Torture memos

[Jill]

Ok, the combination of my latest user title (Vivacious Vivisectionist) and your post is kind of funny.

[morethanpretty]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

I know one thing. If I was caught and guilty of such acts of whatever I would stand up and loudly exclaim that I was tortured and say whatever I could to discredit whom ever imprisoned me, esp if I know that much of the world was jumping on my band wagon, whether it was true or not. I would milk that for all it was worth, and a good lawyer would do the same.

I know that if I was held and NOT guilty of such acts of whatever, I would do that as well Merc.

[tw]

Originally Posted by Jill

I wonder if John McCain thinks he was tortured. Perhaps he was just put in "stress positions".

McCain considers himself tortured. However, according to later American redefinition of torture, McCain was not tortured.

These early recommendations morphed into definitions that said if the act does not leave permanent organ damage, then it is not torture. IOW, according to Gonzales rewrite, if skin layers were slowly removed, that was not torture because permanent organ damage did not result.

Consider the absurdity of this memo. First, the author did no research. It basically says you told us this and you plan to do that. Therefore these actions are acceptable.

Second, torture is being defined only because one man must have information: Abu Zubaydah. He must be severely interrogated because he trained the operatives for a1 Qaeda, the Egyptian Islamic Jihad, and terrorists in Afghanistan and Pakistan, was al Qaeda’s Deputy Camp Commander for training camps, personally approved selection and graduation of terrorists in 1999 and 2000, no one went in or out of Peshawar, Pakistan without his knowledge and approval, and he was Al Qaeda’s communication and coordinator for all international contacts including counterintelligence.

In short, Zubaydah was Superman and was not telling us all these things he *must* know. Therefore rules must be rewritten to extract information. Theory was that interrogation methods (that had worked best for hundreds of years and that were so successful even during WWII) were not sufficient. So rules must be rewritten. Forget that maybe he really did not know all this stuff.

Rules were changed to instill fear and pain. But these rule changes were OK because they did not create pain. How absurd.

Interrogation without pain is why the FBI broke the entire 1993 WTC bombing and the USS Cole bombing. Pain and fear was not used. Instead, intelligent interrogation causes the targets to talk with honesty. But that obviously cannot work on Superman. So we needed violence legitimized.

Slam him against a fake wall. He will be carefully wrapped in cloth first to not be harmed. Sound of crashing into the fake wall will cause so much fear as to cause him to tell all? Nonsense. Eventually, the fake wall was replaced by concrete. And then when someone noted slamming against a concrete wall was torture, then the wall was covered by a sheet of plywood. Plywood would cushion the blow. Examples of how these techniques morphed into acceptable interrogation methods years later. After all, the theory behind these methods demand that pain be inflicted.

Torture had to be expanded because Superman and others did not give up the facts. Why? Because there were no Al Qaeda sleeper cells, no Saddam WMDs. And no international Al Qaeda hiding all over the world waiting under our beds to kill us all. But these new interrogation methods had to be approved BECAUSE enemies MUST be hiding everywhere to kill us all. We knew these threats must exist. Therefore well proven interrogation without torture must be wrong. Clearly the enemy must be massing to kill us all. So violence must be approved.

Myths and wild speculation (created because the powers that be were wacko extremists) justified violence only because terrorists could not tell us what we wanted to hear. Meanwhile, Indonesia kept these same Americans away from Nasir Abbas because he knew so much about Jemaah Islamiya (who did the 2002 Bali bombing). Despite myths and lies promoted in America, Jemaah Islamiya was not Al Qaeda. Nasir Abbas gave up the entire Jemaah Islamiya network BECAUSE he was not tortured. See Why does America need Secret Prisons? . But then what the Indonesians did is also how professional interrogators did it in WWII, 1993 WTC bombing, and the USS Cole. See the Washington Post of 6 Oct 2007:
Fort Hunt's Quiet Men Break Silence on WWII
Interrogators Fought 'Battle of Wits'

Indonesia needed to keep Americans away from Nasir Abbas because American methods of violence would have poisoned the well.

The memo approves of methods that do no pain when the new interrogation method required pain - because he was Superman. No wonder a fake wall was quickly replaced with a concrete one. Entire concept of interrogation by intimidation required inflicting pain – also called torture. The Spanish Inquisition was alive and well – and did not use cushy pillows as some (and Monty Python) claimed. This memo shows how torture was first approved and why it only got worse - even killing an Iraqi General in Abu Ghriad because he would not tell us where Saddam's WMDs were hidden.

According to the newer American definitions of torture, McCain was not tortured. Beheading is torture because it created permenant organ damage.

[Jill]

Originally Posted by tw

These early recommendations morphed into definitions that said if the act does not leave permanent organ damage, then it is not torture. IOW, according to Gonzales rewrite, if skin layers were slowly removed, that was not torture because permanent organ damage did not result. . .

What is the largest organ of the human body?












I'll give everyone a minute to think about it.

Your Skin: The Largest Organ of the Human Body

The skin is the largest organ of the human body. In the average adult it covers about 3000 square inches and weighs around six pounds, which is nearly twice the weight of the human brain or liver. The skin receives about one third of the blood that circulates through the body. It’s rugged, flexible and practically waterproof. The skin can regenerate and repair itself under most conditions. The skin also helps in the dissipation of sweat. The skin and its appendages are known as the integumentary system.

. . .

Just more evidence of the truly frightening thing about these anti-science, know-nothing fucktards being in power.

[jinx]

So do you think dermal abrasion is torture?

[tw]

Originally Posted by jinx

So do you think dermal abrasion is torture?

Dermal abrasion does not inflict pain. Torture is about pain to make him talk. Pealing skin in a painful manner so that skin grows back was (by their rewritten definition) not torture. Only fools believe pain gets useful intelligence. Which is why terrorists were planning attacks even on the Golden Gate Bridge and Newark’s Prudential Building?

How curious. They never found anybody planning those attacks - which is what happens when torture replaced intelligent interrogation.

If America had no secret CIA torture chambers all over the world, then why did Obama order them closed? Many who advocated torture also lied about secret CIA concentration camps. And still have problems admitting that some 600 of the 800 imprisoned in Guantanamo have been released – guilty of nothing. More *honesty* routinely found among those who also advocated torture – and even denied it was torture.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by jinx

So do you think dermal abrasion is torture?

Only if you go to a dermal abrasion clinic and allow them to do it to you without protest.

Wait, that would be S&M.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Meursault

i just wanna know why beheading isnt on that list

Because chopping off the head of someone you disagree with is totally acceptable if they disagree with your view on political situations or you support their right to chop off your head in the context of their societal norms. Hell, it is the norm. Stick around, you'll see.

[sugarpop]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

I know one thing. If I was caught and guilty of such acts of whatever I would stand up and loudly exclaim that I was tortured and say whatever I could to discredit whom ever imprisoned me, esp if I know that much of the world was jumping on my band wagon, whether it was true or not. I would milk that for all it was worth, and a good lawyer would do the same. I mean think about it, the dude guilty of shooting some other dude for a rock of crack on the street corner certainly stands up in court and says, "Yes your honor, I am absolutely guilty." The advantage these guys have is they have never gone to court. Their court is the court of public opinion, half-truths, and outright lies by both parties.

[TheMercenary]

You have a problem with that. Fuck, that is exactly what I would do. You are going to tell me that you, or any other scumbag who has hit our justice system guilty as hell has not done the same? Hell, I would?

Tell me who you want to believe?

Take a side now.

Who do you believe and why?

[sugarpop]

You can read the memos here... http://www.aclu.org/safefree/general/olc_memos.html

This one defines torture and what they were allowed to do...
http://luxmedia.vo.llnwd.net/o10/cli...2002_bybee.pdf

It says they can deprive someone of sleep for 11 days. As someone who suffers from sleep disorders, I can tell you that sleep deprivation is bad. Very, very bad. I can't even imagine what would happen if I was completely deprived of sleep for 11 days, or even for 7 days. For one thing, you start hallucinating.

The stress positions, I don't know if any of you have ever tried to stay in one position, without moving, for long periods of time. When I took kundalini yoga, we used to stay in one position for about 15-20 minutes at a time. It's a lot harder than it sounds. Your muscles start aching really bad. It doesn't say how long they were allowed to do this, but I imagine it's a lot longer than 20 minutes.

The confinement with insects that you are afraid of, they were allowed to do that up to 18 hours. If I was locked inside a small container with cockroaches, I would have a freaking heart attack.

The waterboarding, that was allowed for as long as 20 hours at a time. Can you imagine feeling like you were drowing for 20 hours?

It goes on to explain the definition of torture...

Section 2340 makes it a criminal offense for any person "outside of the United States [to] commit or attempt to commit torture."

Section 2340(1) defines torture as:
an act committed by a person acting under the color' of law specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to Lawful sanctions) upon another person within his custody of physical control.


18 USC. § 2340(1). As ·we outlined in our opinion on standards of conduct under Section 2340A, a violation of2340A requires a showing that: (1) the torture occurred outside the United States; (2) the defendant acted under the color of law; (3) the victim 'was within the defendant's custody or control; (4) the defendant specifically intended to inflict severe pain or suffering; and (5) that the acted inflicted severe pain or suffering...

You have asked us to assume that Zubayadah is being held outside the United States, Zubayadah is within U.S. custody, and the interrogators are acting under the color of law. At issue is whether the last two elements would be met by the use of the proposed procedures, namely, whether those using these procedures would have the requisite mental state and whether these procedures would inflict severe pain or suffering within the meaning of the statute.

Severe Pain or Suffering In order for pain or suffering to rise to the level of torture, the statute requires that it be severe. As we have previousty explained, this reaches only extreme acts. See id. at 13. Nonetheless, drawing upon cases under the Torture Victim Protection Act (TVPA), which has a definition of torture that is similar to Section 2340"s definition, we found that a single event of sufficiently intense pain may fall within this prohibition...

...We next consider whether the use of these techniques would inflict severe mental pain or suffering within the meaning of Section 2340. Section 2340 defines severe mental pain or suffering as "the prolonged mental harm caused by or resulting from" one of several predicate acts. 12 U.S.c. § 2340(2). predicate acts are: (1) the intentional infliction or threatened infliction of severe physical pain or suffering; (2) the administration or application, or threatened administration or application of mind-altering substances of other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or the personality; (3) the threat of imminent death; or (4) the threat that any of the preceding acts will be done to another person. See 18 U.S.C. § 2340(2)(AJ-{D). As we have explained, this list of predicate acts is exclusive. Sec Section 2340A Memorandum at 8. No other acts can support 2 charge under Section 2340 based on the infliction of severe mental pain or suffering. Thus, if the methods that you have described do not either in and of themselves constitute one of these acts or as a course of conduct fulfill the predicate act requiremcnt, the prohibition has not been violated. See ia. Before addressing these techniques, we note that it is plain that none of these proceedures involves a threat to any third party, the use of any kind of drugs, or for the reasons described above, the infliction of severe physical pain. Thus, the question is whether any of these acts, separately or as a course of conduct, constitutes a threat of severe physical pain or suffering, a procedure designed to disrupt profoundly the senses, or a threat of imminent death...

From that description, it seems pretty clear to me that what they did WAS most definitely torture.

[sugarpop]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

You have a problem with that. Fuck, that is exactly what I would do. You are going to tell me that you, or any other scumbag who has hit our justice system guilty as hell has not done the same? Hell, I would?

Tell me who you want to believe?

Take a side now.

Who do you believe and why?

It is pretty well known that a lot of the people down there were not terrorists. We put them there anyway, and kept them there for YEARS, without a trial, or without even charging them with a crime. So why would I believe anything the last administration said about what they were doing? All they have done, from day 1, is LIE to the Emrican people, and the rest of world. From the memos, it's clear we used torture, even while Bush was going on TV insisting that "we do not torture." My God, after Abu Ghraib, it is ASTOUNDING to me that so many people were still in denial about our actions with regards to torture. Bush has done more to ruin our standing in the world than everyone who ever went before him, combined. How will ever wipe that stain from our heritage?

[DanaC]

One of the most sickening things about that whole abu ghraib affair to my mind, was the way soldiers like that young woman carried the can for what was clearly a systemic problem.

A similar thing is happening here now with the police. For as long as I can recall, on demonstrations, it was a commonplace that if you saw police without their id numbers on their epaulettes, you knew were in for a kicking. It happened when I was at the poll tax demo in '90, and again at the big anti-nazi rally in '93. We all of us know that's what happens on demos. It also happened routinely throughout the miners' strike in the 80s. Now, I don't mean a handful of cops chose to go without their id...I am talking about a line of police, three men deep across critical areas, such as the one blocking the demonstrators from getting near Downing Street in '90. All the police along the sides of the march early on, were just ordinary police, with numbers on, keeping the peace. Then as we got near to more sensitive and potentially troubled areas, the police all as far as any of us could see, had no numbers. WE commented on it atthe time. AS we noticed the shift from friendly, professional, to aggressive and unaccountable, we actually said it, we said, 'shit....they've no id'. And they hadn't. And they were very violent. And they used same 'kettle', or corralling strategy that caused such violence the other week. There was even footage at the time, of police losing control and beating the shit out demonstrators (and a journalist). This is how our police force deal with demonstrations and deomstrators. Its the way it's been for a long long time.


At the summit in london recently, where a demo was (again) sparked into violence by the 'kettle' strategy of the demo police, a newspaper seller who wasn't even involved was shoved and hit by a policeman and then died of a heart attack (I think). There's footage of police hitting demonstrators with batons, shioving them to the ground. One cop smashed his shield into the face of a demonstrator, another is hitting a woman on her legs with a baton. One of the things clearly apparent in these days of instant mobile filming, was that the police involved werent wearing ID numbers.

The police are trying to treat this as a number of individuals breaking the rules. Again. Rather than the commonplace that it has been for as long as anybody can recall. Just like with the soldiers at abu Ghraib, they are going to be made to stand for the crimes of an institution. Yet again, the institution which (we all suspect) tacitly approved of their behaviour, and I suspect directly engaged with and either supported, or subtly directed that behaviour, stands aloof and untouched, whilst those that did its dirty work get to play guilty devil to the waiting media, and lose everything.

[richlevy]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

Because chopping off the head of someone you disagree with is totally acceptable if they disagree with your view on political situations or you support their right to chop off your head in the context of their societal norms. Hell, it is the norm. Stick around, you'll see.

I think you can safely assume that if any US administration starting beheading people everyone here would complain. Heck, one of our allies is Saudi Arabia, and they still practice beheading. Of course, our recently departed president was a governor who presided over 152 executions in a state where the courts have held that it is not their responsibility to insure that public defenders in capital murder cases stay awake.

So if I was an accused gay man in Saudi Arabia or a poor innocent murder defendant in Texas, the outcome would pretty much be the same. Ask me which I would prefer, a lethal injection in Texas or a beheading in the Middle East?

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by sugarpop

It is pretty well known that a lot of the people down there were not terrorists.

Based on what source? That is part of the problem.

We put them there anyway, and kept them there for YEARS, without a trial, or without even charging them with a crime.

Also part of the problem as I stated earlier.

So why would I believe anything the last administration said about what they were doing?

So what makes you trust the current one any more than the last?

All they have done, from day 1, is LIE to the Emrican people, and the rest of world. From the memos, it's clear we used torture, even while Bush was going on TV insisting that "we do not torture." My God, after Abu Ghraib, it is ASTOUNDING to me that so many people were still in denial about our actions with regards to torture. Bush has done more to ruin our standing in the world than everyone who ever went before him, combined. How will ever wipe that stain from our heritage?

Don't mix events that happened at Abu Ghraib with Gitmo. There is no evidence that anything close to what happened in Iraq took place in Gitmo. The rest ot that is your opinion taking right from the left-wingnut talking points.