Torture memos

[Urbane Guerrilla]

Originally Posted by Redux

We (Reagan) signed it, we (the US) should live by it.

Have you never considered that we die by it, Redux? You want to volunteer to be the first casualty? I certainly wouldn't. When are you going to get it through your skull that if you want a good world, we should not lose to these people of unfreedom. The less unfreedom, the better the world. I have understood this for so long that I stand in opposition to your ideas, and all ideas like them. What then is there to say of your understanding? Is it truly profound?

"By any means necessary" is the cry of the fanatic, but are not our foes almost entirely fanatics? They are already doing the "by any means necessary." And they are a pack of damned fools, for they don't, as fanatics generally do not, calculate that a mirroring fanaticism rises in opposition to theirs

The Left has made it abundantly if tacitly clear that they do not want us to win. (The Left can't even call these latterday Fascists dirty names!) Frankly, this sets the American Left against the interest of all humankind, which lies along freedom's road -- and what a fucking stupid place to be. No, the sins of the Left are simply too appalling, when they're not merely risible.

Some of us here could be smart enough not to be leftists, but have not yet used this intelligence, and a shining few of us show our higher intelligence and great enlightenment in not accepting leftism.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by Redux

But I am still not convinced that prosecution of Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld et al even if there is compelling evidence that they conspired in the authorization of torture is still in the best public interest.

I agree. I'd like to see the truth fully explored and names named of those responsible, but that said, I fear a politicized witch hunt.
Disgrace, maybe disbarment, but not prosecution.

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

Blah blah blah.

"By any means necessary" is the cry of the fanatic, but are not our foes almost entirely fanatics? They are already doing the "by any means necessary." And they are a pack of damned fools, for they don't, as fanatics generally do not, calculate that a mirroring fanaticism rises in opposition to theirs

Blah blah blah.

Yes, they are fanatics that will do anything.
But the millions of people that support the fanatics stated goals, and sort of support the fanatics themselves, will throw themselves 100% into the fanatics camp, if you myopic imperialists are allowed to fuck things up.

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by classicman

re: the torture... I dunno - I don't want anyone to endure that kind of shit, but they attacked us and that was a time when many were waiting for the next attack.

They?
You have to get pretty general to build a "they" that includes the people who attacked us and the people we tortured.

Heck, even if we are 100% certain that everyone we "really" tortured (as opposed to what apologists dismiss as fraternity hazing) was captured in a battlefield and was actively fighting us, the chances that they were part of the "they" who attacked us before we attacked them are vanishingly small.

[Undertoad]

Oh, HM, I'm sure classic was talking about al Qaeda.

Do you have a cite that shows someone waterboarded that was not part of al Q?

[Undertoad]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

Redux: it has been reported that no such wave was a serious threat

cite

citation request ignored over 24 hours, position fails.

Originally Posted by Undertoad

citation request ignored over 24 hours, position fails.

WOW...that is the first I have heard of deadlines for cites.

My point earlie was that several FBI and CIA interorrogations questioned the validity of some of the claims.

Here is one FBI interrogator:

FOR seven years I have remained silent about the false claims magnifying the effectiveness of the so-called enhanced interrogation techniques like waterboarding. I have spoken only in closed government hearings, as these matters were classified. But the release last week of four Justice Department memos on interrogations allows me to shed light on the story, and on some of the lessons to be learned

One of the most striking parts of the memos is the false premises on which they are based. The first, dated August 2002, grants authorization to use harsh interrogation techniques on a high-ranking terrorist, Abu Zubaydah, on the grounds that previous methods hadn’t been working. The next three memos cite the successes of those methods as a justification for their continued use.

It is inaccurate, however, to say that Abu Zubaydah had been uncooperative. Along with another F.B.I. agent, and with several C.I.A. officers present, I questioned him from March to June 2002, before the harsh techniques were introduced later in August. Under traditional interrogation methods, he provided us with important actionable intelligence.

We discovered, for example, that Khalid Shaikh Mohammed was the mastermind of the 9/11 attacks. Abu Zubaydah also told us about Jose Padilla, the so-called dirty bomber. This experience fit what I had found throughout my counterterrorism career: traditional interrogation techniques are successful in identifying operatives, uncovering plots and saving lives.

There was no actionable intelligence gained from using enhanced interrogation techniques on Abu Zubaydah that wasn’t, or couldn’t have been, gained from regular tactics. In addition, I saw that using these alternative methods on other terrorists backfired on more than a few occasions — all of which are still classified. The short sightedness behind the use of these techniques ignored the unreliability of the methods, the nature of the threat, the mentality and modus operandi of the terrorists, and due process.

Defenders of these techniques have claimed that they got Abu Zubaydah to give up information leading to the capture of Ramzi bin al-Shibh, a top aide to Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, and Mr. Padilla. This is false. The information that led to Mr. Shibh’s capture came primarily from a different terrorist operative who was interviewed using traditional methods. As for Mr. Padilla, the dates just don’t add up: the harsh techniques were approved in the memo of August 2002, Mr. Padilla had been arrested that May.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/23/op...=1&ref=opinion

I wll cite former CIA interrogators when I have time...but I might not make your deadline.

Now can you cite anything that would prove that any information gathered by torture could NOT have been extracted by legal means of interrogation?

And beyond that....the issue for me remains....does the end justify the means?

Torture and cruel and degrading treatment is ILLEGAL.

You may believe its OK for the Pres/VP/AG etc to circumvent the law.

I dont.

[classicman]

Originally Posted by Redux

cruel and degrading treatment is ILLEGAL.

What are their definitions? I gotta rethink this part.

[Undertoad]

Dux, to clarify, you said regarding the "Second Wave" attack plot on LA, the details of which we now know were learned using controversial techniques:

"... it has been reported just as much by other sources that no such wave was a serious threat."

That is the statement on which I am still waiting for a citation. Please, take your time to find one of those other sources.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Redux

Torture and cruel and degrading treatment is ILLEGAL.

Torture, yes.

Define cruel and degrading. You really can't because it differs for each person. And on that note I would suggest it is not illegal. If it was you can make a case for every single person arrested in the US under our law by any police officer.

[sugarpop]

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

Have you never considered that we die by it, Redux? You want to volunteer to be the first casualty? I certainly wouldn't. When are you going to get it through your skull that if you want a good world, we should not lose to these people of unfreedom. The less unfreedom, the better the world. I have understood this for so long that I stand in opposition to your ideas, and all ideas like them. What then is there to say of your understanding? Is it truly profound?

"By any means necessary" is the cry of the fanatic, but are not our foes almost entirely fanatics? They are already doing the "by any means necessary." And they are a pack of damned fools, for they don't, as fanatics generally do not, calculate that a mirroring fanaticism rises in opposition to theirs

The Left has made it abundantly if tacitly clear that they do not want us to win. (The Left can't even call these latterday Fascists dirty names!) Frankly, this sets the American Left against the interest of all humankind, which lies along freedom's road -- and what a fucking stupid place to be. No, the sins of the Left are simply too appalling, when they're not merely risible.

Some of us here could be smart enough not to be leftists, but have not yet used this intelligence, and a shining few of us show our higher intelligence and great enlightenment in not accepting leftism.

Originally Posted by Undertoad

Dux, to clarify, you said regarding the "Second Wave" attack plot on LA, the details of which we now know were learned using controversial techniques:

"... it has been reported just as much by other sources that no such wave was a serious threat."

That is the statement on which I am still waiting for a citation. Please, take your time to find one of those other sources.

UT...the reports I had read referred to the fact that the members of the Jemaah Islamiyah (the so-called Indonesian wing of al queda) who were reportedly recruited for the "second wave" against Los Angeles were captured in 2002 as a result of other intel (even before KSM was waterboarded).

But I cant find the report that I read...so I'll take an F on this one.

The larger point I was trying to make was that there is nothing to suggest that legal interrogation would not have accomplished the same or better results as noted by the former interrogator (and others) in the article I posted above.

Originally Posted by classicman

What are their definitions? I gotta rethink this part.

Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment is illegal under UNCAT....the definitions in the treaty itself are not very specific, but under international law, under which the treaty is held accountable, that would include:

prolonged sleep deprivation - days not hours
excessive physical abuse - banging one's head against a wall
extremely painful stress positions - being shackled with arms above the head for days at a time
psychological abuse - threatening to inject AID virus
sensory deprivation
there are others

I agree it is subjective.

In the US Code, it refers to Constitutional protections as well as UNCAT protections:

TITLE 42 > CHAPTER 21D > § 2000dd–0

§ 2000dd–0. Additional prohibition on cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment

(1) In general
No individual in the custody or under the physical control of the United States Government, regardless of nationality or physical location, shall be subject to cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment.

(2) Cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment defined
In this section, the term “cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment” means cruel, unusual, and inhumane treatment or punishment prohibited by the Fifth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, as defined in the United States Reservations, Declarations and Understandings to the United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Forms of Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment done at New York, December 10, 1984.

(3) Compliance
The President shall take action to ensure compliance with this section, including through the establishment of administrative rules and procedures.

Again, IMO, determination of the limits of such treatments should not be made unilaterally by the executive branch but if questions arise, should be in consultation with either the legislative or judicial branch.

Even more so if there is any likelihood or possibility of political motivation....like as noted in the Senate report, Cheney/Rumsfeld directing interrogators to do whatever necessary and as harsh as necessary to find an al queda - Saddam connection.

[TheMercenary]

excessive physical abuse - banging one's head against a wall
extremely painful stress positions - being shackled with arms above the head for days at a time
psychological abuse - threatening to inject AID virus

Plese tell my you didn't actually write these.

So if a person bangs their head against the wall?

What is an AID virus?

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

Plese tell my you didn't actually write these.

So if a person bangs their head against the wall?

What is an AID virus?

I didnt write them.....international law

[sugarpop]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

Plese tell my you didn't actually write these.

So if a person bangs their head against the wall?

What is an AID virus?

You know what he meant. And banging someone's head against a wall could result in death. Just look what happened recently to that actress, who hit her head in a skiiing accident.

And yes, having your arms over your head for extended periods of time is very painful. Having to stay in any one position for extended periods of time (excessively extended) can be very painful.