Red Cross Torture Report

The Red Cross's confidential torture report has been leaked, and the full version can be read here (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 from Rush Limbaugh's online store.

Other news:

A Spanish court may hand down indictments for officials who authorized torture.

One of Bush's State Department lawyers states the obvious.

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:

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.

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/f...hitchens200808

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!

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.

Quote:

---

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.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vladimir

What laws were broken?

---

Did you follow any of the links provided? 'Cause it sounds as though you did not.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vladimir

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?

Quote:

---

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.

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vladimir

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vladimir

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.

Quote:

---

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 .....

Quote:

---

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 .

Quote:

---

Nice video , far too many factual errors though to be taken seriously .

---

:2thumbsup:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

A Spanish court may hand down indictments for officials who authorized torture.

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Proletariat

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??

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vladimir

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.

Marine calls about Torture

Disgusting oblivious. Mr. Limbaugh, you've dropped several pegs in my books.

Quote:

---

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.

---

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

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.

Quote:

---

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 .

Quote:

---

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:

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Meneldil

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

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.

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...

Quote:

---

...mendacity of a truly Rovian order.

---

First time I've seen that in the wild. :)

Quote:

---

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

Quote:

---

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.

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.

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

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. Why should Lynndie England have gone to the brig?

I want to understand where you're coming from.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

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, 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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

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. 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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff

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. Enjoy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

You'll pardon me, but that sounds kinda ill-informed. Here's a journalist being waterboarded. 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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff

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"?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff

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 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 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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

Hmm, an interesting challenge. Here is a report from 2005, indicating that 108 people had died 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 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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff

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?

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

President Obama has specifically repudiated these actions, and is moving to close those facilities wherein these events took place.

---

Yeah, but I hear 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:

Quote:

---

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?

---

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, 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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KukriKhan

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....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

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 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. 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.

46-page memo, dated May 10, 2005, from Steven Bradbury, Acting Assistant Attorney General, OLC, to John A. Rizzo, General Counsel CIA.

20-page memo, dated May 10, 2005, from Steven Bradbury, Acting Assistant Attorney General, OLC, to John A. Rizzo, General Counsel CIA.

40-page memo, dated May 30, 2005, from Steven Bradbury, Acting Assistant Attorney General, OLC, to John A. Rizzo, General Counsel CIA.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

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 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?

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.