Obama releases the "Torture Memos"

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
I get that - what I'm suggesting is that it's no more valid for opponents of torture to argue the ineffectiveness of the particular techniques to support their position.

It reminds me of a few years ago when a number of people who had initially supported the invasion of Iraq felt duped when the WMD truth came out and knee-jerked justification for their position by denouncing Saddam as an evil dictator who needed to be taken down for the sake of Iraqis.

I don't really see how the one is related with the other. And isn't the purpose of a rhetorical question, in many cases, to show how nonsensical the other's argument is?
 
my understanding -- and i could be wrong -- was that there was discussion as to whether or not it was acceptable to tell a detainee that they were aware of where his children lived and worked and they would tell said detainee that if he didn't produce whatever information then they would send people to his home and kidnap his child and then crush that child's testicles because his father was refusing to cooperate and give up said information.

Thanks, I was in the dark on that one.


Waterboarding someone over one hundred times seems excessive to me. Gen. Hayden did say that it was completely honorable to be against some of these techniques. Obama ran on it and he won the election after all. But Hayden also said that it was disingenuous to say that these methods were ineffective. He called it an "inconvenient truth" that we have been able to gather important intelligence from it. George Tenet also said that these methods did provide valuable information in his interview with Scott Pelley for 60 Minutes.

We will probably never agree where the line should be drawn with certain techniques, and that's ok. But you continue to maintain that they simply didn't work, while our intelligence directors say something else pretty consistently.
 
I'm definintely against torture, and glad that we've put a stop to it.

But I'm with Hayden on this. I wouldn't have disclosed it, at least not for some years to come. No reason our tactics and procedures (whether currently practiced or not) be known to potential targets someday. They can train/prepare against our means now. Better to let them wonder about our techniques.

BTW, I wouldn't exactly call Hayden a right winger. He's a career intelligence officer with no public party affliliation.
 
But you continue to maintain that they simply didn't work, while our intelligence directors say something else pretty consistently.


define "work."

torture doesn't work. we know this. can you point to specific information that was gathered that would have been unattainable by any other means? and was this information useful?

it's late, and i have gone well in-depth in the past on why torture doesn't work, the danger it poses to a free and democratic society, the fact that this was not Lyndie England but in fact top-down policy, that these were techniques used by the Gestapo, Stalin, and the Khamer Rouge, and the fact that once torture is legalized those who authored it's legalization and gave the orders to carry it out have a vested interest to lie about it's effectiveness.

what do the actual practitioners have to say?

The escalation to especially brutal interrogation tactics against the prisoner, Abu Zubaydah, including confining him in boxes and slamming him against the wall, was ordered by officials at C.I.A. headquarters based on a highly inflated assessment of his importance, interviews and a review of newly released documents show.

Abu Zubaydah had provided much valuable information under less severe treatment, and the harsher handling produced no breakthroughs, according to one former intelligence official with direct knowledge of the case. Instead, watching his torment caused great distress to his captors, the official said.

Even for those who believed that brutal treatment could produce results, the official said, “seeing these depths of human misery and degradation has a traumatic effect.”

C.I.A. officers adopted these techniques only after the Justice Department had given its official approval on Aug. 1, 2002, in one of four formerly secret legal memos on interrogation that were released Thursday.

there has never been a ticking time bomb scenario. the CIA has blatantly lied about the effectiveness of waterboarding KSM and Zubaydah. i can even understand some overzealousness in the immediate aftermath of 9-11, but that's now what we have here. we have a program with rules and bureaucracy put into place years after 9-11, and after Abh Ghraib.

how far are you willing to go? as McCain has said, torture is not about them, it's about us.
 
But I'm with Hayden on this. I wouldn't have disclosed it, at least not for some years to come. No reason our tactics and procedures (whether currently practiced or not) be known to potential targets someday. They can train/prepare against our means now. Better to let them wonder about our techniques.



can you point out the new information contained in these memos that was heretofore unavailable?

because the only thing i hadn't heard about was the insect torture.
 
the new information that Zubaydah was waterboarded 83 times in a month after lots of information was acquired from him using legal interrogation method let's us know that the point of torture is, always, to torture.
83 times in a month and he's still alive. Gosh, sounds like waterboarding turns out to be rather more like teasing than torture.

Imagine the intel we may have gathered if we' ed really amped up the sadism and tickled 'em with feathers.
 
83 times in a month and he's still alive. Gosh, sounds like waterboarding turns out to be rather more like teasing than torture.

Imagine the intel we may have gathered if we' ed really amped up the sadism and tickled 'em with feathers.


wow.

well, i guess that's why they had doctors there. to make sure no one died. so they could torture that much more.

you're such a fucking Christian, INDY. the walking embodiment of it's contemporary, conservative definition.

thank Christ we kicked you out of office.
 
83 times in a month and he's still alive. Gosh, sounds like waterboarding turns out to be rather more like teasing than torture.

Well if he was dead it would be called murder. You don't quite grasp the concept of torture do you? The point is to keep them alive...

I always find it incredibly disturbing when Christians will fight tooth and nail to keep a definition but poke fun at torture.

It embarasses me and makes me sick to my stomach at the same time...:sad:
 
well, look at it this way BVS.

waterboarding was so effective, and so critical to our intelligence gathering, that they had to do it 83 times in one month because the useful, actionable intelligence just kept pouring out of his mouth like water from a hose.

there's also this: Believe Me, It's Torture | vanityfair.com
 
Well as suggested by our friend here in a previous torture thread, maybe if American Exceptionalism was renamed American Fabulousism you would understand...
 
They may have not got any useful information
but I sure hope Bush snuck in a Baptism during one of those water boardings.

at least he could save a soul for Jebus.
 
Well if he was dead it would be called murder. You don't quite grasp the concept of torture do you? The point is to keep them alive...
So then torture is like a bogus political scandal. The point isn't really to rather information but rather... just keep it alive.

I always find it incredibly disturbing when Christians will fight tooth and nail to keep a definition but poke fun at torture.
That's the thing with words. Change their definition often enough and they become meaningless. Today torture; tomorrow, marriage.
It embarasses me and makes me sick to my stomach at the same time...:sad:
Spoken like a true progressive.

Oh wait, you're talking about me and not the United States Of America.
Well, sorry. Maybe it's just a bout of stomach flu.
 
wow.

well, i guess that's why they had doctors there. to make sure no one died. so they could torture that much more.

you're such a fucking Christian, INDY. the walking embodiment of it's contemporary, conservative definition.

THEY HAD DOCTORS THERE !! OMG, the more details that come out the more disgraceful this becomes.

thank Christ we kicked you out of office.

Don't fear, we make rather good use out of our walkabouts in the desert.
 
Torture was extremely effective: The US's reputation and credibility went down the toilet in a matter of days. Moral authority of the US is no more.

But Obama is doing a good job to restore it again.
 
Article 5, UN Declaration of Human Rights.

No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.






im sure its a very simple way of looking at an incredibly complex issue, but lets think about it.
Hold these bastards accountable. Bush and co are no better than common war criminals.
 
So then torture is like a bogus political scandal. The point isn't really to rather information but rather... just keep it alive.
Look up, that's my point flying over your head.

That's the thing with words. Change their definition often enough and they become meaningless. Today torture; tomorrow, marriage.
Love, Christianity, morals... no believe me you've done a pretty good job redefining things.

Spoken like a true progressive.
That should be your signature...
 
THEY HAD DOCTORS THERE !! OMG, the more details that come out the more disgraceful this becomes.



what don't you get?

the doctors were there to make sure no one died because they were being tortured, and despite that, dozens and dozens of detainees died anyway.

you seem to think it's some sort of evidence of American morality that we didn't send every person rounded up in Iraq and Afghanistan to the gas chambers.

but i suppose having low standards helps with the American triumphalism.
 
what don't you get?

the doctors were there to make sure no one died because they were being tortured, and despite that, dozens and dozens of detainees died anyway.
From the last report I could find, of the 779 detainees that have been held at the United States military prison at Guantánamo Bay, 5 died there. Not, high for a prison population.

However, 18 former detainees had taken part in new terrorist offences and 43 others were also suspected of involvements in attacks.

Do we care about those innocent lives lost?
you seem to think it's some sort of evidence of American morality that we didn't send every person rounded up in Iraq and Afghanistan to the gas chambers.

but i suppose having low standards helps with the American triumphalism.

When you take these "acts of torture" and remove them from the context of...

1) Our lack of, and urgent need for, information about our enemies size, strength, organization, location and weaponry in the immediate post 9/11 years.

2) That this is not a Geneva Convention signing, uniformed, flag carrying enemy but one that intentionally hides among, dresses like and targets civilians.

3) These acts were done with full CIA and Presidential approval along with Congressional oversight.

4) 9/11 occurred in great part because of intelligence and law enforcement agencies inability to "connect the dots."

5) The full details of attacks prevented and innocent lives saved that has yet to be told.

...you distort the truth.

But if political witch-hunts are more important than defending the nation against hostile enemies who cares right?
 
In less than an hour
I will hear John Yoo

explain everything

I am attending an event he is speaking at;

080401_jur_yooex.jpg


Chapman Dialogue Debate with John Yoo

Today, Tuesday, Apr 21 11:00a
at Memorial Hall, Chapman University, Orange, CA

“Presidential Power and Success in Times of Crisis” featuring John Yoo, Fletcher Jones Distinguished Visiting Professor of Law, Chapman University School of Law and Professor of Law, University of California at Berkeley School of Law at Boalt Hall and John C. Eastman, Dean and Donald P. Kennedy Chair in Law Chapman University School of Law, who will debate.
 
From the last report I could find, of the 779 detainees that have been held at the United States military prison at Guantánamo Bay, 5 died there. Not, high for a prison population.


you realize that many, many more detainees exist across the globe rather than just those at Gitmo. in all, there have been more than 100 deaths amongst those detained by the United States and subjected to the Cheney torture program (according to the Pentagon and Human Rights groups).


However, 18 former detainees had taken part in new terrorist offences and 43 others were also suspected of involvements in attacks.

Do we care about those innocent lives lost?


you're setting up a false choice, and you're totally misunderstanding the situation. further, do you think that torturing someone is going to make them more or less likely to return to jihadist activity? do you think that the torture program is going to make more people sympathetic to the jihadist cause?

you're falling back on hackneyed Bush-era false choices. you're trying to say that if i disagree with anything that has been done in defense of the country, then i want innocent people to die. that kind of thinking is dead and buried, and the truth is that the choices aren't as stark as you and Cheney would like to believe.



When you take these "acts of torture" and remove them from the context of...

1) Our lack of, and urgent need for, information about our enemies size, strength, organization, location and weaponry in the immediate post 9/11 years.

2) That this is not a Geneva Convention signing, uniformed, flag carrying enemy but one that intentionally hides among, dresses like and targets civilians.

3) These acts were done with full CIA and Presidential approval along with Congressional oversight.

4) 9/11 occurred in great part because of intelligence and law enforcement agencies inability to "connect the dots."

5) The full details of attacks prevented and innocent lives saved that has yet to be told.

...you distort the truth.



1. you're assuming that good intelligence was only available if the US went beyond legal interrogation techniques that have been used for the past 200 years. what the evidence shows is that torture gives you bad evidence, and that there has never, ever been a ticking time bomb scenario, and that there was no evidence gained through waterboarding that was unattainable through any other means. you can't possibly believe that 83 nuggets of previously unattainable information were coughed up after the 83 instances of waterboarding in a single month.

2. no matter the Geneva Convention, it's still all illegal because the president cannot torture unless he has the approval of Congress. the president has no legal right to do so without Congress' passage of legislation repealing the laws and treaties governing such torture. of course, the M.O. of the Bush administration is that if the president does something, then it is by definition legal.

3. we know that "presidential" approval under Bush is meaningless, and we know that the CIA were operating under the guidelines given to them by the Bush "lawyers," and that they were also used to usurp the powers of Congress to oversee such activities. the Bush White House conceived of the Bush as a permanent commander-in-chief with extraordinary powers to interpret and overturn laws for the sake of the national defense. America is not Bush's Banana Republic, even if he tried to keep it as such.

4. agreed. what does this have to do with waterboarding? might it have more to do with Arab and Farsi linguists who were fired from the Army because they were gay? might it have to do with the Bush Administration's pre-9-11 preoccupation with China and the Cold War? might it have something to do with a memo titled "Bin Laden Determined to Strike Inside the United States"? we can point to intelligence failures all day, but to say that there were illegal activities that would have somehow prevented 9-11 is, again, evidence of the false choice you've constructed (and probably necessary for you to continue your defense of the torture program).

5. again, the burden of proof is for you to say that such information would have been unattainable without illegal, Gestapo and Khamer Rouge techniques. i sense that you are comfortable not knowing that your government is committing crimes, ostensibly on your behalf (but, as we've seen, to no measurable avail), and that you have no right to know what your government is doing. but some of us believe that the strength of our government is it's supposed transparency.



But if political witch-hunts are more important than defending the nation against hostile enemies who cares right?


well, gosh, INDY, when you frame it that way, what am i going to say? because either we torture people, or everyone dies.

which might have a modicum of credibility if any of it actually worked and intelligence was gathered that would have been unattainable outside of the clear, legal interrogation methods that have been used for hundreds of years.

maintaining who we are and what we'll do and what we'll won't is more important than causing a few evil people to suffer.

it's about us, it's not about them.

besides, you're tucked away safely in Indiana. if anyone's going to be killed by a terrorist attack, it's me on the DC metro.
 
define "work."

torture doesn't work. we know this. can you point to specific information that was gathered that would have been unattainable by any other means? and was this information useful?

The CIA memos that document the results of the interrogation program should be declassified. That would reduce some of the speculation on our part about what CIA leadership say 'worked'.

Then the public will have seen most everything in context. Both the legal memos post 9/11 and the information gained as a result of the congressionally approved program. Following that Eric Holder absolutely should prosecute and they can fight it out in court for all of us to see.

Don't hold your breath... :hmm:
 
1. you're assuming that good intelligence was only available if the US went beyond legal interrogation techniques that have been used for the past 200 years. what the evidence shows is that torture gives you bad evidence, and that there has never, ever been a ticking time bomb scenario, and that there was no evidence gained through waterboarding that was unattainable through any other means. you can't possibly believe that 83 nuggets of previously unattainable information were coughed up after the 83 instances of waterboarding in a single month.
According to former CIA director Michael Hayden fully half of our government's knowledge about the structure and activities of al Qaeda came from those early interrogations. It is healthy, as a nation, to have a discussion about these things but please don't forget the feeling of vulnerability we felt as a country after the 9/11 attacks. And try and understand the responsibility the Bush administration felt in preventing another attack.

By the way, are you still outraged about your civil liberties vis-à-vis government wiretaps now that the Obama administration has chosen to basically continue the Bush program as is? Or was that and "The death of habeas corpus" just part of the Left's anti-Bush hysteria of which Bush-as-war-criminal is just the final vestige?


2. no matter the Geneva Convention, it's still all illegal because the president cannot torture unless he has the approval of Congress. the president has no legal right to do so without Congress' passage of legislation repealing the laws and treaties governing such torture. of course, the M.O. of the Bush administration is that if the president does something, then it is by definition legal.
Illegal combatants, such as terrorists, pirates or international arms dealers are not -- repeat, not -- prisoners of war covered by the Geneva convention. But, after years of deliberation and weighing positive and negative implications we, as a country, now choose to treat them as such.
That does not, however, automatically make earlier actions war crimes.
3. we know that "presidential" approval under Bush is meaningless, and we know that the CIA were operating under the guidelines given to them by the Bush "lawyers," and that they were also used to usurp the powers of Congress to oversee such activities. the Bush White House conceived of the Bush as a permanent commander-in-chief with extraordinary powers to interpret and overturn laws for the sake of the national defense. America is not Bush's Banana Republic, even if he tried to keep it as such.
Congress could have specifically outlawed waterboarding. They didn't until last year.
5. again, the burden of proof is for you to say that such information would have been unattainable without illegal, Gestapo and Khamer Rouge techniques. i sense that you are comfortable not knowing that your government is committing crimes, ostensibly on your behalf (but, as we've seen, to no measurable avail), and that you have no right to know what your government is doing. but some of us believe that the strength of our government is it's supposed transparency.
"Gestapo and Khamer Rouge techniques." That is downright insulting to members of our intelligence services. Please, for one instant, allow for the possibility that these, and only these, techniques used on but a handful of very bad men have saved the lives of American citizens. How many, what number, would it take for you to say, "Oh, well I guess I'm OK with it then"? 100? 1,000? 10,000?

I can accept the possibility that our government went too far in some of their interrogation techniques. I don't belive that now, but I could accept it. But sorry, it would have been done solely with the best of intentions, to save innocent human life. NOT with the same evil design of silencing political dissent and genocide that motivated "Gestapo and Khamer Rouge techniques."

besides, you're tucked away safely in Indiana. if anyone's going to be killed by a terrorist attack, it's me on the DC metro.

The largest one day sporting event in the world. The Indianapolis 500.
 
But I'm with Hayden on this. I wouldn't have disclosed it, at least not for some years to come. No reason our tactics and procedures (whether currently practiced or not) be known to potential targets someday. They can train/prepare against our means now. Better to let them wonder about our techniques.

Really?

I pretty sure no matter how many times you waterboard someone or slam them into a wall, it's still going to hurt.

http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=224287&title=we-dont-torture
 
Back
Top Bottom