Red Cross Torture Report

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..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

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 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 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 demands that prosecutions take place. Note that SERE 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.

Some more discussion on the topic: http://roomfordebate.blogs.nytimes.c...ned/#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.

-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.

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.

One of the main opinions in the report I linked to suggested they were in attendance, but again its difficult to verify I suppose.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FactionHeir

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. 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:

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.

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. The 2007 article 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:

1. We don't torture.
2. Okay, this may be something that looks exactly like torture, but it isn't.
3. What is "torture" anyway?
4. 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. Whoopsie!)
5. Everybody knew and agreed on it. No really, we briefed everybody. Really we did. So I guess we're all torturers, okay?
6. 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.

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.

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.

Quote:

---

...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".

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Furunculus

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Swoosh So

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.

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

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Quote:

---

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.

---

Quote:

---

Prosecutors said any such investigation ought to be conducted in the US, not Spain.

---

I agree.

Note: Welcome back Swoosh So, I don't believe we've heard your voice here in some time.

JFYI:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...ess-memos.html

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Furunculus

JFYI:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...ess-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.

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 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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Furunculus

JFYI:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...ess-memos.html

---

An interesting snippet, for me at least:

Quote:

---

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, 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

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....

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

"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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

That would work out to six sessions a day. First of all, it flies in the face of earlier reports.... "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:

1. 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.
2. Will anyone above the rank of Sergeant ever be held accountable?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

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:

1. 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.
2. 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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by peverblue

An interesting video I think is worth posting.

---

Side-note: It seems that the Vice President is once again factually incorrect.

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:

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:

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Furunculus

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?