat.
C) It's just plain wrong and barbaric. When I did my military time they drilled us HARD about what we could and could not to do POWs. I'm sad the US doesnt live up to the standard set by themselves.
Maybe it works for Mossad but not for us.
Actually, waterboarding was ruled illegal for Mossad. A long time ago. Organizations that have deemed waterboarding to be acceptable "enhanced interrogation": North Korea, the Khmer Rouge, the Schutzstaffel, the Gestapo, Imperial Japan and (probably the originators of the technique) the Inquisition.
Here's a description of how Torquemada rolled (http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/02/08/6928):
The patient was placed on an escalera or potro - a kind of trestle, with sharp-edged rungs across it like a ladder. It slanted so that the head was lower than the feet and, at the lower end was a depression in which the head sank, while an iron band around the forehead or throat kept it immovable. A bostezo, or iron prong, distended the mouth, a toca, or strip of linen, was thrust down the throat to conduct water trickling slowly from a jarra or jar, holding usually a little more than a quart. The patient gasped and felt he was suffocating, and at intervals, the toca was withdrawn and he was adjured to tell the truth. The severity of the infliction was measured by the number of jars consumed, sometimes reaching to six or eight.
I suppose the torture apologists will have some rationalization as to why this was unacceptable for the Inquisition, but perfectly legitimate for an Imperial Presidency. Frankly, I find the never-ending parade of excuses more pathetic (in the classic sense of πάθος) than irritating.
I say lay it all out, and let justice do what must be done. From what I've been reading, there are some Dems who managed to get briefed on this program; Nancy Pelosi, Bob Graham, John Rockefeller and Jane Harman were all "read in" as they say, and they raised no objections. Damn them for the weak, ugly little creatures they are.
It suits some Org patrons to turn this into yet another left/right food fight. This diminishes the subject, removes any need to think critically and generally serves the purpose of turning a fundamental question about our Republic into a cable news shouting head match. Again, pathetic in the classical sense.
The President does not swear on a Bible to keep the children safe. He does not swear that he will kill all evil-doers before they can harm us. He swears to protect the Constitution. We are supposed to be a country of laws, not men. The plain truth is that the executive branch usurped the place of Congress (which has the exclusive right to determine the treatment of "captures," according to our founding document), ignored our domestic laws, ignored several treaties to which we are signatory, and hared off on a blatantly illegal torture fest.
If President 44 says we mustn't look back, the hell with him. If Dick Cheney thinks protecting lives is more important than protecting everything that makes America America, the hell with him. The hell with all of them.
-edit-
It's truly heartening to see that at least one talking head on Fox News still has a moral compass (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aEtFMj6ZiHM) (warning, F-bomb).
Banquo's Ghost
04-23-2009, 07:44
Marvellous, dignified and eloquent post Lemur.
I cannot post my part in this thread, as I feel such repugnance for some views expressed here, I would be unable to maintain the necessary balance I am charged with. But thank you for your spirited and concisely argued defence of what is right.
:bow:
Alexander the Pretty Good
04-23-2009, 08:02
Wow, I'm starting to really like Shephard Smith.
Reading this thread, the only word that springs to mind is 'naivete'. People seem to have a very sanitized view of things.
The president swears to uphold the Constitution, not to make us safe, right? Pick any crisis or disaster in our nation's history. In the Civil War, Lincoln's administration suspended habeas corpus, jailed critical journalists, and instituted a scorched earth policy through southern states designed to terrorize the civilian population. Rebel POWs were denied food and used as human shields. Where were the charges against policy makers in his administration?
How about World War 2? Our leaders executed enemy spies (I'm sure they didn't use enhanced interrogation first though) and imprisoned US citizens because of their race. There were widespread reports of Allied soldiers massacring enemy POWs. Do we even need to get into the Bombing of Dresden? Any members of the administration brought up on charges?
Do we still remember the Cold War? We may never know all the covert actions taken during those decades. We do know that enemy spies were 'disappeared' to CIA black sites and we know that our government engaged in assassinations. But this is America! We don't torture! :rolleyes:
As Gore famously advised Clinton when debating extraordinary renditions "Of course it's a violation of international law, that's why it's a covert action. The guy is a terrorist. Go grab his ass." If Bush made a mistake, it was in letting matters get so out of hand that it's covert status was lost.
Obama's a much better PR manager, so I doubt he'll make those mistakes. He says he's going to close Gitmo- but has that stopped us from grabbing suspects from foreign countries and jailing them? Hell no, now we just send them to Bagram instead of Gitmo- it's much further from the eyes of those nosy civil libertarians. And last I heard, Obama still reserves the right to covertly authorize interrogation techniques beyond the army field manual- with luck, we'll never hear about it and everyone can have a clear conscience. ~:handball:
Show me any case where a subsequent administration investigated and jailed their predecessors for their policies. That's the stuff of banana republics. I remember after 9/11 hearing all the "experts" complain how the CIA and intelligence community was woefully unprepared to detect terrorist attacks. It had lost its ability to get its hands dirty and collect "human intelligence". Now we hear from our congressional leaders, feigning outrage, they they plan to start their own investigations into our intelligence agencies. I look forward to the 3 ring circus that will become. I know history is supposed to repeat itself, but so quickly?
Clearly, Obama is still hoping this will all go away. He's likely contemplating some of the same things that people want Bush to be tried for and I think he knows what kind of precedent this could set. Every time the party in charge changes, we'll see criminal investigations of the previous administration as angry supporters demand retribution. :sweatdrop:
Well anyhow, that's my perspective. I'm sure most will disagree.....
Seamus Fermanagh
04-23-2009, 12:15
There are 3 reasons why the US treatment of their prisoners is wrong.
A) The information you get from torture is worth very little.
As has been noted in discussions on this topic before, the only POSSIBLE excuse for such methods is a requirement for speed (the proverbial ticking bomb scenario). Any other use simply threatens to denigrate the very information you are trying to obtain. Unless torture is the end goal itself (having now read a bit about the frequency of the waterboardings etc., I begin to fear this may have been the case for some -- very disturbing).
B) What you do to others, others do to you. You have just set the standards for what it is ok to do to US militarymen caught in combat.
Since most of the SERE methods were taught to us the old fashioned way in nearly every conflict we've been involved in since the 2nd World War, I could argue that you've got the thing reversed, but Kukri handled this one best -- we should have been the ones strong enough to break the cycle.
C) It's just plain wrong and barbaric. When I did my military time they drilled us HARD about what we could and could not to do POWs. I'm sad the US doesnt live up to the standard set by themselves.
Agreed. R.G.H. Siu once noted that "cruelty is the tantrum of frustrated power." I am coming to believe that this frustration pushed us past limits we should not have gone.
Furunculus
04-23-2009, 13:00
people like the rest of you guys that get your knickers in a twist over a little waterboarding are precisely the reason why i have no objection to beardy fellows with cemtex and flight plans getting a little rough treatment when caught.
TBH i read this one of two ways...
I support rough treatment (like waterboarding) because people get upset about it... which doesn't make to much sense unless your someone who argues for the sake of winding other people up...
or
I support rough treatment (stuff worse than waterboarding) because people get upset about waterboarding... can take this one of two ways... either your a really big wind up merchant... or you support harsher torture because everyone else supports none at all.. thus to make up for everyone else's moderation you make yourself far more extreme...
I think you were right that it would be terrible to live in a society that approves of torture, guess i should just be more thankful other britons put more thought into the subject...
Government will ALWAYS have to do nasty things, and given the nature of Gov't they will do nasty things to the general populace unless the general populace consistently reacts with horror and revulsion when such activity occurs.
Therefore:
I agree with the UK's interventionist foreign policy and therefore recognise that the UK will accumulate many state & non-state enemies.
I support the secret use of effective interrogation techniques against enemies of the state, even if they are distasteful to me.
I recognise that many of the brutal torture techniques provide zero certainty for interrogation purposes, and are thus ineffective.
I realise that the general public will find it very difficult to distinguish between effective/distasteful & ineffective/brutal interrogation methods.
I accept that the general public do not always make rational choices about the public good which is why we elect governments to make those tough choices.
I encourage public uproar about distasteful & brutal interrogation techniques as the most effective ward against the incipient totalitarian state.
Is that clearer?
Reading this thread, the only word that springs to mind is 'naivete'. People seem to have a very sanitized view of things.
It doesn't bother you at all that torture was used to extract false information (essentially propaganda) from prisoners that could be used as justification to invade Iraq? That's what it's looking like, and funny enough, that's the whole point of the SERE techniques.
Alongside with the ginned up WMD evidence, the connection of Iraq to AQ was necessary to get the population and Congress behind the invasion. Hence causing the death of thousands of American troops, enriching Cheney's cronies, and draining the US treasury like rock stars in Vegas. Screw the morality of the acts of the interrogators and their enablers. This should piss off every American, except the most blind (or most guilty) of the Bush administration apologists.
Today one of Abu Zubaydah's FBI interrogators broke his silence (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/23/opinion/23soufan.html?_r=3&ref=opinion). Good for him.
One of the most striking parts of the memos is the false premises on which they are based. The first, dated August 2002, grants authorization to use harsh interrogation techniques on a high-ranking terrorist, Abu Zubaydah, on the grounds that previous methods hadn’t been working. The next three memos cite the successes of those methods as a justification for their continued use.
It is inaccurate, however, to say that Abu Zubaydah had been uncooperative. Along with another F.B.I. agent, and with several C.I.A. officers present, I questioned him from March to June 2002, before the harsh techniques were introduced later in August. Under traditional interrogation methods, he provided us with important actionable intelligence.
We discovered, for example, that Khalid Shaikh Mohammed was the mastermind of the 9/11 attacks. Abu Zubaydah also told us about Jose Padilla, the so-called dirty bomber. This experience fit what I had found throughout my counterterrorism career: traditional interrogation techniques are successful in identifying operatives, uncovering plots and saving lives.
There was no actionable intelligence gained from using enhanced interrogation techniques on Abu Zubaydah that wasn’t, or couldn’t have been, gained from regular tactics. In addition, I saw that using these alternative methods on other terrorists backfired on more than a few occasions — all of which are still classified. The short sightedness behind the use of these techniques ignored the unreliability of the methods, the nature of the threat, the mentality and modus operandi of the terrorists, and due process.
The entire essay is worth a read. Maybe the most heart-breaking part:
Fortunately for me, after I objected to the enhanced techniques, the message came through from Pat D’Amuro, an F.B.I. assistant director, that “we don’t do that,” and I was pulled out of the interrogations by the F.B.I. director, Robert Mueller (this was documented in the report released last year by the Justice Department’s inspector general).
My C.I.A. colleagues who balked at the techniques, on the other hand, were instructed to continue.
Seems that the Speaker of the House has woken up to what may lie in store for her: Pelosi denies being briefed (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/04/23/pelosi-bush-administratio_n_190661.html). I expect she's lying.
"In that or any other briefing...we were not, and I repeat, were not told that waterboarding or any of these other enhanced interrogation techniques were used," said Pelosi. "What they did tell us is that they had some legislative counsel...opinions that they could be used, but not that they would."
I'm still trying to make heads or tails of this bone headed decision. Did they not examine this from all the angles before committing to action? Clearly not. Do they think the public is so stupid that they could just let this loose into the wild and nobody would demand to see the cage where it was kept? Obviously. Clearly the Obama administration has overlooked the fact that the sheeple have gone back to the pasture and the only voters paying attention nowadays are those with IQs over 85.
The administration probably thought that releasing all this info would win them major political points by putting them on the moral high ground, thus helping them push their agenda while improving their standing with the public. Anything to make them look good while exposing GW Bush & the Republicans as the sum of all evils. It would have been a great success story were it not for the sticky and inconvenient fact that it's also bringing to light evidence that many members of Congress who happen to have a (D) after their name instead of an (R) were accessories to the crimes thanks to the numerous (30+) Congressional briefings that took place during the previous administration. I mean, how can you cast stones at the sinners when your own people were complicit in the sin to begin with? Sacrificing a bunch of low ranking personnel who wrote some incriminating documents that allowed other low level helpers to torture some fundies when everyone knows the rabbit hole runs much deeper and splits off into a dizzying array of tunnels is only going to make people angrier when those formerly and currently in power are above recrimination.
Honestly now, this move had the potential to be huge during an election year where they could play it up to the sheeple in speeches, rallies and whatnot. This could certainly have played a part (however small) in hurting Republicans during the 2010 elections.
The Obama administration has put itself in a Catch-22 situation. In their bid to appear to be righteous and virtuous they have put their colleagues at serious political risk. There is simply too much paperwork and too many loose lips within our intelligent agencies that will allow the Democrats to control the release and dissemination of this information so that it works perfectly to their political advantage. At some point Obama is going to have to drop the issue altogether and let it sink into red tape lest he turn his 'love affair' with Congressional Democrats into a quietly antagonistic relationship. If the Obama administration does drop the issue it will make our POTUS look like the same hypocritical waffler who days after being sworn in promised no lobbyists in his admininstration... except for a few notorious ones who slipped in before the proclamation. This accumulated dirt is piling up and will work against the Democrats in 2010.
The Democrats in Congress have to be thinking to themselves, "What the hell is Obama doing?" Diane Feinstein seems particularly flustered by this move. It's becoming painfully apparent that the only thing our President is good at is running for office... even after he's been elected. :inquisitive:
If I recall Bush was taken to task for preferring checkers over chess, I formally proclaim that checkers is the game of choice for this entire generation of leaders. Short sighted, unimaginative ninnies. Someone PLEASE purchase a few thousand copies of Machiavelli's The Prince and mail them to Washingon because it's positively embarassing when the people you expect to be consumate, coniving crooks keep getting caught with their hands in the cookie jar.
On the other hand I LOVE watching these egomaniacs fumble and bumble about in the aftermath of a spectacular screwup.
seireikhaan
04-23-2009, 23:43
Spino- I know I'm being farfetched when I say this, but maybe, just maaaaaybe... just maybe Obama had it put out because he thought it was genuinely an important matter to be released, regardless of whether both parties get caught in the crossfire? I know I'm asking a great deal from a politician, but maybe you are allowing your cynicism to blinker your view.
EDIT: So, Xiahou, I take it then that you don't really mind anything we do in war time so long as its to "win"?
I know I'm asking a great deal from a politician, but maybe you are allowing your realism cynicism to blinker your view.
Corrected.
Possibly, but politics is no place for idealists, let alone blind ones. And again, given what we've seen from the Obama admininstration so far their righteousness and moral certitude seems to be seriously lacking. If calling and selling a horrendously unpopular, bloated, pork laden bill a 'Stimulus package' that will promise to create (what number did Gibbs say?) 3 million jobs doesn't smack of disingenuine nonsense I don't know what does.
Seriously, this is the same man who decried the illegality of the Iraq war and promised to pull the troops out in six months... who has now committed to the same lengthy scale down plan as the Bush administration. The same President who probably set a record for putting forth appointees rife with tax 'issues' and/or who are currently under investigation. What's worse is this is the same man who voted for the wiretapping bill so where are his real priorities? Which matter is more important for a President, to preserve the rights of American citizens or those of foreigners who have already violated international law?
See the thing is no matter how idealistic Obama may be he did lie down with many of these Congressional dogs on the campaign trail in order to achieve the Democratic nomination and eventually get elected POTUS. Obama still has his own legislative agenda to push and if he continues to shine the spotlight of truth and righteousness uncomfortably close to the folks in Congress who are critical to the success of said agenda he's going to find himself an unofficial pariah within his own party.
It would be sweet if Pelosi would get caught up in all this, if not legally then politically. She needs to go as Speaker, either through party action or by the appalled fire-breathing liberals in California's 8th come primary time.
If this does go forward, we need a independent investigator/prosecutor, letting Congress do it would be pointless, too many rear ends would get covered. We need to know the "what did you know and when did you know it" from everyone. If the leadership of both parties gets implicated, so be it. Spring cleaning time.
On the memo release and the aftermath, Justice is P.O.ed at Rahm for his "no prosecutions for the interrogators" comment. That is not the chief of staff's call, he's stepping on Justice's turf. ~D I agree with Spino, politically this has been a huge misstep by Obama and he opened a huge can of worms, but it is possible that he has morals, so :shrug:.
For what it's worth, drone, the Prez seems to agree with you (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0409/21654.html).
At a White House meeting Thursday, President Obama told Congressional leaders that he thinks it would be a mistake to set up a commission to investigate excesses of the Bush administration’s war on terror. [...] Sources said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) expressed her support for a “truth commission,” but her comments came near the end of the 90-minute session, after Obama had already thrown cold water on the idea. At another point in the meeting, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid expressed support for Obama’s position that a broad-ranging inquiry would be an unhelpful distraction.
My take: Pelosi wants an investigation in Congress so that she can manager her own exposure, since she's probably guilty as hell.
My take: Pelosi wants an investigation in Congress so that she can manager her own exposure, since she's probably guilty as hell.
:yes:
For all the complaining they did during the Bush years (especially the last 2), the Dems in Congress let it happen, either through inaction, cowardice, or complicity. They just hid behind the helpless victim role and reaped the political benefit. You could tell Pelosi was waist deep in it when she said impeachment was out of the question. Too many skeletons.
I am amazed by the unintentional irony of the torture apologists. Today, James Taranto (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Taranto), a man who publicly and unreservedly backed a President who claimed an Imperial Right to suspend habeas corpus, sidestep the Geneva Convention, ignore the Convention Against Torture, obliterate domestic law, and establish the right to seize any citizen (U.S. or otherwise) and torture them in black sites indefinitely without bringing charges ever ... well, guess what this neo-authoritarian thinks of the idea that some of the architects of the torture program might be prosecuted someday? Guess, go ahead, guess (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124049999930548271.html).
What Obama is offhandedly contemplating, then, amounts to a step toward authoritarian government
I am truly at the road's end of irony. I'm ironied out. The fact that the people who supported authoritarianism most strongly are now those who scream "Fascism!" the loudest ... gah.
Rasmussen (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics2/58_say_release_of_cia_memos_endangers_national_security) has an interesting poll on the subject:
Only 28% of U.S. voters think the Obama administration should do any further investigating of how the Bush administration treated terrorism suspects.
Fifty-eight percent (58%) are opposed. Democrats are evenly divided over whether further investigation is necessary. Seventy-seven percent (77%) of Republicans and 62% of voters not affiliated with either major party are against more investigating. I guess I'm in the majority for once....
Only if you read the numbers with extreme prejudice (http://www.gallup.com/poll/114580/No-Mandate-Criminal-Probes-Bush-Administration.aspx).
https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v489/Lemurmania/gtbxaznk8uow19pb_uyrjq.gif
As you can see, Americans differ on the method, only 34% believe nothing should be done. So sez my poll. I'd certainly like to see broader polling on the issue. Where's CA?
-edit-
An exhaustive round-up (http://www.pubrecord.org/torture/861-ex-cia-official-said-agency-brass-lied-to-congress-about-interrogations.html) of public and semi-public facts about who in Congress knew what, and when. "Murky" is the word that springs to mind. Several congresscritters complain that they were briefed, but not "fully." Hrm. Well of course they weren't briefed fully, who is? The outstanding question is what were they briefed, and what was their response, and did they skip any opportunity to raise objections?
Your poll is almost three months old and doesn't take recent events into consideration- the poll I cited was released Thursday. Make of it what you will. :shrug:
CountArach
04-25-2009, 14:56
My name is called and my polling (Dare I say...?) expertise is requested... I shall not delay...
The only recent poll regarding the specific action of release of the CIA torture memos was that one conducted by Rasmussen. I do, however, have a serious concern with the question asked in the poll:
Does the release of CIA memos on interrogation techniques help the image of the United States abroad or does it endanger the national security of the United States?
The question is bound to get misleading results because you aren't required to pick a side on whether or not it endangers national security - the only other option is that it helps your image abroad. This would, to some degree at least, account for the high level of undecideds in the poll. Torture, as I shall show, is a very contentious issue and one on which there are generally few undecideds. As such any poll with this many undecideds should be treated with a healthy degree of scepticism.
As for general polling on torture, not much has been released outside of questions relating to Guantanamo Bay. The most recent polls are:
Pew Research (April 23rd) (http://people-press.org/report/510/public-remains-divided-over-use-of-torture) - 49% support/47% oppose (4% undecided)
Gallup (February 12th) (http://www.gallup.com/poll/114580/No-Mandate-Criminal-Probes-Bush-Administration.aspx) - 62% support some investigation into use of Torture (Ignoring the fairly strong partisan divide here you get 59% of Independents supporting these investigations). Interestingly it has been said that this will be re-poll (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/04/24/gallup-to-release-poll-on_n_190817.html) over the weekend... hold on for that one.
Gallup (February 2nd) (http://www.gallup.com/poll/114091/Americans-Approve-Obama-Actions-Date.aspx) - 74% of people approve of Obama's limitting of interrogation techniques.
WaPo/ABC News Poll (January 16th) (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/documents/postpoll011709.html) - 40% support torture/58% oppose (2% undecided).
I can't find any others at the moment, but I'm fairly sure that's enough to be going on with. As can be seen the public is fairly evenly divided on this particular issue. Pew is always trustworthy and non-partisan so I would go with their numbers over any of the other organisations.
Your poll is almost three months old and doesn't take recent events into consideration- the poll I cited was released Thursday. Make of it what you will.
When it comes to opinions on specific political questions such as this the public is often quite static in their viewpoints (compare the results of the recent Pew surveys... they are al within the Margin of Error). Actions such as this are likely to release a small degree of "noise" into the polling, and it remains to be seen whether that will hold or not - my guess is that it will not cause any major public opinion shifts in the long-run. This is simply because there are so few undecideds out there to shift and it is always incredibly difficult to cause long-term shifts in the other side's numbers... just look at polling on abortion for example.
KukriKhan
04-25-2009, 15:51
Does the release of CIA memos on interrogation techniques help the image of the United States abroad or does it endanger the national security of the United States?
Yeah, that's an incredibly tough choice for poll-voters. But, it does capture the two "sides" spirit of intent, I think:
I suspect the memo-releasers simply hoped to engender more trust in the "new, improved USA" from overseas, while reaping some unanticipated push-back domestically (that they wish would just go away),
while that push-back, led by Cheney, wants to cite an "ends justify the means" nat'l security justification, with a side-order of "Hey, it ain't torture if he's still breathing, right?".
This results in a duelling Admins fight, which Xiahou, rightly I think, deplores as "banana republic-ish", and unproductive. That fight obscures the issue: do we (the US) or do we not, torture?
No, sez I. Ever. And when a loose-cannon who does torture is found, he, and anyone in charge of him who either authorized it or allowed it, gets sanctioned.
I'm no psychic, but it feels to me like ex-VP Cheney is out front to take the hit for GW, Condi, Rummy, Gonzo, et al. I expect to see him on TV in the next 10-14 days, pointing his finger at himself, saying: "Yeah I authorized that stuff - I had good reason. See these documents. You wanna charge me with a crime? Bring it on. At your, and your successors' peril." Then, if pursued, a lot of congresscritters current and past, are gonna be awfully embarrassed.
CountArach
04-25-2009, 16:03
nevermind...
Hot out of my Inbox - a new Rasmussen Poll (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/58_oppose_further_investigation_of_u_s_torture_allegations):That's the same poll.
Something to contemplate while we examine polling over torture's popularity (http://www.nationalinterest.org/Article.aspx?id=21354):
As a senior interrogator in Iraq, I conducted more than three hundred interrogations and monitored more than one thousand. I heard numerous foreign fighters state that the reason they came to Iraq to fight was because of the torture and abuse at Abu Ghraib and Guantánamo Bay. Our policy of torture and abuse is Al-Qaeda’s number one recruiting tool. These same insurgents have killed hundreds, if not thousands, of our troops in Iraq, not to mention Iraqi civilians. Torture and abuse are counterproductive in the long term and, ultimately, cost us more lives than they save.
Remind me, again, which position is "naive." 'Cause it sure looks as though the people who think "24" is reality are the ones who won't face cold reality.
-edit-
More missives (http://www.mcclatchydc.com/227/story/66895.html) from the reality-based community that will need to be dodged, spun or ignored:
The CIA inspector general in 2004 found that there was no conclusive proof that waterboarding or other harsh interrogation techniques helped the Bush administration thwart any "specific imminent attacks," according to recently declassified Justice Department memos.
CountArach
04-26-2009, 00:45
That's the same poll.
That's what I get for writing at 1am...
Kadagar_AV
04-26-2009, 02:43
OK!
I might be a total :daisy:... But when I did my army-time the limits of what was torture and not was all clear:
* You have no other obligation than to state your name and personal number (in case of militarys, also rank).
Anything else will be handled by your lawyer...
Is this unclear in any way?
Any action from the opposing side to force you to give up any information apart from that is torture.
That is the Genevé's take on it anyway...
Only exception is VERBAL interrogation.
However, interrogation after 72h of sleeplessness (spelling?) still falls under "torture".
Can someone PLEASE inform me why the US is an exception from these rules?
Tribesman
04-26-2009, 02:52
Can someone PLEASE inform me why the US is an exception from these rules?
Because George didn't go to Geneva for no stinking commie liberal atheist treaty telling him what he can and cannot do .
Oh and God told him torture was OK
Bob Baer being interviewed about the t-word. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ad-VQJ8qvgg)
Also, a much more detailed article (http://www.newsweek.com/id/195089) about Abu Zubaydah's FBI interrogator. Enjoy.
"I've kept my mouth shut about all this for seven years," Soufan says. But now, with the declassification of Justice memos and the public assertions by Cheney and others that "enhanced" techniques worked, Soufan feels compelled to speak out. "I was in the middle of this, and it's not true that these [aggressive] techniques were effective," he says. "We were able to get the information about Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in a couple of days. We didn't have to do any of this [torture]. We could have done this the right way."
Soufan's assertion was buttressed by Philip Zelikow, the former executive director of the 9/11 Commission, who last week called Soufan "one of the most impressive intelligence agents—from any agency" that the panel encountered. After joining the Bush administration in 2005, Zelikow argued against the enhanced-interrogation techniques. He wrote a memo questioning the legal justification for the methods—advice he says the White House ordered destroyed.
Here's the text of the treaty that Ronald Reagan signed (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1079/is_n2137_v88/ai_6742034/). See how it jibes with the defenses mounted by the torture apologists:
Article 1.
1. For the purposes of this Convention, torture means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.
2. This article is without prejudice to any international instrument or national legislation which does or may contain provisions of wider application.
Article 2.
1. Each State Party shall take effective legislative, administrative, judicial or other measures to prevent acts of torture in any territory under its jurisdiction.
2. No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat or war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture.
3. An order from a superior officer or a public authority may not be invoked as a justification of torture.
And here's what Saint Reagan had to say in his signing statement:
The United States participated actively and effectively in the negotiation of the Convention. It marks a significant step in the development during this century of international measures against torture and other inhuman treatment or punishment. Ratification of the Convention by the United States will clearly express United States opposition to torture, an abhorrent practice unfortunately still prevalent in the world today.
The core provisions of the Convention establish a regime for international cooperation in the criminal prosecution of torturers relying on so-called 'universal jurisdiction.' Each State Party is required either to prosecute torturers who are found in its territory or to extradite them to other countries for prosecution.
Kadagar_AV
04-27-2009, 04:20
- “The United States is committed to the worldwide elimination of torture and we are leading this fight by example.” President Bush on UN Torture Victims Recognition Day 26 June 2003
Yeah, great example...
- Saddam's rape rooms and torture chambers and children's prisons are closed forever. His mass graves will claim no victims.
18 October 2003, to the Philippine Congress
Well, the torture chambers WERE closed for a week or so, we all know what happened after that.
- “Freedom from torture is an inalienable human right and we are committed to building a world where human rights are respected and protected by the rule of law ? Many have been detained, arrested, thrown in prison and subjected to torture by regimes that fail to understand that their habits of control will not serve them well in the long term.” Statement by President Bush released by the White House on June 26, 2005
"protected by the rule of law"? Is teh law he talks about the patriot act, or what?
- "We do not torture." President Bush to reporters during a visit to Panama in November 2005
And the pope doesnt wear a funny hat...
- “The bill Congress sent me would take away one of the most valuable tools in the war on terror — the CIA program to detain and question key terrorist leaders and operatives.” President Bush on his veto of a bill that would have outlawed waterboarding in March 2008
Ok, so torture is OK if it's against ENEMIES, now I get it.
- “I'm aware our national security team met on this issue. And I approved ... I told the country we did that. And I also told them it was legal. We had legal opinions that enabled us to do it.” President Bush in an interview with ABC about interrogation tactics used on detainees in April 2008
Back in the more civilized world it's not legal, no.
:thumbsdown:
Incongruous
04-27-2009, 06:47
Government will ALWAYS have to do nasty things, and given the nature of Gov't they will do nasty things to the general populace unless the general populace consistently reacts with horror and revulsion when such activity occurs.
Therefore:
I agree with the UK's interventionist foreign policy and therefore recognise that the UK will accumulate many state & non-state enemies.
I support the secret use of effective interrogation techniques against enemies of the state, even if they are distasteful to me.
I recognise that many of the brutal torture techniques provide zero certainty for interrogation purposes, and are thus ineffective.
I realise that the general public will find it very difficult to distinguish between effective/distasteful & ineffective/brutal interrogation methods.
I accept that the general public do not always make rational choices about the public good which is why we elect governments to make those tough choices.
I encourage public uproar about distasteful & brutal interrogation techniques as the most effective ward against the incipient totalitarian state.
Is that clearer?
No, we do not elect government in order that they may evict fellow subjects from their homelands, we do not elect governments to declare war without concensus, we do not elect governments to abuse the use of Royal perogative to stifle High Court rulings. We do not believe in the government taking blatant liberties with its powers under the pretext of "we know better". You're not a commie are you?
"interventionist policy"...
Oh you mean that stuff about invading countries for the sake of securing oil pipelines which our current group of Chums, the Taliban, can no longer do? Right.
Because our current adventure in the desert has gone sooo well!
The money that has been spent on Iraq could have been spent on the people who actually pay taxes, you know, some of those poor people who don't have much, who live off the crap which is frozen food and multiple jobs.
The only people who support the war in Asia are those whom don't struggle with the black holes which are Public schools and council estates.
Furunculus
04-27-2009, 08:30
Article 1.
1. For the purposes of this Convention, torture means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.
2. This article is without prejudice to any international instrument or national legislation which does or may contain provisions of wider application.
Article 2.
1. Each State Party shall take effective legislative, administrative, judicial or other measures to prevent acts of torture in any territory under its jurisdiction.
2. No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat or war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture.
3. An order from a superior officer or a public authority may not be invoked as a justification of torture.
sounds like an effing stupid thing to sign, for if taken literally then you cannot forcefully interrogate anyone via forced means.
Furunculus
04-27-2009, 08:31
No, we do not elect government in order that they may evict fellow subjects from their homelands, we do not elect governments to declare war without concensus, we do not elect governments to abuse the use of Royal perogative to stifle High Court rulings. We do not believe in the government taking blatant liberties with its powers under the pretext of "we know better". You're not a commie are you?
"interventionist policy"...
Oh you mean that stuff about invading countries for the sake of securing oil pipelines which our current group of Chums, the Taliban, can no longer do? Right.
Because our current adventure in the desert has gone sooo well!
The money that has been spent on Iraq could have been spent on the people who actually pay taxes, you know, some of those poor people who don't have much, who live off the crap which is frozen food and multiple jobs.
The only people who support the war in Asia are those whom don't struggle with the black holes which are Public schools and council estates.
that's lovely, and i disagree btw, but it has nothing to do with this discussion.
Incongruous
04-27-2009, 08:38
sounds like an effing stupid thing to sign, for if taken literally then you cannot forcefully interrogate anyone via forced means
No it says that any form of interrogatiopn which causes "severe" pain is illegal, now if your idea of a confession is a scrawled signature on a pre-written admission of guilt after a few doses of simulated drowning, then I despair for the ability of the West to deal with real terrorists.
that's lovely, and i disagree btw, but it has nothing to do with this discussion.
Notice it was rather relavent to what you posted earlier? A post which gave your reasons for your agreeing with governments doing nasty things.
Tribesman
04-27-2009, 11:21
sounds like an effing stupid thing to sign, for if taken literally then you cannot forcefully interrogate anyone via forced means.
bloody hell , I really thought even the stupidest human could grasp the basics .
So Furunculus what is it about the word torture that don't you understand ?
Kadagar_AV
04-27-2009, 12:59
sounds like an effing stupid thing to sign, for if taken literally then you cannot forcefully interrogate anyone via forced means.
Congratulations! You get an A for reading comprehension!
Torture is to "forcefully interrogate anyone via forced means" - indeed. You know, if you struggle with a word it can often help to try and "sound it out".
Furunculus
04-27-2009, 13:31
No it says that any form of interrogatiopn which causes "severe" pain is illegal, now if your idea of a confession is a scrawled signature on a pre-written admission of guilt after a few doses of simulated drowning, then I despair for the ability of the West to deal with real terrorists.
Notice it was rather relavent to what you posted earlier? A post which gave your reasons for your agreeing with governments doing nasty things.
as i said earlier:
1. I am in favour of effective interrogation techniques
2. I am willing to accept distasteful techniques for use against enemies of the state
3. I recognise that brutal techniques are both ineffective and uncertain, and therefore useless.
A rather astute post (http://www.samefacts.com/archives/_/2009/04/what_if_torture_is_necessary_but_illegal_learning_from_lincoln.php):
The outstanding precedent here is Lincoln's suspension of habeas corpus along the New York-Washington train route in the spring of 1861. State volunteers had to get to Washington to defend the capital come hell or high water, and Lincoln wasn't about to let legal questions get in the way. It's still not clear whether the President can unilaterally suspend the writ in the absence of Congressional action, although my reading of Hamdan and Boumedienne suggests that he cannot.
But it was the way in which Lincoln acted that can really serve as a precedent here.
1) Take Reponsibility. Josh Marshall has been writing about this (http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2009/04/torture_and_cowardice_pt2.php) recently as well. Lincoln didn't pretend that some flunkies had taken these steps; he didn't say that he wasn't really suspending habeas corpus, only authorizing "expedited detention processes." He did it, and took responsibility for it. Does Dick Cheney really think these things are necessary? Then he should have the basic courage to admit that he did them and advocate for a change in the law. I'm not holding my breath.
2) Go Public. This is obviously related to #1. The Bush Administration's policies were particularly insidious because no one knew they were happening; there could be no public debate about the issue. Lincoln, by contrast, issued a proclamation. And no, it's no excuse to say that there couldn't be a public debate about this. As with #1, make an argument that we should withdraw from the international conventions against torture that Ronald Reagan advocated.
3) Get Backing From Congress. After issuing his order, Lincoln called Congress back into a special session to validate his move. But Congress didn't have to do so. Unlike Bush, Lincoln wasn't a royalist: he didn't think that the President could do anything he wants if he thinks it's important. Bush and Cheney, on the other hand, did their best to hide from Congress everything that they were doing.
4) Limit the Scope in Both Time and Space. What is so amazing about Lincoln's action is how limited it was: in the middle of the Civil War, it only applied to one particular rail line. Two years later, he violated this principle by attempting to suspend the writ all over the country, which historians have looked on quite rightfully as illegal and wrong. In the Bush Administration by contrast, Cheney and Rumsfeld authorized these techniques seemingly for anyone and everyone; they told interrogators to do what they needed to do whenever. Moreover, because Lincoln called Congress back into session, it was clear that his action was temporary; by contrast, Bush and Cheney used the excuse of a war that would never have a clear end to make it indefinite.
Seamus Fermanagh
04-29-2009, 05:22
Nice find, Lemur. There's a good lesson in there -- and one that I think the Bush administration clearly botched regardless of whether you think the SERE efforts were justified or not.
Incongruous
04-29-2009, 08:21
as i said earlier:
1. I am in favour of effective interrogation techniques
2. I am willing to accept distasteful techniques for use against enemies of the state
3. I recognise that brutal techniques are both ineffective and uncertain, and therefore useless.
Then why are you agaisnt this?
Article 1.
1. For the purposes of this Convention, torture means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.
2. This article is without prejudice to any international instrument or national legislation which does or may contain provisions of wider application.
Article 2.
1. Each State Party shall take effective legislative, administrative, judicial or other measures to prevent acts of torture in any territory under its jurisdiction.
2. No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat or war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture.
3. An order from a superior officer or a public authority may not be invoked as a justification of torture.
Now I am in agreement about your statements onw and three, but I disagree entirely with number two, enemies of the state is firstly ambiguous and obscure terminology and distasteful sounds like a fancy word for innefective technoques of interrogation, aka, torture.
Furunculus
04-29-2009, 14:44
Then why are you agaisnt this?
Now I am in agreement about your statements onw and three, but I disagree entirely with number two, enemies of the state is firstly ambiguous and obscure terminology and distasteful sounds like a fancy word for innefective technoques of interrogation, aka, torture.
would telling a suspect that without co-operation his leukemia suffering daughter would be deported back to peshwar constitute severe mental harm?
that is but one example of a great many that could be effective in a given situation AND could also cause severe mental harm.
enemy of the state is a very clear legal term, the fact that our government has applied it badly in the past is our fault for tolerating it, not a problem with lack of clarity itself.
in all of this I am referring to what measures i am happy for britain to engage in, because we are basically a civilised country that i trust to act responsibly.
Incongruous
04-30-2009, 00:58
would telling a suspect that without co-operation his leukemia suffering daughter would be deported back to peshwar constitute severe mental harm?
that is but one example of a great many that could be effective in a given situation AND could also cause severe mental harm.
enemy of the state is a very clear legal term, the fact that our government has applied it badly in the past is our fault for tolerating it, not a problem with lack of clarity itself.
in all of this I am referring to what measures i am happy for britain to engage in, because we are basically a civilised country that i trust to act responsibly.
Enemy of the state may be clear about a government can then do to said person, but as to whom that might be, I do not trust my government on that, niether should you.
You trust the U.K to act responsibly? Oh dear, I feel that we are devided by cynicism...
Telling a man that you will deport his daughter is wrong ona few levels, firstly it will cause him serious ental harm, secondly he may not know anything and even if he does causing a possible case of mental collapse is wrong and could ruin any chance of getting avlid information out of him. Thirdly, if he is innocent, you would have just destroyed his trust in the government and the state, you may have just created an enemy of the state.
Furunculus
04-30-2009, 08:34
Enemy of the state may be clear about a government can then do to said person, but as to whom that might be, I do not trust my government on that, niether should you.
You trust the U.K to act responsibly? Oh dear, I feel that we are devided by cynicism...
Telling a man that you will deport his daughter is wrong ona few levels, firstly it will cause him serious ental harm, secondly he may not know anything and even if he does causing a possible case of mental collapse is wrong and could ruin any chance of getting avlid information out of him. Thirdly, if he is innocent, you would have just destroyed his trust in the government and the state, you may have just created an enemy of the state.
But I do.
When I look around at the recent history of neighbouring nations, lets take the last 250 years as a starting point, I find it far easier to trust Britain than any other country.
I don't care. If the man is an enemy of the state, and if that particular method will prove effective on him, then use it. Trained interrogators are trained to effectively interrogate, and yet you know better that the example I used above will never work and should never be used. Right!
Is it distateful; yes.
Is it effective; on some yes, on others no.
Is it torture; probably.
Do i care; if it is effective against an enemy of the state then no i don't.
Kadagar_AV
04-30-2009, 17:03
How can you be sure it is an enemy of the state?
Furunculus
04-30-2009, 17:10
its called judgment, adults are expected to exercise it in the course of their lives.
those with real talent, good sense, extensive experience and the correct qualifications tend to get paid very well in order to exercise that judgment on behalf of their employer.
needless to say, those who don't have the shining parts listed above tend to get paid very little for menial jobs.
Tribesman
04-30-2009, 17:14
needless to say, those who don't have the shining parts listed above tend to get paid very little for menial jobs.
Cheney and Bush were clearly as thick as pig**** , yet they got paid well didn't they and showed a complete lack of judgement.
Alexander the Pretty Good
04-30-2009, 17:53
One of those naive pansies in a US military interrogation unit thinks torture doesn't work. (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/torture-it-probably-killed-more-americans-than-911-1674396.html)
Major Alexander says he faced the "ticking time bomb" every day in Iraq because "we held people who knew about future suicide bombings". Leaving aside the moral arguments, he says torture simply does not work. "It hardens their resolve. They shut up." He points out that the FBI uses normal methods of interrogation to build up trust even when they are investigating a kidnapping and time is of the essence. He would do the same, he says, "even if my mother was on a bus" with a hypothetical ticking bomb on board. It is quite untrue to imagine that torture is the fastest way of obtaining information, he says.
Icing on the cake? His unit got an associate of Zarqawi to spill the beans on his whereabouts, leading to his death.
A rather astute post (http://www.samefacts.com/archives/_/2009/04/what_if_torture_is_necessary_but_illegal_learning_from_lincoln.php):
The outstanding precedent here is Lincoln's suspension of habeas corpus along the New York-Washington train route in the spring of 1861. State volunteers had to get to Washington to defend the capital come hell or high water, and Lincoln wasn't about to let legal questions get in the way. It's still not clear whether the President can unilaterally suspend the writ in the absence of Congressional action, although my reading of Hamdan and Boumedienne suggests that he cannot.
But it was the way in which Lincoln acted that can really serve as a precedent here.
1) Take Reponsibility. Josh Marshall has been writing about this (http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2009/04/torture_and_cowardice_pt2.php) recently as well. Lincoln didn't pretend that some flunkies had taken these steps; he didn't say that he wasn't really suspending habeas corpus, only authorizing "expedited detention processes." He did it, and took responsibility for it. Does Dick Cheney really think these things are necessary? Then he should have the basic courage to admit that he did them and advocate for a change in the law. I'm not holding my breath.
2) Go Public. This is obviously related to #1. The Bush Administration's policies were particularly insidious because no one knew they were happening; there could be no public debate about the issue. Lincoln, by contrast, issued a proclamation. And no, it's no excuse to say that there couldn't be a public debate about this. As with #1, make an argument that we should withdraw from the international conventions against torture that Ronald Reagan advocated.
3) Get Backing From Congress. After issuing his order, Lincoln called Congress back into a special session to validate his move. But Congress didn't have to do so. Unlike Bush, Lincoln wasn't a royalist: he didn't think that the President could do anything he wants if he thinks it's important. Bush and Cheney, on the other hand, did their best to hide from Congress everything that they were doing.
4) Limit the Scope in Both Time and Space. What is so amazing about Lincoln's action is how limited it was: in the middle of the Civil War, it only applied to one particular rail line. Two years later, he violated this principle by attempting to suspend the writ all over the country, which historians have looked on quite rightfully as illegal and wrong. In the Bush Administration by contrast, Cheney and Rumsfeld authorized these techniques seemingly for anyone and everyone; they told interrogators to do what they needed to do whenever. Moreover, because Lincoln called Congress back into session, it was clear that his action was temporary; by contrast, Bush and Cheney used the excuse of a war that would never have a clear end to make it indefinite.
So... the moral of the story is it's cool to break the law so long as you appear honorable while doing it?!? :inquisitive:
So waterboarding guerillas overwhelmingly of foreign extraction (Padilla being a citizen, his atty charged he was tortured) in order to deal with a foreign threat is unacceptable (SCOTUS only reached a decision on the matter of habeus corpus for Guantanamo Detainees last July) but suspending habeus corpus for all citizens without a proper Congressional vote or a ruling by the SCOTUS for the entirety of a conflict is cool? Clearly the recent SCOTUS ruling changes the rules of the game but at the time these interrogations took place we were in a weird gray area which we had ventured into many a time throughout our history.
So... the author of this article would have been more comfortable with the Bush administration if they legally sought to suspend habeus corpus in Congress, thus risking a SCOTUS decision, as opposed to simply ignoring the Geneva Convention with regards to the treatment of non-combatants captured while engaging in activity that blatantly violated the tenets of said convention?!? :inquisitive:
And these detainees were tortured not simply to provide a spurious link between AQ and Iraq (i'll grant that was part of it), there was genuine intent to discern the names and locations of all Al Qaeda's operatives, training bases and plans.
Speaking as to 1), Lincoln took responsibility for his actions. Great. How this makes him any less guilty of breaking the country's laws is beyond my limited grasp of post-war generation logic (or lack thereof). Lincoln also exerted far greater control over the government than Bush at the time and would have easily been spared legal recrimination... unless of course he lost the war (there's something to consider, eh?). Lincoln also authorized the arrest of judges, shut down anti-war newspapers and approved the violation of most agreed upon terms of war at the time by allowing Grant and Sherman to wage total war on the South in order to secure victory. Clearly illegal actions born out of desperation trumps legality or legal precedence if you're a sucessful and long dead president like Lincoln... but not if you're two incredibly unpopular men called GW Bush and Dick Cheney.
Speaking as to 2); this is a wild, unsubstantiated assertion because it's becoming painfully apparent that while the public was not in the know many members of Congress (from both parties) were in fact briefed on our torture techniques and findings but did nothing to stop it or bring it to the public's attention when it was happening. In fact I find it rather interesting that the whole torture angle came to the public's attention only after it became obvious that the occupation of Iraq was turning into a long, painful affair. Sounds to me like the sources of the torture leaks were hedging their political bets, much in the same way those Democrats who voted to invade Iraq (i.e. Biden) changed their tune a few years later. Make no mistake, Lincoln's suspension of habeus corpus and the means he used to fight the war were also very unpopular at the time. Chief Justice Taney and other high ranking judges resisted the suspension of habeus corpus and, depending on whether you believe the sources, Lincoln nearly had Taney arrested. However Lincoln did have other judges arrested for resisting.
http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/topics/Taney_Arrest_Warrant
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taney_Arrest_Warrant
Speaking as to 3), again he's only discussing the first time Lincoln suspended habeus corpus. And calling Congress into session after the fact (and a Congress solidly controlled by Lincoln's party) in order to have them vote on a bill only to have it rubber stamped by the president just smacks of shameful political showmanship does it not? One might even go so far as to calling it 'legally covering one's buttocks in the event something goes terribly wrong'...
Speaking as to 4) the author is pretty insistent that we only examine the first instance where Lincoln suspended habeus corpus and ignore the subsequent suspension so we can readily compare the former to the actions of the Bush administration thus making the latter look even worse (if that's possible). For fear of stating the obvious, very few Presidents, alive or dead, get compared favorably to Lincoln. Anyway the Civil war lasted the better part of 5 years and those subsequent Constitutional violations were in place for the majority of the time.
I don't mean to get this thread off track but here's the thing, I completely agree with Lincoln's 'end justify the means' approach to winning the war. Suspend habeus corpus, fine. Arrest judges, fine. Shut down anti-war newspapers, fine. My disgust with the Civil War is it hastened the destruction of the governmental framework the founding fathers created to prevent the federal government from turning into an overarching, abusive, centralized power. However, unlike the author of this article at least I possess a backbone that allows me to examine Lincoln's tyrannical excesses for what they were, necessary evils that were instrumental in winning the war. And no, I don't consider Lincoln to be a very honorable man, but such things are easily overlooked and redefined in the aftermath of victory. Time eventually forgives winners of all their sins.
The author's blatant attempt to disassociate his beloved sacred cow from the unsavory practices of the Bush administration has clouded his ability to think clearly.
What a dumb move by this author to drag Lincoln into his argument. What's next, some ninny referencing FDR, another sacred cow, so we can establish the 'honorable illegality' of the internment of Japanese-Americans (an action both authorized by Congress and well known by Americans at the time)? LOL!
Last but not least, please don't take my rant as a defense of GW Bush, simply an attack on this author's ridiculously shaky argument.
No responses to my froth laden response?!? :no:
It's safe to reply. No really, I've had all my shots...
Seriously now...
Grumbling from Deutschland over Obama's position on those naughty Guantanamo detainees. What shall we do with the little fundie buggers?
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,622682,00.html
05/04/2009 01:30 PMTHE WORLD FROM BERLIN
'Obama Discrediting Himself and the US'
Many had hoped that US President Barack Obama would undo all the damage done by his predecessor. Now, it looks like he might continue the Bush-era practice of trying terror suspects in military tribunals. German commentators are disappointed.
When US President Barack Obama entered office in January and promptly pledged to shut down the US prison at Guantanamo and suspended all further military tribunals of the kind used by his predecessor George W. Bush, human rights groups across the country and the world were relieved. Finally, they thought, America would cease locking away terror suspects without recourse to the justice system.
Not surprisingly, though, closing down Guantanamo has proven much easier said than done. Even those prisoners deemed not to be dangerous are creating headaches for Washington as the search continues for countries willing to take them. Domestically, opposition is large to an Obama administration plan to release a group of Chinese Uighur prisoners into the US.
Many of the 241 prisoners, however, cannot simply be released -- and recent reports in the US media indicate that Obama may be grabbing for a Bush-era tool that he appeared to have jettisoned: military commissions. According to the New York Times this weekend, the Obama administration has begun leaning towards trying some of the remaining inmates in such controversial tribunals.
Obama has never categorically rejected the military commissions as a means of dealing with Guantanamo prisoners, some of whom are accused of having been involved in the planning of the Sept. 11, 2001 terror attacks in the US. During the campaign, though, he did say that "by any measure, our system of trying detainees has been an enormous failure."
Any return to using such military commissions would be a major disappointment to human rights groups who were hoping that Obama's election signalled a new era in America's handling of terror suspects. As German editorials show on Monday, frustration across the Atlantic is equally high.
In an editorial entitled "Obama's Great Mistake," the center-left daily Süddeutsche Zeitung writes:
"Obama's people certainly imagined things differently. But reality has caught up with them. What should they do with people who … are in fact horrifying criminals but whose confessions came as a result of brutal interrogations? No regular court would accept the testimony. Should suspected masterminds of the 9/11 attacks and other terrible attacks be set free? That can't be the solution either. Obama is thus considering holding on to the military commissions with a couple of extra rights for the suspects. Bush light, so to speak."
"Obama is thus discrediting both himself and the US. It would be better were he to gather the necessary political courage to initiate criminal proceedings before regular courts. Legally, it will be incredibly complicated and possibly untenable in some cases. But the country cannot get around the purification process. Otherwise, the poison from the Bush era could continue to infect America's image for years to come."
The left-leaning daily Die Tageszeitung writes:
"The US government has asked Germany to accept former Guantanamo prisoners. Exactly the same government is apparently planning to continue the military commissions to try those prisoners. One could hardly be more contradictory."
"It is the same tactic that President Barack Obama has already used when it came to the torturers from the CIA -- punish with one hand, stroke with the other. Whenever he takes a step forward, he stumbles backwards as well. That will likely be enough to disappoint all those Europeans who had expectations that Obama would be an almost messiah-like healer. It was expected that he would demolish all of the ugly monuments from the Bush era and then, together with Al Gore, plant a Garden of Eden over the top, through which he would drive fuel-efficient compacts from Chrysler."
"And now: the US president is pursuing a policy of trying to make everyone happy. He is trying to accommodate the left side of the political spectrum as well as those on the right. All of a sudden, Barack Obama is beginning to look eerily similar to Chancellor Angela Merkel. He is no longer floating above the political lowlands, the swamps of compromise. He is walking directly through them and getting dirty in the process."
The Financial Times Deutschland comes to Obama's defense on Monday:
"Barack Obama promised Americans and the rest of the world he would follow a governmental strategy akin to pushing the reset button. The small red button US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton recently presented in Moscow works as a symbol for Obama's domestic reform agenda just as well as it does for his vision of US foreign and security policy: Bush is gone, in the future everything will be completely different."
"But even the Obama government thinks it is too dangerous to bring all (Guantanamo) cases before civilian courts and to get rid of the military commissions set up by the Bush administration. Bush called them into existence after Sept. 11, 2001 in order to imprison so-called 'enemy combatants' outside of the US legal system in Guantanamo, interrogate them and sentence them before special courts."
"Such a policy cannot be made to disappear with a reset button. Were those cases currently being looked into by military commissions to be transferred to civilian courts, a number of procedural riddles would have to be solved -- because some of the most important suspects in Guantanamo were tortured, their testimony and confessions would likely be thrown out. Any civilian trials would also be overshadowed by secrecy concerns."
"The risk that such a civilian trial would be used by mass murderers as a soap box, or even that they would be released for purely formal or procedural reasons, would be large. It is for these reasons that Obama wants to hold on to -- reformed -- military commissions. That will likely disappoint all those who expected him to embark on a radical change of course. But it speaks for his understanding of reality."
-- Charles Hawley, 12:45 p.m. CET
Alexander the Pretty Good
05-04-2009, 19:15
It was pretty good froth, man. I wouldn't necessarily agree that the actions Lincoln took were actually necessary (I don't actually know) but I agree that the author you sited is an intellectual girly-man.
No responses to my froth laden response?!? :no:
It's very, very frothy. So that you won't feel neglected, I'll address some of what you said.
So... the moral of the story is it's cool to break the law so long as you appear honorable while doing it?!? :inquisitive:
No. The moral of the story is that if you are going to break the law, it's better to publicly acknowledge what you're doing. If you have spent even a single day in a courtroom you will understand this principle. Coming clean is better than attempting to hide a crime.
So... the author of this article would have been more comfortable with the Bush administration if they legally sought to suspend habeus corpus in Congress, thus risking a SCOTUS decision, as opposed to simply ignoring the Geneva Convention with regards to the treatment of non-combatants captured while engaging in activity that blatantly violated the tenets of said convention?!?
I dare you to say that sentence three times fast. Bonus points if you can diagram it.
Once again, I don't see why you are confused. Taking ownership of an act is universally regarded as more honorable than hiding and/or lying about it. For someone who makes a lot of grumpy old man proclamations about how the current generation is honorless and corrupt and we're all going to hell any minute, I really don't see why you're having a cognitive disconnect about this concept.
Speaking as to 1), Lincoln took responsibility for his actions. Great. How this makes him any less guilty of breaking the country's laws is beyond my limited grasp of post-war generation logic (or lack thereof).
Re-phrasing the same idea three times doesn't make it any more true. Let's attack this from another angle:
I have kids. You're of age, you may as well. Let's say your kid is going to kill a dog. That's a given; you can't prevent it from happening. Would you rather your kid confessed to the deed and apologized, saying that it was necessary, or would you rather he hid the corpse and lied when you asked him about it? Does one course of action seem less repugnant than the other?
Taking responsibility for your actions is simple and fundamental to personal honor. Why are you arguing that it's irrelevant?
Speaking as to 2); this is a wild, unsubstantiated assertion because it's becoming painfully apparent that while the public was not in the know many members of Congress (from both parties) were in fact briefed on our torture techniques and findings but did nothing to stop it or bring it to the public's attention when it was happening.
What exactly congresscritters were told has not been made public, yet you proceed on the assumption that they knew enough to be implicated in the torture-fest. You may be right, you may be wrong; I'd like to see more evidence before jumping to conclusions. On the one hand, I don't doubt that congresscritters would lie like a rug if they thought they could get away with it; on the other hand, the Bush administration was justly famous for freezing out the other branches of government whenever possible, even when they held a Republican majority in congress. This could break either way. At the end of the day, I'd like to know more.
In fact I find it rather interesting that the whole torture angle came to the public's attention only after it became obvious that the occupation of Iraq was turning into a long, painful affair.
Operation Iraqi Freedom II was clearly going to be a long, painful affair within two months (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RY9l73Yo9Pw&feature=related) of the invasion in 2003. The waterboardings that we know about also happened in 2003. So you're saying that because the info about our SERE imitation program wasn't made available in the few weeks after we invaded Iraq, this stinks of political bet-hedging? That doesn't make much sense, Spino.
Speaking as to 3), again he's only discussing the first time Lincoln suspended habeus corpus. And calling Congress into session after the fact (and a Congress solidly controlled by Lincoln's party) in order to have them vote on a bill only to have it rubber stamped by the president just smacks of shameful political showmanship does it not? One might even go so far as to calling it 'legally covering one's buttocks in the event something goes terribly wrong'...
One might also call it "airing one's dirty business in a time of crisis and asking that the co-equal branches of government sign on or vote it down." Once again, you seem to be irritated at the notion of taking responsibility for an illegal and unpopular move. I look forward to hearing your clarification of this position.
Interestingly, I did some reading on the whole Abe v. habeas corpus thing, and couldn't find any consensus on how many times he did it. Different numbers and different dates from every source I looked at.
You are irritated that the author took the example of the first agreed-upon time Abe shredded the constitution, and again, I don't see why. It's perfectly legitimate to take an example of something done right and hold it up as an exemplar. The fact that it was later done wrongly does nothing to invalidate the argument. You seem to be arguing that unless Lincoln's entire career matches the example given, the argument is specious.
The author's blatant attempt to disassociate his beloved sacred cow from the unsavory practices of the Bush administration has clouded his ability to think clearly.
Spino, this is the sort of over-heated rhetoric that makes me want to walk away whistling. You don't know the author, and I seriously doubt that you've followed his writing. I know I haven't. You don't know what's a "sacred cow" to him any better than I do. He chose a specific example of an illegal decision made in time of crisis that he thought was well-handled. But you're off and running, accusing him of worshiping Lincoln and being blinded by his naive adulation. But the article doesn't show any such messianic leanings; you're bringing that to the party, not the article I quoted. And you seem to be projecting this worshipful blindness on the author in order to discredit the points he's making, and therein lies the irony.
You're the one making frothy, unsubstantiated accusations. And you're the one pretending that responsibility and honor are meaningless concepts. All to make a rhetorical point.
Well, I can't jump on you too hard for it; I've committed many such sins in my time. I try not to, but sometimes rhetoric gets hold of me, rather than me having hold of it.
Anyway, response made. I look forward to seeing the ball come back over the net.
Before I take a swing at Lemur's wicked googly I'd like to share this CNN poll which landed in my company inbox a short while ago. The results are eye opening...
CNN/OPINION RESEARCH CORPORATION POLL
FOR RELEASE: Wednesday, May 6 at noon
Interviews with 2,019 adult Americans conducted by telephone on April 23-26, 2009.
Most Americans don't want to see an investigation of Bush administration officials who authorized waterboarding and other harsh interrogation techniques used on suspected terrorists. Half of all Americans approve of the Bush administration's decision to use those techniques when questioning suspected terrorists -- even though six in ten believe that some of those procedures were a form of torture. (Roughly one in five Americans think those procedures were torture but approved of their use against suspected terrorists.) Only about four in ten think that there should be an investigation into the Bush officials who authorized the use of those procedures (and it doesn't seem to matter whether the investigation is carried out by Congress or by an independent panel). And only about a third want to see an investigation of the military personnel who actually used those procedures.
CNN/OPINION RESEARCH CORPORATION POLL
April 23-26
Bush Administration Decision to
Use Harsh Interrogation Procedures
On Suspected Terrorists
Favor 50%
Oppose 46%
Sampling error: +/-2% pts
QUESTION: As you may know, the Bush administration authorized the use of harsh interrogation procedures, including the procedure known as waterboarding, when the U.S. captured suspected terrorists. Based on what you have read or heard, do you approve or disapprove of the Bush administration's decision to use those procedures while questioning suspected terrorists?
CNN/OPINION RESEARCH CORPORATION POLL
April 23-26
Were Harsh Interrogation Procedures
A Form of Torture?
Yes 60%
No 36%
Sampling error: +/-2% pts
QUESTION: And regardless of whether you approve or disapprove of the use of those procedures, do you think any of those procedures were a form a torture, or don't you think so?
CNN/OPINION RESEARCH CORPORATION POLL
April 23-26
Should Congress Conduct an
Investigation of Bush Officials
Who Authorized Interrogation Procedures?
Yes 42%
No 57%
Sampling error: +/-3% pts
QUESTION: Do you think that Congress should or should not conduct an investigation of the Bush administration officials who authorized the use of those procedures?
CNN/OPINION RESEARCH CORPORATION POLL
April 23-26
Should Congress Conduct an
Investigation of Personnel
Who Used Interrogation Procedures?
Yes 34%
No 65%
Sampling error: +/-3% pts
QUESTION: Do you think that Congress should or should not conduct an investigation of the military and intelligence personnel who used those procedures after the Bush administration authorized their use?
CNN/OPINION RESEARCH CORPORATION POLL
April 23-26
Should Independent Panel Conduct an
Investigation of Bush Officials
Who Authorized Interrogation Procedures?
Yes 42%
No 55%
Sampling error: +/-3% pts
QUESTION: Do you think that an independent panel should or should not conduct an investigation of the Bush administration officials who authorized the use of those procedures?
CNN/OPINION RESEARCH CORPORATION POLL
April 23-26
Should Independent Panel Conduct an
Investigation of Personnel
Who Used Interrogation Procedures?
Yes 33%
No 64%
Sampling error: +/-3% pts
QUESTION: Do you think that an independent panel should or should not conduct an investigation of the military and intelligence personnel who used those procedures after the Bush administration authorized their use?
So while a wee bit more than half of all Americans approve of torture an indisputable majority do not wish to investigate the matter further. When we consider Obama's 7% advantage over McCain in the popular vote last November this entire issue is turning into a major political hot potato. Given the smaller percentage of Americans that actually define themselves as a Republican or Democrat it is fairly safe to say that moderate/independent voters who sided with Obama during the 2008 campaign are not in lockstep with the Democrat position on this matter, especially regarding the notion of investigating the matter further. The longer the Democrats hem and haw and wait to pursue legal action the more they risk being accused of pursuing these proceedings purely out of political gain... or revenge for Clinton's impeachment trial (anyone remember that bit of ancient and bitter partisan history?). Of course the Democrats could still find legitimate legal grounds to pursue those responsible in the Bush administration but they may find themselves assailed with protests and cries of 'drop it already' by moderate/independent voters looking for decisive leadership in matters more pertinent to the average citizen. Not a wise move given that the economy's precarious position may last well into the 2010 elections.
I'm damn curious to see a poll that deals with how Americans view torture/interrogation techniques from this point forward.
Get CountArch on the job. Polling is like crack to him.
CountArach
05-07-2009, 00:08
Given the smaller percentage of Americans that actually define themselves as a Republican or Democrat
Actually there are more Democrats than Independents (http://www.pollster.com/polls/us/party-id.php).
it is fairly safe to say that moderate/independent voters who sided with Obama during the 2008 campaign are not in lockstep with the Democrat position on this matter, especially regarding the notion of investigating the matter further.
Gallup conducted this poll (http://www.gallup.com/poll/118006/Slim-Majority-Wants-Bush-Era-Interrogations-Investigated.aspx) a couple of weeks ago and it shows the following:
https://i141.photobucket.com/albums/r44/CountArach/lkghppp6_ew5ifat8pbseg.gif
https://i141.photobucket.com/albums/r44/CountArach/poll2-1.jpg
That is a large gap in the second image amongst Independents, but far from decisive enough to say they are completely out of lockstep. Of course it is entirely possible that these numbers are slanted a bit too far to the anti-torture camp for the following reason (http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/04/explaining-torture-polling.html):
This is perhaps compounded by the fact that Gallup used the deliberately ambiguous phrase "harsh interrogation techniques" rather than "torture". An ABC-Washington Post poll, which did use the phrase "torture", did not show as significant a number of people who were inclined to think the interrogations were OK but nevertheless wanted an investigation into them.
I'm damn curious to see a poll that deals with how Americans view torture/interrogation techniques from this point forward.
I think its safe to say no investigations will go forward, but if they do then the preference appears to be that people want a Bi-Partisan commission or the Justice Department to do it - almost no one wants Congress:
https://i141.photobucket.com/albums/r44/CountArach/poll.jpg
Furunculus
05-07-2009, 00:21
This is perhaps compounded by the fact that Gallup used the deliberately ambiguous phrase "harsh interrogation techniques" rather than "torture". An ABC-Washington Post poll, which did use the phrase "torture", did not show as significant a number of people who were inclined to think the interrogations were OK but nevertheless wanted an investigation into them.
as i tried to point out above, this IS an ambiguous phrase for many reasonable reasons.
when people hear "torture" they think of pulling peoples finger nails out, electrocuting their genitals, etc, a barbaric action which is compounded by the fact that most people are aware that such methods are ineffective because the subjects will say anything, not something that advances the security of the US.
when people hear "harsh interrogation techniques" they think of methods designed to break the will to resist of suspects, and many are willing to see such methods used on the kind of people who are willing to commit terrorist 'spectaculars'.
when the intelligence services seriously believe that a suspect holds information that effects national security for imminent and devastating terrorist attacks then i am TOTALLY in favour of harsh interrogation techniques provided they are effective, EVEN if they are harsh, and EVEN if some sensitive soul sat in a human rights quango believe that it technically constitutes torture.
when the intelligence services seriously believe that a suspect holds information that effects national security for imminent and devastating terrorist attacks then i am TOTALLY in favour of harsh interrogation techniques provided they are effective, EVEN if they are harsh, and EVEN if some sensitive soul sat in a human rights quango believe that it technically constitutes torture.
This is the famous "ticking bomb" scenario, which shows up in each and every discussion of torture, but almost never when a suspected terrorist is interrogated.
Here's the deal: The ticking time bomb scenario does not require any alteration of the law. No jury would convict an interrogator who did what was necessary to stop an imminent attack.
On the other hand, if you want to make torture routine, then yes, the legal memos are necessary (although it sure looks as though they were written after the policy had already been decided).
And getting back to the "what is torture" shibboleth: Consider applying your loose standards to similar crimes. Rape, for example, leaves no permanent scars and does not involve any sort of lasting damage. Oh, sure, it's unpleasant, but do we want unpleasant things to be illegal when we're interrogating captives?
Following your own logic, we should rape all suspected terrorists as a matter of course.
Also, if you're going to do the standard "what is torture?" argument, see if you can answer any of the questions I posed here (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showpost.php?p=2205166&postcount=13).
-edit-
An extremely apt thought (http://www.tnr.com/story_print.html?id=db244f73-129d-444d-a090-2bf39c026d1d):
First, there's no such thing as a government policy of "torturing terrorists. " There's only a policy of torturing people the government thinks are terrorists. Many of the suspected terrorists at Guantanamo Bay, subjected to agonizing stress positions, turned out not to be terrorists--not because the soldiers who captured them were venal, but because they were human.
Second, torture is designed to force prisoners to provide an answer the interrogator already knows. The torturer relents when his subject provides the "correct" answer. Intelligence gathering, by contrast, is designed to garner answers the interrogator does not already know.
Finally, yes, we can imagine ticking-time-bomb situations where regular interrogation methods work too slowly and extreme measures might prove helpful. But this premise bears the same relationship to the question of legalizing torture as the morality of stealing a loaf of bread to feed your starving family does to the question of legalizing theft.
Congresscritter update: Pelosi knew (http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenote/2009/05/intelligence-re.html).
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi was briefed on the use of “enhanced interrogation techniques” on terrorist suspect Abu Zubaydah in September 2002, according to a report prepared by the Director of National Intelligence’s office and obtained by ABC News.
The report, submitted to the Senate Intelligence Committee and other Capitol Hill officials Wednesday, appears to contradict Pelosi’s statement last month that she was never told about the use of waterboarding or other special interrogation tactics. Instead, she has said, she was told only that the Bush administration had legal opinions that would have supported the use of such techniques.
The report details a Sept. 4, 2002 meeting between intelligence officials and Pelosi, then-House intelligence committee chairman Porter Goss, and two aides. At the time, Pelosi was the top Democrat on the House intelligence committee.
The meeting is described as a “Briefing on EITs including use of EITs on Abu Zubaydah, background on authorities, and a description of particular EITs that had been employed.”
EITs stand for “enhanced interrogation techniques,” a classification of special interrogation tactics that includes waterboarding.
Pelosi, D-Calif., sharply disputed suggestions last month that she had been told about waterboarding having taken place.
Tribesman
05-08-2009, 05:39
Keep piling it on Lemur , you might even get the more avid torture supporters actually thinking for a change . Though with the twisting and turning so far evidenced you may have a long road to travel to convince the real die hard numb nuts that support torture but don't support torture but support "torture" yet don't support "torture".
Tell you what though , to really screw the idiots over why not use reports from their own country and their own military to back up the case ?
So if for a theoretical example a person was posting from country X and had a sig that supported some fringe military fruitcakes from country X then perhaps a small or large sample of either the governments or militaties views on such practices would be relevant .
Now then can you think of a rather well known military administered prison starting with C in an island starting with S where such unjustifiable barbarity occured where the relevant military and governmental bodies would write lots ? plus of course all the other governments and militaries involved? Plus of course al the government and non governmental poeple that got involved ?
Then again when it comes to certain people who make an issue of their education why does Lt. Earnest Goodbody always come to mind?
Furunculus
05-08-2009, 08:50
everything is artful evasions, insinuations, and allusions to some greater truth with you tribesman, how about you show some balls and just call it as you see it, it would make a nice change
Furunculus, seconded. If you have something to say, Tribes, here's a novel thought: say it.
Congresscritter update: Pelosi knew (http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenote/2009/05/intelligence-re.html).
And it begins... :2thumbsup: She's been in full CYA mode ever since she became Speaker. This just highlights the need for an independent prosecutor, a congressional investigation would be a whitewash.
When is the Democratic primary for her seat? ~D
Ugh, file Pelosi Knew under "Maybe, If the CIA is Telling the Truth This Time." Apparently the CIA has not released any of their briefing documents (http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2009/05/07/cia-lying-to-abc-about-torture-again-abc-reporting-it-uncritically-again/), not even in redacted form, but rather a press-ready summary. And it's got problems; they didn't even get the list of attendees right.
Grrr. I suspect Pelosi is guilty as sin, but I'd like a little more transparency regarding congressional briefings. This field is too littered with people who have every reason to dissemble. Congresscritters will lie to pretend they didn't know about the torture program. The CIA will attempt to implicate as many high-ranking others as possible, spreading the blame.
It's like one of those Agatha Christie novels where every dinner guest had a great motive to kill the ship's captain. Only it's a lot less amusing.
-edit-
Senator Jay Rockefeller (D-VA) also implicated (http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/05/docs_show_rockefeller_was_briefed_in_2003_on_how_t.php#more). Independent commission is the only way to go; too many Dems in Congress want to shield themselves from the spanking they deserve.
And of course, as far as we can find, he hasn't denied that he was briefed on the fact that waterboarding was happening, as Pelosi essentially has. Indeed, the West Virginia senator, who this year moved over to chair the appropriations committee, has been relatively restrained in his comments about the torture debate.
Still, Rockefeller has, rightly, had harsh words for the Bushies who approved torture. CNN reported last month:
Sen. Jay Rockefeller said he agreed that CIA operatives shouldn't face prosecution, but is "not prepared to say the same for the senior Bush administration officials who authorized or directed these policies in the first place."
"The focus for right now should be on finding the facts," the West Virginia Democrat added.
But if nothing else, the documents -- which appear to show that Rockefeller had an early, detailed, look at what was being done -- suggest that the senator, like many of his colleagues, was hardly a profile in courage on the issue.
-edit-
Link to the doc (http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/briefings.pdf) released by the CIA (PDF warning). Not exactly what I was hoping for.
Glad to see you showing some objectivity Lemmy! :2thumbsup:
I seriously did not think that you would be posting that.
As anyone who knows me knows, I do not support torture...at all. I think that the government using torture is wrong. That said though, I think that the methods being described as torture here are not. Waterboarding is what all the fuss is about, so that is the one I intended to tackle (the caterpillar would have just been a waste of time :P).
Here is what I did. I am in Hungary studying now, without access to much, so I enlisted the help of a few friends. I do not have a bath tub in my apartment, so we went over to a friends place. Me, and the army buddy I am with both subjected ourselves to the same 'waterboarding' that was used on the terrorists. Here is what I can say: first of all, I do not want to do it again. :P It is not a pleasant experience at all. That said though, I do not think that I would classify it as torture. Torture is using pain to overwhelm a person's will. Waterboarding does not do that. It is like putting a gun at someone's head and forcing them to talk, only it is a drawn out process that let's them slip very close to the end and is much more likelely to make them talk. You do not feel pain, you simply feel that if you do not give in, you will die. (similar to putting a gun to someone's head) You freak out and panick, and give in after a while to escape death. That is threatening someone with death though, NOT torturing them. It is not mentaly pleasant, but what interrogation is? What warfare is? What terrorism is?
I'll admit that it is a horrible feeling, but on the bright side, I held out for 21 seconds the third time, which is one second over the average that people in the US military did. :beam: Honestly, it is little different than chicken breath or choke games in highschool and college. When I get home I will go down to my brother's place, enlist his help, and make a video of the Vuk getting waterboarded for you.
I tell you what, I would never voluntarily be branded, or have things stuck under my fingernails, or be kicked in the crotch, etc. Those things are torture, waterboardinglikelypanicmentallyhigh school isn't.
Tribesman
05-09-2009, 09:46
One slight problem there Vuk , using your definition of what is not torture you contradict your own government and military on what is torture .
For a simple example look no further than the USS Pueblo
One slight problem there Vuk , using your definition of what is not torture you contradict your own government and military on what is torture .
For a simple example look no further than the USS Pueblo
The Korea incident? My memory is foggy, perhaps you can provide me with some sources. (anything that is not from Pravda or the Huffington Post will be fine)
Tribesman
05-09-2009, 10:03
perhaps you can provide me with some sources.
Do you mean sources on the use of threats as mental torture by making people think they or others would die if they didn't say what the torturers wanted them to say?
Perhaps I could, but maybe I won't
Do you mean sources on the use of threats as mental torture by making people think they or others would die if they didn't say what the torturers wanted them to say?
Perhaps I could, but maybe I won't
So you are saying "I have proof that you are wrong Vuk, but I am keeping it secret."
If you want to prove something, then prove it. Anyone can say "I know that you are wrong, but I will not tell you why. Take my word for it though, you are". Unless you can tell me WHY, then I am not gonna believe you.
Tribesman
05-09-2009, 10:25
So you are saying "I have proof that you are wrong Vuk, but I am keeping it secret."
No I am saying look it up for yourself , see how many official and unofficial websites there are on the N. Koran torture of US servicemen you can find by just yping in the name of the ship .
Unless you can tell me WHY, then I am not gonna believe you.
Thats rather silly , it suggests a lack of an inquisitive mind and a real fear of learning
Vuk is saying waterboarding is not a form of torture and I call blantly absurd on that. If you think it's not torture you're ignorant to the facts:
Article 1
1. For the purposes of this Convention, the term "torture" means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.
http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/h_cat39.htm
Oh here is more facts. What? A texan police officer was sentenced by his state for water boarding because it is torture and thus a crime? Can't be!
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=15886834
Vuk is saying waterboarding is not a form of torture and I call blantly absurd on that. If you think it's not torture you're ignorant to the facts:
Article 1
1. For the purposes of this Convention, the term "torture" means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.
http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/h_cat39.htm
Oh here is more facts. What? A texan police officer was sentenced by his state for water boarding because it is torture and thus a crime? Can't be!
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=15886834
lol, it is NOT physical pain by any stress, nor is it severe mental pain. It is being faced with the knowledge that if you do not take action to stop it, you will die. That is what it is. It is similar to what you face as a soldier or a terrorist, stuff they signed up for. Pain isn't always and doesn't have to be part of being a soldier, but that mental stress is inherently part of it. (I would think it is the same with being a terrorist) That mental stress (and that is what it is, stress, not pain) is nothing but a realisation that you are helpless, similar to what recruits to the Marine Corps get. :P I don't care what the State of Texas classified as torture. And you have to remember, did the police officer use the same controlled methods that the CIA used? There are many different (and much more brutal as well as painful and even deadly) was to waterboard people. They are very different than what the CIA used though.
It is mental torture. Robert Baer stated that and he said that this form, nor anyother, does not work.
Have you even read the links I posted?
It is mental torture. Robert Baer stated that and he said that this form, nor anyother, does not work.
Have you even read the links I posted?
You are missing the point. I don't care if Robert Baer says that it is torture. Many people say it is, and many people say it isn't. I had it done to me personally, and I can tell you it isn't. I get back to the States at the end of the month and I will have to make a video for your guys to see.
Then a discussion with you is trivial and pointless. I can post you the definition of torture by the UN and/or the US and you will interprete it as non-torture. I can post links and prove and you will say: "No."
I will remain thinking that you are ignorant to the facts and your presumption is only based on empirical experience.
It is facts I want.
Then a discussion with you is trivial and pointless. I can post you the definition of torture by the UN and/or the US and you will interprete it as non-torture. I can post links and prove and you will say: "No."
I will remain thinking that you are ignorant to the facts and your presumption is only based on empirical experience.
It is facts I want.
And the fact is that the definition that YOU presented does NOT classify it as torture. You are trying to post someone's opinion as proof, and I said it was that opinion that did not matter to me.
1. For the purposes of this Convention, the term "torture" means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.
http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/h_cat39.htm
By the definition you gave and just by basic common sense, the waterboarding the Bush administration authorized is NOT torture.
Banquo's Ghost
05-09-2009, 13:11
Vuk, I strongly suggest that if you intend to play at torture for real, you stop right now.
Either you don't know what you're doing, or you stand a very real chance of injuring or killing someone.
Furthermore, posting a video of such personal abuse will immediately get you banned from this forum. There's a video of Peter Hitchens submitting to waterboarding if you wish to look it up and save yourself the trouble.
Vuk, I strongly suggest that if you intend to play at torture for real, you stop right now.
Either you don't know what you're doing, or you stand a very real chance of injuring or killing someone.
Furthermore, posting a video of such personal abuse will immediately get you banned from this forum. There's a video of Peter Hitchens submitting to waterboarding if you wish to look it up and save yourself the trouble.
I would be banned for showing a video of myself being waterboarded...for the express purpose of showing that it is NOT torture...? There are tons of videos of highschool students doing very similar things on dares like a bunch of idiots. The whole point I am making is it is the type of thing where you will only get hurt or die if you choose! It is not torture, it is just giving someone a choice with one real solution. Forcing someone to tell you something is not necassarily the same as torture, that is my point. And BG, three friends of mine from the army and I submitted ourselves to waterboarding (in a very controlled environment), and I know what it is like. I would not get killed, because I would tap myself out first. I am not stupid or desperate enough to let myself die, and neither were any of the detainees.
Banquo's Ghost
05-09-2009, 13:25
There is a very real risk of heart failure, choking and panic attack leading to spasm injury. You have no idea what you are doing, neither do these alleged military friends.
You can make your points about torture without putting yourself at this level of risk. I note that in another thread you have claimed to be on the big side, physically. This raises your risk level even higher.
Your choice of course, but you will not be allowed to post a record of such an attempt because we may be judged as facilitating your idiocy.
There is a very real risk of heart failure, choking and panic attack leading to spasm injury. You have no idea what you are doing, neither do these alleged military friends.
You can make your points about torture without putting yourself at this level of risk. I note that in another thread you have claimed to be on the big side, physically. This raises your risk level even higher.
Your choice of course, but you will not be allowed to post a record of such an attempt because we may be judged as facilitating your idiocy.
lol, I am on the larger side, and as of late, overweight as well (Sarmatian can attest to both of these, as he met me in person not too long ago). I realise the risks associated with it BG, your critism is not well founded. First of all, one of my buddies went through it before as part of his training. Second of all, I know enough to stay calm and not panic. As a matter of fact, the calmer you stay, the longer you last and the better it is. What causes people to break is their panic. I simply waiting till I was at the point where I believed damage could occur, and tapped out. As I said, it was very controlled. I will not post a video, so you will not be complicit in my suicide. :P
Incongruous
05-09-2009, 14:39
Oh look!
A boat!!!
http://www.usspueblo.org/v2f/incident/incidentframe.html
This one is a bit embarrasing really.
http://news.scotsman.com/riyadhbombings/UK-government-backs-Saudi-regime.2783986.jp
This one too.
http://www.dailykos.com/special/Torture_memos
Incongruous
05-09-2009, 14:46
stupid and uneeded post.
On December 12th, Hell Week began. The men and their bunks were crowded 12 to a room. Then the men of room 13 were taken to separate rooms for interrogation. "Why are you not sincere?", "Who is the CIA agent?", Who are the instigators?", "What did you do to make us lose face?" and "Who plotted the escape?" were some of the questions that were fired at the men. The North Koreans were truly serious this time as it was no holds barred. Men were beaten with fists, and kicked, hit with clubs and boards, on all parts of the body, and made to kneel down with poles behind the knees while guards jumped up and down on the ends of the poles. Then other suspected instigators and eventually, every crew member was interrogated and beaten during Hell Week. Then, abruptly it ended.
I see why you would not post a source Tribesy, because your whole argument was total bollox!
Do you not think there might be a slight difference between being waterboarded by your friends and being waterboarded by an interrogator who you suspect might not be too concerned if you accidentally died?
It's like arguing that tying someone up and inflicting pain on them is not torture because some couples do it to each other for fun. The actions may be similar, but the context is worlds apart. Suppose instead of making the victim think they are drowning, you put a loaded gun to their head and tell them you will kill them if they do not give you information. Don't you think it makes a difference to how likely you are to panic if you believe they will actually follow through on the threat?
It is facts I want.
Still remains unanswered, Vuk.
Do you not think there might be a slight difference between being waterboarded by your friends and being waterboarded by an interrogator who you suspect might not be too concerned if you accidentally died?
It's like arguing that tying someone up and inflicting pain on them is not torture because some couples do it to each other for fun. The actions may be similar, but the context is worlds apart. Suppose instead of making the victim think they are drowning, you put a loaded gun to their head and tell them you will kill them if they do not give you information. Don't you think it makes a difference to how likely you are to panic if you believe they will actually follow through on the threat?
Of course it would be much more alarming in real life, otherwise it would not work. At the same time though, if I did not tap out, I would have died, and I know that, same with them. It has to be extremely stressful, or else it will not work. Mental stress is not necessarily mental pain though, and certainly not physical pain, thus it is NOT torture. The argument that 'oh, you cannot put them under stressful conditions because that is not nice' is complete bollox! Sure, it is not nice, but it is not supposed to be. They are people whose main goal is to kill themselves and as many of us in the process, and information gathered from them could be very valuable. I do not (as previously stated) support torture for several reasons (including that they may not be guilty), but this is NOT torture, you are not causing them pain, and you are not injuring them. (unless it is misused, but the Bush administration did not ok the misuse of it) It is simply forcing them to confess without torturing them, and is actually quite ingenious. It is sure a heck of a lot more humane than a high school hazing!
@ Fixiwee: I already proved that it is not torture simply by applying your definition to it. If you wish to dispute that, you either have to explain how I applied it incorrectly, or declare your own definition invalid.
Incongruous
05-09-2009, 15:33
How could you construct the conditions and realities of an interrogation? Yelling, screaming, the stench, the hatred, the fear.
You cannot reacreate those conditions.
You are missing the point. I don't care if Robert Baer says that it is torture. Many people say it is, and many people say it isn't.
In much the same way that "many" people say the Earth is round, and "many" people say the Earth is flat. There's a discrepancy between the two groups.
So you played at torture with friends and now you're a stone-cold expert on the subject. Color me unsurprised. Perhaps next you can jump off the roof of your garage to become an expert on aviation?
In much the same way that "many" people say the Earth is round, and "many" people say the Earth is flat. There's a discrepancy between the two groups.
So you played at torture with friends and now you're a stone-cold expert on the subject. Color me unsurprised. Perhaps next you can jump off the roof of your garage to become an expert on aviation?
One is right and one is wrong Lemur, and both think they are right. Unlike in the earth case though, there are experts on both sides here. And no, I didn't say it made me an expert, or that it was a realistic recreation of the circumstances (something I have no desire to be put through). It does though let me understand what waterboarding is, and help me better classify it as torture or not. I was able to find out that it did NOT cause pain (which something has to to be torture), so it was a useful experiment. One of my army buddies who did it as well did it in the Army as part of his training. It is NOT torture Lem.
Of course it would be much more alarming in real life, otherwise it would not work. At the same time though, if I did not tap out, I would have died, and I know that, same with them.
Still, the fact remains that you were essentially in control of the situation. You could tap out as soon as you felt you couldn't take it anymore with no negative consequence other than loss of personal pride. Very different to being at the mercy of an interrogator who will keep going far past your comfort zone and will not stop until you break down and give him whatever he wants.
I also don't understand the distinction you draw between mental stress and mental suffering. What exactly is the difference, and how do you figure that making someone think they are about to die is not going to cause mental suffering?
Vuk, then by your definition rape, if done properly and with plenty of lube, is not torture. If we choose to sodomize each and every detainee, this is in compliance with the Convention Against Torture, correct?
Besides which, as several sources I've linked to point out, the focus on waterboarding is misleading. The torture enhanced interrogation program was a program, with a combination of degrading and degenerative techniques used to break a man. Multiple sources have said that sleep deprivation was the most important element, not waterboarding.
But you and Sean Hannity believe that waterboarding is as American as apple pie, which makes me wonder why we once prosecuted it as a war crime.
Here are the "experts" who believe that waterboarding is an acceptable interrogation technique: North Korea, China, the Schutstaffel, the Gestapo, the Khmer Rouge, the Spanish Inquisition and the KGB. And of course Fox News. Fast company you're keeping.
I seriously did not think that you would be posting that.
Why? Because you think everyone who disagrees with you is as narrowly partisan as you appear to be? I have said repeatedly that I don't much care who is implicated; let justice fall where it must. Nobody should take any pleasure in what has to happen, and no party should be safe. The torture program was an error of the first magnitude, and many people have already paid with their lives.
Tribesman
05-09-2009, 16:05
I see why you would not post a source Tribesy, because your whole argument was total bollox!
You demonstrate that you are unable to read and comprehend yet again:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
but this is NOT torture
And again
It is NOT torture Lem.
And again , that one should have been so bloody obvious even the most ignorant should have been able to grasp it , so Vuk when your "buddy" had it done in training what part of the training was it ? was it the bit where they learn about errrrrr..... torture ?:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
Vuk, then by your definition rape, if done properly and with plenty of lube, is not torture. If we choose to sodomize each and every detainee, this is in compliance with the Convention Against Torture, correct?
Besides which, as several sources I've linked to point out, the focus on waterboarding is misleading. The torture enhanced interrogation program was a program, with a combination of degrading and degenerative techniques used to break a man. Multiple sources have said that sleep deprivation was the most important element, not waterboarding.
But you and Sean Hannity believe that waterboarding is as American as apple pie, which makes me wonder why we once prosecuted it as a war crime.
Here are the "experts" who believe that waterboarding is an acceptable interrogation technique: North Korea, China, the Schutstaffel, the Gestapo, the Khmer Rouge, the Spanish Inquisition and the KGB. And of course Fox News. Fast company you're keeping.
ooo, Godwin already. That's the way Lemmy, "You associate with Hitler!" An intelligent way to win an argument. :bow:
(You are the one who started with the Godwin calling obsession, so don't blame me ~;))
First of all, sexual degradation of ANY type is torture. I do not support any 'punishment' of sexual nature. I want to point out the difference for you here Lemmy. The program that the Bush Administration used is nothing at all like what was used by Nazis or Japanese. The techniques were completely different, and involved a great deal of physical pain and brutality, and often led to death. They are NOT the same thing, and cannot be compared. I never claimed that the 'waterboarding' used by Japan, Nazi Germany, the USSR, or anyone else was not torture. I was talking about the specific program oked by the Bush Administration.
Still, the fact remains that you were essentially in control of the situation. You could tap out as soon as you felt you couldn't take it anymore with no negative consequence other than loss of personal pride. Very different to being at the mercy of an interrogator who will keep going far past your comfort zone and will not stop until you break down and give him whatever he wants.
I also don't understand the distinction you draw between mental stress and mental suffering. What exactly is the difference, and how do you figure that making someone think they are about to die is not going to cause mental suffering?
You have to remember though, they could effectively 'tap out' too if it got too much for them and tell the information. The point was that they would feel like they would die if they did not, but the interrogators would not really allow any harm to come to them. It is tricking someone into thinking that they will be killed; they do not really kill them if they do not give out. They had to give out when they panicked, but they really knew that they would not be killed. That is why I say it is only mental stress. It is self induced mental stress. What is mental pain? Knowing you lost your family, your testicles, being sodomized or otherwise sexual assaulted, etc. Mental pain HAS to accompany physical pain of some sort (that is how it can be classified as pain). Doesn't mean that the physical pain has to be inflicted on him though. A guy watching his wife be tortured is mental pain, because he is feeling her physical pain.
so Vuk when your "buddy" had it done in training what part of the training was it ? was it the bit where they learn about errrrrr..... torture ?:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
No, the part where they learn about interrogation AND torture. Two seperate things that are put together as the lines often cross.
EDIT:
Why? Because you think everyone who disagrees with you is as narrowly partisan as you appear to be? I have said repeatedly that I don't much care who is implicated; let justice fall where it must. Nobody should take any pleasure in what has to happen, and no party should be safe. The torture program was an error of the first magnitude, and many people have already paid with their lives.
Yup Lemur, I am a narrow minded partisan. *rolls eyes* Thank you for your opinion, but you really should not presume to know so much about me (esp after you saw how foolish I felt making the same mistake concerning you...but at least I admitted it was a mistake). I assure you, I am the farthest thing from partisan. I think the entire party system is inherently wrong and should be dismantled. I think you should vote solely on your beliefs and how well you think each candidate will fufill their role in the government. (I have in fact expressed this before) I have voted democrat before, and there are plenty of Republicans who I hate. Narrow-minded? Yeah, I guess so. I will only vote for and support someone who I think will do the best job. I am not daring enough and open-minded enough to support someone who goes against what I believe in or who I think will do a bad job of running the country.
Partisan though? Don't make me laugh.
@ Fixiwee: I already proved that it is not torture simply by applying your definition to it. If you wish to dispute that, you either have to explain how I applied it incorrectly, or declare your own definition invalid.
False. You said that the definition by comon sense does not imply water boarding. That is your interpretation, not a fact.
I said that waterboarding is stressfull and thus mentaly abusing, others have proved that it even may lead to death, thus torture by definition. You have not disproved it, just stated your opinion on it. There are no facts with your opinion. Hence you are unable to see or understand the point I am trying to make. And that point is, waterboarding is torture per definition.
Which leads me to;
So you are saying "I have proof that you are wrong Vuk, but I am keeping it secret."
If you want to prove something, then prove it. Anyone can say "I know that you are wrong, but I will not tell you why. Take my word for it though, you are". Unless you can tell me WHY, then I am not gonna believe you.
I am using your own argument against you. Tricky.
ooo, Godwin already.
I can't help but mention the agencies that approved of waterboarding; you'll note that the Wermacht are missing. They famously refused to torture captives. Sorry I had to include two NSDAP agencies on the list, but there haven't been very many polities that approved of waterboarding. Needs must.
First of all, sexual degradation of ANY type is torture.
This is a new an unexpected development. The Convention Against Torture does not mention sex. Neither does the Geneva Convention. Your opinion is your opinion and nothing more, o subject of a state that (by your own argument) has the right to detain you indefinitely and torture you the entire time, while never filing charges. Your opinion is meaningless before the unlimited power of the state you support. That which is not explicitly forbidden is permitted. So prepare to be legally sodomized.
The program that the Bush Administration used is nothing at all like what was used by Nazis or Japanese. The techniques were completely different, and involved a great deal of physical pain and brutality, and often led to death. They are NOT the same thing, and cannot be compared.
(Dang it ! I forgot to mention Imperial Japan! Bad Lemur!) What a fool I was, to compare waterboarding to waterboarding. It's like comparing apples to apples or something equally insane. And as I have clearly established, with primary documentation in this thread (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showpost.php?p=2212870&postcount=44), plenty of people did die in our "enhanced interrogations," so the difference ... hmmm ...
What is mental pain? Knowing you lost your family, your testicles, being sodomized or otherwise sexual assaulted, etc. Mental pain HAS to accompany physical pain of some sort (that is how it can be classified as pain). Doesn't mean that the physical pain has to be inflicted on him though. A guy watching his wife be tortured is mental pain, because he is feeling her physical pain.
Clear as mud. Why are you including sodomy on the list? Your inconsistencies, if spun and attached to a turbine, could power a Kansas town.
Now that you've proved that waterboarding is not torture (that is, the waterboarding we do, not the waterboarding they do) it's time to move on! Have your friends move you through various stress positions until you collapse, then hit you until you get up again, while keeping you awake for eleven days. I can't wait to hear how it's not torture.
What is mental pain? Knowing you lost your family, your testicles, being sodomized or otherwise sexual assaulted, etc. Mental pain HAS to accompany physical pain of some sort (that is how it can be classified as pain). Doesn't mean that the physical pain has to be inflicted on him though. A guy watching his wife be tortured is mental pain, because he is feeling her physical pain.
So castration as a means of extracting confessions is OK so long as we sedate the guy first?
I can't help but mention the agencies that approved of waterboarding; you'll note that the Wermacht are missing. They famously refused to torture captives. Sorry I had to include two NSDAP agencies on the list, but there haven't been very many polities that approved of waterboarding. Needs must.
And yet when I mention Hitler as an example of how guncontrol can lead to disaster (one of the best examples out there too), I am told not to ever mention Hitler with language that still makes me shudder. And don't play sweet, your comment "this is the company you hang with" or whatever it was was very clearly trying to imply guilt by association. A very underhanded tactic.
This is a new an unexpected development. The Convention Against Torture does not mention sex. Neither does the Geneva Convention. Your opinion is your opinion and nothing more, o subject of a state that (by your own argument) has the right to detain you indefinitely and torture you the entire time, while never filing charges. Your opinion is meaningless before the unlimited power of the state you support. That which is not explicitly forbidden is permitted. So prepare to be legally sodomized.
I do not know about the exact legal rules regarding sex as punishment, but what I was saying is that sexual degradation causes mental pain, and unless you are talking about just fondling, usually involves some degree of pain. Yes, the sanctity of someone's innocence is my opinion. As I said, I am not aware of the laws concerning it, but I think it should be expressely forbidden if it is not already.
What a fool I was, to compare waterboarding to waterboarding. It's like comparing apples to apples or something equally insane. And as I have clearly established, with primary documentation int this thread, plenty of people did die in our "enhanced interrogations," so the difference ... hmmm ...
That is like me comparing condom to a knife as good sex toys, then saying, they are both tools! How silly of me to compare tools with tools. As I said, they were two very different things under the same name. The 'waterboarding' that the Japanese did for instance involved forcing large amounts of water down someones throat till their stomach cannot hold anymore, then stomping on their stomach so they throw it up. Other types of waterboarding are all designed to cause extreme physical pain, and can easily lead to death. The tecniques oked by the BA were NOT designed to cause physical pain, and were relatively safe. Sure, they could have a heart attack and die, but the same thing could happen if they sent Jessica Simpson in to have sex with them. Waterboarding would probably put less stress on their heart. :P And as I said, there is a difference between the tecniques and the tecniques misused.
Clear as mud. Why are you including sodomy on the list? Your inconsistencies, if spun and attached to a turbine, could power a Kansas town.
Doesn't take much to power a light bulb. :P Seriously though, mental pain stems from physical pain, and if physical pain is absent, you cannot have mental pain. That is a scholarly concept, not the fruit of my imagination. What is so hard to understand?
Vuk
So castration as a means of extracting confessions is OK so long as we sedate the guy first?
Pardon me, I thought it was not necessary to list deprevation of body parts. Physical pain/physical damage is the truer definition, and the one I should have used.
Vuk, the Godwin example of you jumping into a gun control thread is poorly chosen. You ignored the OP, you ignored the discussion, and jumped into how gun control enabled the Third Reich. It was, if anything, a classic example of how not to invoke the Nazis in an argument. If you're still sore about it, then clearly you haven't come to terms with your own error.
So pointing out the very few despotic regimes that supported waterboarding as interrogation is "guilt by association"? Even if you are voluntarily choosing to associate yourself with such scum, and defending the tactic (literally) with your life by playing at it in a bathtub?
Your inclusion of sexual degradation as torture is intriguing. It speaks to a certain squeamishness in your attitude that I did not expect. We did long-term enforced nudity with detainees, as well as splashing them with fake menstrual blood. When they refused to eat (the only option of protest left to them) we strapped them into chairs and forced food down a tube run through their noses. But sodomy, well, that's crossing the line? Really?
As for your "our waterboarding is humane and legal while their waterboarding was torture and wrong" argument, I'm curious; does any torture technique, if performed properly and without inflicting permanent damage, cease to become torture? If the mortality rate is reduced, then it becomes okay?
"mental pain stems from physical pain, and if physical pain is absent, you cannot have mental pain"
I don't even know where to start with this one. You can cause mental pain without physical pain, and quite easily. You yourself provided the example in an earlier post; threaten a person's family, and you will cause mental anguish. And where does sleep deprivation fall on your idiosyncratic list of torture/not-torture? I can't help but notice you've been ducking and dodging every time sleep deprivation is mentioned ...
Vuk, we all make mistakes, we're human.
Why don't you just admit that you were wrong by stating that sleep deprivation+being humiliated for weeks+enforced nudity+waterboarding+... =/= torture.
Talking about a pointless discussion :wall:
This is like arguing that apples are not apples :freak:
Vuk, the Godwin example of you jumping into a gun control thread is poorly chosen. You ignored the OP, you ignored the discussion, and jumped into how gun control enabled the Third Reich. It was, if anything, a classic example of how not to invoke the Nazis in an argument. If you're still sore about it, then clearly you haven't come to terms with your own error.
Quite wrong. The thread was on why the Obama administration was NOT actually pursuing gun control, and I based my post on the OP. I gave a link to a video which disputed the opening post, then discussed why the opening post was wrong. (because if the administration is pursuing gun registration, then they are directly or indirectly pursuing or opening the door to gun control) This is what my historical referrences were for. You chose to ignore my argument entirely and swear at me for using a historical source because you have a Hitler fetish.
So pointing out the very few despotic regimes that supported waterboarding as interrogation is "guilt by association"? Even if you are voluntarily choosing to associate yourself with such scum, and defending the tactic (literally) with your life by playing at it in a bathtub?
I am suggesting guilt by association? NOT SO! (But if you choose to associate with them we have to wonder...) Save it for someone who will believe it Lemmy. Don't insult my intelligence with such an obvious pile of bollox. You quite clearly implied guilty by association.
Your inclusion of sexual degradation as torture is intriguing. It speaks to a certain squeamishness in your attitude that I did not expect. We did long-term enforced nudity with detainees, as well as splashing them with fake menstrual blood. When they refused to eat (the only option of protest left to them) we strapped them into chairs and forced food down a tube run through their noses. But sodomy, well, that's crossing the line? Really?
Any type of sexual degradation is crossing the line. Regardless of who does it or for what reason.
As for your "our waterboarding is humane and legal while their waterboarding was torture and wrong" argument, I'm curious; does any torture technique, if performed properly and without inflicting permanent damage, cease to become torture? If the mortality rate is reduced, then it becomes okay?
I didn't say it is not torture because it does not inflict permanent damage, but because it does not inflict physical PAIN or DAMAGE. Those are the two things that torture does, and they are both missing.
"mental pain stems from physical pain, and if physical pain is absent, you cannot have mental pain"
I don't even know where to start with this one. You can cause mental pain without physical pain, and quite easily. You yourself provided the example in an earlier post; threaten a person's family, and you will cause mental anguish. And where does sleep deprivation fall on your idiosyncratic list of torture/not-torture? I can't help but notice you've been ducking and dodging every time sleep deprivation is mentioned ...
Killing someone's family is causing physical pain and damage to that family, which in turn causes mental pain to the person being tortured. Threatening a family will cause mental stress, killing or abusing the family will cause mental pain. Oh, I have not been jumping into an argument about sleep deprivation? Pardon me, but my plate is pretty full with waterboarding right now. Maybe once I clear it off I will give my opinion on that.
Vuk
Vuk, we all make mistakes, we're human.
Why don't you just admit that you were wrong by stating that sleep deprivation+being humiliated for weeks+enforced nudity+waterboarding+... =/= torture.
Talking about a pointless discussion :wall:
This is like arguing that apples are not apples :freak:
Andres, I have admitted I was wrong before (both times involving torture coincidently), but both times I did so because I was convinced that I was wrong. Until someone convinces me that I am wrong, or I come to a realisation that I am wrong, I am not going to change my opinion. I am not closed minded, but I am not gonna change my opinion because I am asked to. My argument now is about waterboarding BTW, I may be feeling daring enough to discuss the others later, but what I had experience with is waterboarding, and what I am arguing is waterboarding. Until this discussion is over, I am not gonna confuse the debate more by jumping into every other related thing!
Let's sum up.
You have stated your opinion on the matter.
Everyone else says you're wrong.
You refuse to accept our statements, and furthermore you lack any sort of evidence save for your own experience.
This is own opinion, but you're not winning this argument. You are just defending your own view on this.
Let's sum up.
You have stated your opinion on the matter.
Everyone else says you're wrong.
You refuse to accept our statements, and furthermore you lack any sort of evidence save for your own experience.
This is own opinion, but you're not winning this argument. You are just defending your own view on this.
Wrong, I believe that the evidence supports my belief, and you believe that the same evidence supports yours. My evidence is the same evidence that you used. Very few people are involved in the debate that has taken place over a very short period of time, and it is too early to see if I am alone in my belief. No one is 'winning' the argument, because that only happens if the opposition admits they are wrong. I am not defending my point of view, I am challenging yours. You initially stated your opinion in this thread (as did Lemur), and I am posting to challenge it. I am not on the defense.
I posted hard evidence with the definition of torture. You interpreted it differently then the rest here. I call you out on hard evidence, not your own empirical expierence. You just keep on going about "your test on waterboarding."
People have died because of that. How can it not be torture?
I'm sorry, but you are simply ignorant to the definition of torture.
Tribesman
05-09-2009, 17:46
No, the part where they learn about interrogation AND torture. Two seperate things that are put together as the lines often cross.
:dizzy2:Errrr...Vuk have a relly hard question , these people that set up the interogation AND torture lessons .Do they class waterboarding as torture? you can answer yes or yes its entirely up to you .
You could of course give a different answer but then you would just be talking bollox as usual .
BTW I take it you are now familiar with the Pueblo incident (or is that too much for you to comprehend) , which of the treatments the crew went through definately count as torture according to your government and military the courts the crew the media and just about every sane person on the planet ?
Which of those have you claimed is definately not torture ?
(Dang it ! I forgot to mention Imperial Japan! Bad Lemur!)
Imperial Japan eh
Now then can you think of a rather well known military administered prison starting with C in an island starting with S where such unjustifiable barbarity occured
People have died because of that. How can it not be torture?
I'm sorry, but you are simply ignorant to the definition of torture.
Many people have died getting open heart-surgery, is that torture? It is not the intent to cause pain or kill, and if used properly, will not. You should be arguing against its improper use, not it. Heck, people die of heart failure having sex, that must be torture too.
Tribesman
05-09-2009, 17:49
No one is 'winning' the argument, because that only happens if the opposition admits they are wrong.
:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::lau gh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
Many people have died getting open heart-surgery, is that torture? It is not the intent to cause pain or kill, and if used properly, will not. You should be arguing against its improper use, not it. Heck, people die of heart failure having sex, that must be torture too.
Are you deliberatly ignorant? What has heart failure to do with that? Torture is harming people physicly or mentaly by any means to get information. I'm not operating on a heart to get someones information. (Unless it's a torture method.) You're spinning around unrelated stuff to obscure the point of the argument. Waterboarding is to humiliate and put stress under the victim. It's mental torture.
Here, let me quote;
Why don't you just admit that you were wrong by stating that sleep deprivation+being humiliated for weeks+enforced nudity+waterboarding+... =/= torture.
If you fail to see the argument then you are ignorant to the facts.
:dizzy2:Errrr...Vuk have a relly hard question , these people that set up the interogation AND torture lessons .Do they class waterboarding as torture? you can answer yes or yes its entirely up to you .
You could of course give a different answer but then you would just be talking bollox as usual .
And are you forgetting that my entire point is that it is being FALSELY classified as torture?
Are you deliberatly ignorant? What has heart failure to do with that? Torture is harming people physicly or mentaly by any means to get information. I'm not operating on a heart to get someones information. (Unless it's a torture method.) You're spinning around unrelated stuff to obscure the point of the argument. Waterboarding is to humiliate and put stress under the victim. It's mental torture.
People have died because of that. How can it not be torture?
I'm sorry, but you are simply ignorant to the definition of torture.
You just insinuated that because people have died of it that makes it torture. I was pointing out what an absurd statement that is.
Torture is harming people physicly or mentaly by any means to get information.
So which definition do we use now?
So which definition do we use now?
How about "common sense"?
How about "common sense"?
I can predict that we will start spinning in circles.
Article 1
1. For the purposes of this Convention, the term "torture" means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.
http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/h_cat39.htm
And the fact is that the definition that YOU presented does NOT classify it as torture. You are trying to post someone's opinion as proof, and I said it was that opinion that did not matter to me.
By the definition you gave and just by basic common sense, the waterboarding the Bush administration authorized is NOT torture.
You just insinuated that because people have died of it that makes it torture. I was pointing out what an absurd statement that is.
So which definition do we use now?
Speaking of definitions, you are trying to argue you can objectively prove waterboarding is not torture based upon your arbitrary personal definition that purely mental pain does not count as pain at all. You could just as well define pain to exclude pulling out a person's fingernails and conclude that is not torture by the same logic.
Were the laws outlawing torture written using the same definition of pain as yours? I highly doubt it.
How about "common sense"?
I was answering HIS definition though Andres, I simply stated that common sense is what laws are supposed to be based in and that is what is really important. If a law goes against common sense, then it is not very good. I was not disputing his definition, simply stating that both common sense and the legal definition he provided were in support of my argument.
Coincidently, guessing from Andres quote, he and I have the same interpretation of waterboarding being torture.
Speaking of definitions, you are trying to argue you can objectively prove waterboarding is not torture based upon your arbitrary personal definition that purely mental pain does not count as pain at all. You could just as well define pain to exclude pulling out a person's fingernails and conclude that is not torture by the same logic.
Were the laws outlawing torture written using the same definition of pain as yours? I highly doubt it.
No, that is NOT what I am trying to prove. Look at the testimony of people who have been waterboarded and read what it is meant to do in the memos. It does not and is not supposed to cause physical pain. THAT is fact. Read the darned links that LEMUR posted for heavan's sake. Or did you not bother because you thought they would fit your opinions anyway?
Coincidently, guessing from Andres quote, he and I have the same interpretation of waterboarding being torture.
Case closed, you must be right!
Tribesman
05-09-2009, 18:14
And are you forgetting that my entire point is that it is being FALSELY classified as torture?
So the sane world has one definition , militaries governments international organisations and judiciaries have one definition , the dictionary has a definition , treaties on torture have a definition.
And Vuk manages to have a different definition and his is right :laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:have you been taking some strange mind altering substances vuk ?
No, that is NOT what I am trying to prove. Look at the testimony of people who have been waterboarded and read what it is meant to do in the memos. It does not and is not supposed to cause physical pain. THAT is fact. Read the darned links that LEMUR posted for heavan's sake. Or did you not bother because you thought they would fit your opinions anyway?
Wait. You said the opinion of Robert Baer does not interesst you and yet you accuse people not to read links? That's funny.
I'm sure Robert Baer has no idea about torture. He is not an expert on this matter and he never worked for the CIA.
Oh no! I'm melting. I'm meeeeeeelting.
Yeah, it's clear that nothing said by any human being will budge you from your position, Vuk. You are at variance with the entire civilized world. You are in disagreement with history, with the law, and with multiple conventions. The only people who agree with you are rabid partisans and/or people with a stake in protecting the former administration's factotums.
If anyone wants to actually, you know, discuss the issues, I'll be happy to participate. But this is increasingly feeling like feeding a troll.
you are trying to argue you can objectively prove waterboarding is not torture
No, that is NOT what I am trying to prove.
my entire point is that it is being FALSELY classified as torture
Hmm...
So the sane world has one definition , militaries governments international organisations and judiciaries have one definition , the dictionary has a definition , treaties on torture have a definition.
And Vuk manages to have a different definition and his is right :laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:have you been taking some strange mind altering substances vuk ?
I am not arguing the definition of torture, I am arguing that waterboarding fits that definition. There are many sane people who agree with me that it does not.
Wait. You said the opinion of Robert Baer does not interesst you and yet you accuse people not to read links? That's funny.
I'm sure Robert Baer has no idea about torture. He is not an expert on this matter and he never worked for the CIA.
Oh no! I'm melting. I'm meeeeeeelting.
I never said he was not an expert. I simply said that I did not need to see a repeat of his opinion which I (as well as do many experts) disagree wtih.
Yeah, it's clear that nothing said by any human being will budge you from your position, Vuk. You are at variance with the entire civilized world. You are in disagreement with history, with the law, and with multiple conventions. The only people who agree with you are rabid partisans and/or people with a stake in protecting the former administration's factotums.
If anyone wants to actually, you know, discuss the issues, I'll be happy to participate. But this is increasingly feeling like feeding a troll.
With the entire civilized world huh? Boy, that is an ego Lemur. There are LOT's of sane people who disagree with you on this. It is nice of you to attack stigma to everyone who disagrees with you. If I were you, I would liken that to a historical figure. *whistles*
Am I attaching stigma to you for your opinion?
You think that I am a troll Lemmy? Good, then please stop feeding me. I would rather talk with someone who has some sort of respect for me and my opinions and is not so openely offensive and arrogant. Don't get me wrong though, I would rather you say it outright then play games about it. This is indeed a big improvement. :2thumbsup:
A very good post (http://politics.theatlantic.com/2009/05/pelosi_torture_and_the_wilderness_of_mirrors.php) about Pelosi and the briefings, certainly the most detailed and thoughtful take on the issue that I've seen.
Pelosi last week said she had no idea that EITs were even being used and insisted that the subject of waterboarding never came up. That's hard to swallow, even if you believe the claim about waterboarding. Why would the CIA even brief Pelosi about EITs if it had no intention of using them? [...]
In general, the CIA briefers tend not to be the same people who execute the programs; they tend not to be the supervisors who oversee them; they tend not to be the senior officials who set policy. That's why Pelosi couldn't simply -- or wouldn't simply -- voice an objection during the original briefing. Her briefers were middlemen.
There's no evidence from the CIA records that Pelosi did anything but passively accept the briefings -- at which point the CIA could content itself with the knowledge that the ONLY outside source of accountability was sufficiently read in to the program and did not object to it.
One can't help but conclude that while Pelosi might not have known everything, she knew enough.
-edit-
Advice to other Orgahs: If someone is behaving in a troll-like manner, best option is to ignore him or her. Without an audience, such people usually alter their behavior or go away.
I never said he was not an expert. I simply said that I did not need to see a repeat of his opinion which I (as well as do many experts) disagree wtih.
And I already asked to come up with an example of such an expert but until now you have failed to do so.
-edit-
Advice to other Orgahs: If someone is behaving in a troll-like manner, best option is to ignore him or her. Without an audience, such people usually alter their behavior or go away.
=
I was disrespectful, insulting, dishonest, and rather than simply saying "I disagree" accused EVERYONE who disagreed with me of being either corrupt or partisan wackos...did I mention Communist-Imperialist-Nazis?
EDIT: oh yeah, and trolls! Sorry Lemmy, but your behavior on this thread has been despicable. I am pulling out for the night.
Another take (http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2009/05/pelosis-torture-briefing) on what Pelosi knew.
Pelosi says waterboarding was never mentioned. And the CIA document, which specifically mentions waterboarding in a later briefing given to Pat Roberts and Jay Rockefeller, doesn't say it was brought up in the Pelosi meeting, even though Zubaydah had been waterboarded dozens of times by then.
Greg Sargent seems to think this means Pelosi is probably telling the truth. Waterboarding a guy 80 times isn't something that just slips your mind, after all, so the fact that it's not mentioned probably means Pelosi was never briefed about it.
Unfortunately, I suspect we'll simply never know for sure — although Sam Stein reports today that a senior aide to another member of Congress says that waterboarding was never mentioned at other briefings held around the same time.
I really don't trust anyone involved to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth. I'm increasingly of the opinion that some sort of independent truth commission (with full subpoena power) is the only way to go.
Seamus Fermanagh
05-09-2009, 20:10
Things are altogether too "heated" for the moment. A cooling off period is hereby enacted.
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.