CIA: Waterboarding used on 3 suspects

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vladimir

There you go again. You're ASSuming they're innocent and that they automatically get tortured. Think on it.

---

Mixups happen. That's why we have a court system. And the CIA have already screwed up, ref. the released gitmo prisoners.

Not only is waterboarding not torture, but we're also not going to have any investigations into it. So there.

And let's not talk about the use of hypothermia.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

Not only is waterboarding not torture, but we're also not going to have any investigations into it. So there.

---

As much as it disgusts me, I think I see Mukaskey's point. Since the Justice Department cleared it's use, to start busting CIA people on it would be like entrapment. The blame, focus, and investigations should be higher up, but we all know that's not going to happen.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

I actually wrote it like that, but edited in the "d" afterwards since it sounded silly with an "n" :laugh4:

---

~D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

I was referring to CIA vs. tewwowists, not Lemur :whip:

ie. shouldn't the CIA treat the suspects like innocent men until their found guilty in a court of law? Not like it's ever going to happen, but still...

---

Okay, then we agree.

Quote:

---

Since the Justice Department cleared it's use, to start busting CIA people on it would be like entrapment.

---

Not really , since torture constitutes a war crime , just because higher ups ordered it doesn't mean that the operatives would be in the clear .
To quote the commander in chief.

Quote:

---

War crimes will be prosecuted. War criminals will be punished. And it will be no defense to say, "I was just following orders."

---

Though of course Bush didn't really mean that and he certainly didn't mean that it would apply to people who followed his administrations orders .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

Mixups happen. That's why we have a court system.

---

BUT YOU HAVE TO DO SOOOOO MUCH WORK!

... and now we see what this was really about.

The White House said Wednesday that the widely condemned interrogation technique known as waterboarding is legal and that President Bush could authorize the CIA to resume using the simulated-drowning method under extraordinary circumstances.

The surprise assertion from the Bush administration reopened a debate that many in Washington had considered closed. Two laws passed by Congress in recent years -- as well as a Supreme Court ruling on the treatment of detainees -- were widely interpreted to have banned the CIA's use of the extreme interrogation method.

But in remarks that were greeted with disbelief by some members of Congress and human rights groups, White House spokesman Tony Fratto said that waterboarding was a legal technique that could be employed again "under certain circumstances."

So it is okay for AQ to waterboard American troops and it will not be treated as torture but as a standard 'interview'? After all they would be doing it for information pertinent to their survival.

Or an American tourist in China gets waterboarded for walking into a pirated CD shop for information about the suppliers as they are about to move. Remember that its the death penalty in China for piracy so why quibble about waterboarding a buyer when the supplier will get shot and the cost of the bullet sent to his family?

At what point will it not be okay for another country and organisation to waterboard an American? For some countries they will be enforcing their laws on illegal activities, for others it might be for their survival.

Watch out the slope is slippery when its wet.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Papewaio

So it is okay for AQ to waterboard American troops and it will not be treated as torture but as a standard 'interview'? After all they would be doing it for information pertinent to their survival.

Or an American tourist in China gets waterboarded for walking into a pirated CD shop for information about the suppliers as they are about to move. Remember that its the death penalty in China for piracy so why quibble about waterboarding a buyer when the supplier will get shot and the cost of the bullet sent to his family?

At what point will it not be okay for another country and organisation to waterboard an American? For some countries they will be enforcing their laws on illegal activities, for others it might be for their survival.

Watch out the slope is slippery when its wet.

---

You're missing the point:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Would those circumstances be along the lines of, when they do it it is neccesary and justifiable , but when others do it it is a war crime .

---

Might makes right in the neo-con world. Law is for losers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Not really , since torture constitutes a war crime , just because higher ups ordered it doesn't mean that the operatives would be in the clear .
To quote the commander in chief.

Though of course Bush didn't really mean that and he certainly didn't mean that it would apply to people who followed his administrations orders .

---

After Nurnberg, people should know that following orders isn't a valid defense for committing crimes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

... and now we see what this was really about.

---

Not that this should surprise anyone. The administration has shown that they will pretty much do whatever they want. Signing statements, cheesy legal semantics, "national security" powers, all just ways to get what they want. It's never going to happen, but I would love to see the shenanigans an impeachment would induce. Both because it is deserved, and also to see the crap Bush and Co. would try to pull to avoid/ignore it.

Regarding my previous statement, I understand the whole "following orders" bit, and I'm not defending it. But for the CIA to ask "Is this legal?", be told by the lawyers in the Justice Department, "Yes, knock yourselves out", only to be followed up a few years later with, "Um, about that thing we told you you could do, sorry we have to arrest you for it now", that doesn't fly. It kills an already strained relationship between the CIA and the Justice Department, and it doesn't solve anything since the problem is not with the ops but with the policy.

Wow, WaPo comes out hard today. "A President Who Tortured."

A President Who Tortured

Waterboarding will leave an indelible stain on the legacy of George W. Bush.

"We do not torture."
-- President Bush, Nov. 7, 2005

" Waterboarding has been used on only three detainees. . . . We used it against these three high-value detainees because of the circumstances of the time."
-- CIA Director Michael V. Hayden, Feb. 5, 2008

THE ADMISSION this week by CIA Director Michael V. Hayden that three terrorism suspects were subjected to waterboarding in 2002 and 2003 puts to rest any doubt about whether President Bush authorized torture.

For centuries, civilized countries have considered waterboarding, or simulated drowning, to be torture. The United States rightly condemned as war criminals Japanese soldiers who employed the technique against U.S. personnel during World War II. It prosecuted U.S. military officers who waterboarded prisoners at the turn of the 20th century. The practice, which causes its victims to feel that they are about to die, is unquestionably cruel. Every administration prior to this one has judged it to be prohibited by U.S. law and treaty obligations. It is incontestably a blot on the reputation of this country and a breach of the very values we claim to want to export to the rest of the world.

The administration says it has not used the technique for five years and claims to have used it only on Sept. 11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and al-Qaeda operatives Abu Zubaida and Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri. The acknowledgment is, at least, a change from the administration's previous refusal to answer questions about the practice; it should end contentions by senior officials that they cannot disclose which interrogation techniques are used. Yet in coming clean about its practices, the administration continues to bob and weave to justify the past -- and possibly future -- legality of waterboarding. Director of National Intelligence Michael McConnell, testifying alongside Gen. Hayden before the Senate intelligence committee, declared waterboarding "a legal technique used in a specific set of circumstances. You have to know the circumstances to be able to make the judgment."

Mr. McConnell's statement echoed that of Attorney General Michael B. Mukasey, who told the Senate Judiciary Committee last week that in deciding whether waterboarding is legal, the administration has to weigh "the heinousness of doing it, the cruelty of doing it balanced against the value . . . of what information you might get." Both men are wrong, as any federal court that considered waterboarding would be likely to rule. The legality of abusive treatment depends on "the circumstances" only if the treatment falls short of torture, which is illegal in all instances. Waterboarding is, and always has been, torture.

Gen. Hayden, who in 2006 prohibited waterboarding by CIA agents, seemed to distance himself from the administration's defense of the technique by suggesting that laws passed since 2005 raise doubts about its legality. But even this falls far short of an assurance against future use. Congress must act now to put an end to the continued twisting of the law and fundamental American values. Lawmakers can do so by passing legislation requiring all U.S. interrogators to abide by the techniques authorized in the Army Field Manual, which military officials have said allows them the flexibility they need to gather intelligence. The administration has balked at this restriction, and President Bush may well veto it. If he does, it will be but another stain on his legacy.

Ah well, if they only broke the law and violated their own treaty obligations to torture people THREE times, that makes everything ok then.

Right?

The Senate report on CIA enhanced interrogations gets voted on tomorrow for release, and it looks to be popcorn-worthy. TL;DR version, we tortured people, got nothing usable, standard interrogation works better, Congress was lied to.

I may have to give Feinstein a small amount of respect after this, as much as it kills me to do so.

Whoa, that's some powerful necromancy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rvg

Whoa, that's some powerful necromancy.

---

:wizard:

It was the latest thread on the subject I could find that wasn't locked.

http://forums.gotwoot.net/gallery/fi...1/2/Necro1.jpg

The report covers more than waterboarding, the sleep deprivation, ice water dunk tanks, et al, are supposedly in the report. Not sure about foreign treatment after rendition though. The committee voted to release it, so we should get it in a few months.

Uhm... So what about all the other out-of-country CIA camps, how much has torture been used there?

Quite some years ago, just after the 11/9 spectacle, we had some Swedes (well, people with Swedish citizenship) being manhandled and put on a CIA plane far away.

It didn't fly to Guantanamo.

I think most of the more shady business goes on behind closed curtains.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV

Uhm... So what about all the other out-of-country CIA camps, how much has torture been used there?

Quite some years ago, just after the 11/9 spectacle, we had some Swedes (well, people with Swedish citizenship) being manhandled and put on a CIA plane far away.

It didn't fly to Guantanamo.

I think most of the more shady business goes on behind closed curtains.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by the article

The 6,300-page report includes what officials described as damning new disclosures about a sprawling network of secret detention facilities, or “black sites,” that was dismantled by President Obama in 2009.

---

So at least some of it is going public.

So no real surprises then. The other 5500 pages must be a hoot.

Hayden has the distinction of lying to Congress as the director of the CIA, and the NSA. Put him in charge of the FBI and give him the chance for the hat trick!

I respectfully request that the mods temporarily recind the swearing rule for the remainder of my comments on this topic.

Though moral dillema. Reminds me of the movie Unthinkable. What if you are really sure something will happen and you are running out of time. Let's say your mother has been burried alive and she's running out of oxygine, and you know that the guy that is strapped to the chair knows where, what would you do.

The famous painter George W. Bush (you know who else wanted to be a painter?) and his friend Cheney have apparently lauded the work of the CIA.

It's pretty simple, some people don't understand what it takes to protect freedom and democracy, and some don't.
Also note that the CIA can do whatever they want until the American people say no, and they did nothing more.
It's simple, it's sympathetic and it creates friends.

I think it's all okay and people shouldn't be so angry at awesome Americans who work for the CIA:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xMwdUYnPkA4

http://thecolbertreport.cc.com/video...zd/philip-mudd

Is there anything new in this report that wasn't covered before?
People need to learn to appreciate what's great about America again.
I do my own little part by watching all episodes of MacGyver again.

PBS has provided a summary of the 500+ page summary of the 5500 page report and a link to a pdf version of the 500 page summary:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontl...-need-to-know/

http://www.intelligence.senate.gov/s...sscistudy1.pdf

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

Is there anything new in this report that wasn't covered before?

---

I think the "rectal feedings" were new.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

Though moral dillema. Reminds me of the movie Unthinkable. What if you are really sure something will happen and you are running out of time. Let's say your mother has been burried alive and she's running out of oxygine, and you know that the guy that is strapped to the chair knows where, what would you do.

---

Research has shown that they are more likely to lie then to tell the truth. They would say anything to stop the torture and it is not reliable. Especially if they had some bad agenda as to why they want your mother buried. Tell a few porkies, she dies, they win.

Higher chance of going "Here is £10,000 and you can have it if you show me where she is buried as you get the money when found" but that also has the repercussions that people could copy-cat to get an easy £10,000...

Frag's:

With terrorism, you never get to that level. You discover that your intelligence apparatus got it wrong when the truck blows up next to the daycare. Torturing the subject to find where he has buried the girl alive is a Dirty Harry movie plot -- things like that just don't happen in the real terrorist/insurgency confrontation.

Torture practices following 9-11 seemed to have occurred far less frequently than some in the media have mused, but every bit as uselessly as Tiaexz notes above. The report suggests that "extraordinary measures interrogation" generated NOTHING that would not have been generated in virtually just as timely a fashion through standard interrogation techniques.

The report does assert that, for everyone who was conducting these "extraordinary" procedures (and who had been waterboarded themselves as part of the training) there were -- so shocked am I :rolleyes: -- 2 or 3 non-certified/trained functionaries authorizing the use of such methods. Moreover, the interrogators who were so certified were charging quadruple rates for days when such techniques were used -- no conflict of interest there of course :rolleyes:.

Boil it down and you have a collective national frustration tantrum spurring the decision to use such techniques coupled with typical bureaucratic inanity in the management of the policy.

Emphatically NOT "our finest hour." :wall:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

Though moral dillema. Reminds me of the movie Unthinkable. What if you are really sure something will happen and you are running out of time. Let's say your mother has been burried alive and she's running out of oxygine, and you know that the guy that is strapped to the chair knows where, what would you do.

---

Then you're a hard man making hard choices and face the consequences of your actions, instead of the wannabies that runs around wishing that they could get the stamp of consequence free approval. That is maybe saving your mother and risk going for prison for it.

You don't create laws that gives a carte blanche for a myriad of situations to cover a hypothetical worst case scenario.

One of the biggest heroes in Gotham city would be the prison guard that murders the Joker. That does not mean that having prison guards being legally able to murder prisoners is anywhere close to a good idea.

I don't know where to draw the line, but I don't think torture is bad by default if it gets the results. We just happen to be at war with some people and the other side has people doing the exact same thing, and a whole lot worse. I can accept a slippery slope to a certain degree when dealing with that. How far, I wouldn't know. I am not calling an ambulance for someone of whom I know is scum, that's basicly the same as killing him really. Slippery slopes are everywhere. Not buying someone who is hungry a sandwich when you just can is also a slippery slope. what is moral can go all sorts of ways. Not buying someone who is hungry a sandwich could be just as bad as torturing someone, or even worse really.