What Interrogation Techniques are Acceptable?

[BigRob]

It is the same. It is causing actual physical pain and could cause internal medical problems or even death if overused or used on a person with a wide range of medical conditions.

It's like sometimes people die when they're tazed. Let go on long enough, on enough subjects, someone would eventually die.

It is an act to extract information whether it is available or not by inflicting real & physical pain & suffering while the person is made to feel as if they are dying.

No one died as a direct result of these techniques as far as I am aware.

You can agree with doing something wrong in an end justifies the mean way... but you cannot turn wrong into right.

I just do not have a problem with subjecting those that orchestrated 9/11 to this kind of thing.

Not only can it affect the treatment of our own captured now... it can have lasting ramifications in all future conflicts & in our attempts in the future to prosecute others who torture.

With what country has it effected the treatment of our captured soldiers? I would also say there is a different between waterboarding three people and someone like Pol Pot who massacred 1/3 of his country. I am not sure this really takes away our ability to prosecute people like that.

Furthermore we look so bad in the eyes of the world there is a Spanish Court trying to set up arrest warrants for various members of the Bush administration as we speak.

Yes, it is not going to go anywhere really, and world opinion has shown to be pretty fickle. Spain will support us on some issues regards of how they feel about us, and their population will like the United States again eventually, it typically goes in cycles.

Obviously not for you. There are a lot of child rapists killers and mass murders too. They shouldn't be and aren't tortured even if we believe they have a live captive somewhere.

Well, in my view, when they are US citizens they are entitled to the protection of the law and constitution no matter how terrible the crime they have committed.

It sometimes is not easy being a country of laws and a country that doesn't torture to try and build a case or prevent a death. But America is a place where we send people to trial & punish... not have a jailer become judge & jury.

I think we had Congress and the President becomes the judge and jury. I am OK with that for people the people that we picked up and put at GTMO.

I just look back to the example during the Iraq War. Two marines were kidnapped by insurgents and we had credible intelligence on where they were holding the marines. Instead of immediately going to get them, we had to have a sit down to ensure that the intelligence collected did not break the FISA laws. Roughly 12 hours later when it was concluded that it did not, the marines were already dead. They were buried out at Arlington semi recently. I don't know how to explain that to their parents.

Bush declared the conflict. Bin Laden declared the conflict. That's as declared a conflict as anyone can get when one side is not fighting out of a single recognized country but out of a region.

They declared the conflict yes, but declaring a conflict is not all that is needed to get Geneva Protections. The manner in which you fight it is just as important.

The fighters wear their local garb just as the Viet Cong did. And how can you choose to forget the stories out of Vietnam where the little kid would walk up to an American GI with a hand grenade on them or in a stuffed toy???

That was a serious problem in the Vietnam War I concede that, just as it is a serious problem in this war. The difference being if we lose this war, it is the end of the world as we know it.

Unfortunately now I am convinced that you do think everything has been just fine Rob.

Fine is probably not the world, justifiable is probably better.

It's looking more & more like the American people and the world should maybe get a chance to find out. I myself am starting to think about it favorably and I certainly didn't start out that way.

I don't mind having a trial, Bush is going to be acquitted if there is one. The problem I have with the whole thing is that setting up a trial (a real one) is going to rip the country apart and that is the last thing that we need right now in my view.

A lot of talk about Presidents Clinton & Obama........ but President Bush was fully in charge and in total control with both Houses of Congress at his immediate disposal when the worst terrorist attack ever on American soil took place.

I only brought them both up to show policies that I would follow them on, seeing as how it is probably pretty obvious that I am a Republican. I did not blame Clinton for 9/11 anymore than I blame Bush for 9/11. 9/11 was a collective failure of 60 years if you ask me.

 

[top gun]

BigRob;95383]No one died as a direct result of these techniques as far as I am aware.

Me neither that I know of in American custody. But the potential is still there.

And the underlying point is it physical coercive torture. I've tried to explain why it's wrong best I can. It's like you can't bend a man's arm behind his back and make a restrained harmless prisoner feel like you're going to break it to get a confession... and then say the confession is good and hey we didn't actually break his arm.

You can see that is wrong can't you?

I just do not have a problem with subjecting those that orchestrated 9/11 to this kind of thing.

I understand that. I'm saying the crime doesn't affect whether torture is right or wrong. Try them and if appropriate give them the death penalty, I don't care... but you don't torture human beings.

With what country has it effected the treatment of our captured soldiers? I would also say there is a different between waterboarding three people and someone like Pol Pot who massacred 1/3 of his country. I am not sure this really takes away our ability to prosecute people like that.

It's a future problem as much or more than an immediate one. We have lost a big chunk of moral high ground and the world is taking note. This is one of the reasons why President Obama was so loved overseas during his campaign... and now.

I have hundreds of friends in England & Canada and I can't express how often they have talked to me about Bush and torture. It's really a topic to them I assure you.

Yes, it is not going to go anywhere really, and world opinion has shown to be pretty fickle. Spain will support us on some issues regards of how they feel about us, and their population will like the United States again eventually, it typically goes in cycles.

The very fact it's reached this level in their government and court system should tell you something.

Well, in my view, when they are US citizens they are entitled to the protection of the law and constitution no matter how terrible the crime they have committed.

Well in my world of mental justification if I wouldn't go along with torturing a know baby rapist killer... I'm not blindly going along with torturing Bin Laden's chauffeur... but that's just me I guess.

I think we had Congress and the President becomes the judge and jury. I am OK with that for people the people that we picked up and put at GTMO.

I just look back to the example during the Iraq War. Two marines were kidnapped by insurgents and we had credible intelligence on where they were holding the marines. Instead of immediately going to get them, we had to have a sit down to ensure that the intelligence collected did not break the FISA laws. Roughly 12 hours later when it was concluded that it did not, the marines were already dead. They were buried out at Arlington semi recently. I don't know how to explain that to their parents.

Unfortunately we now know President Bush asked people to look for ways around torture rules.

And 12 hours would have most likely made no difference at all. And again the reason you have rules on this is so you don't violate a 1000 or 100,000 or 1,000,000 innocent peoples rights in the name of the one or two times it was accurate and expedient.

They declared the conflict yes, but declaring a conflict is not all that is needed to get Geneva Protections. The manner in which you fight it is just as important.

Symantics... TORTURE IS ALWAYS WRONG.

That was a serious problem in the Vietnam War I concede that, just as it is a serious problem in this war. The difference being if we lose this war, it is the end of the world as we know it.

That's not what you said Rob. You specifically made the case that this group strapped explosives to kids and that the Viet Cong did not... go back up a post or two and look.

And the rationale was EXACTLY the same. Back then the Conservatives were screaming we would be overrun by Communism every single bit as much... actually much more because Communism had been an issue longer... than radical Islam is now.

It's ALWAYS the end of the world when you want to justify doing anything you want... it has to be or people won't go alone with things that are usually considered as wrong.

Fine is probably not the world, justifiable is probably better.

Tomato Tamoto.

I don't mind having a trial, Bush is going to be acquitted if there is one. The problem I have with the whole thing is that setting up a trial (a real one) is going to rip the country apart and that is the last thing that we need right now in my view.

I think it would "politically" tear the country apart. But I think It would also show we don't allow anyone even our President to act above the law. It's dicey I'll grant you. It's hard to convict a President.

I only brought them both up to show policies that I would follow them on, seeing as how it is probably pretty obvious that I am a Republican. I did not blame Clinton for 9/11 anymore than I blame Bush for 9/11. 9/11 was a collective failure of 60 years if you ask me.

And I don't blame Bush for 9-11. I'm saying to Conservatives shut up about how much safer you make anybody... because you don't.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

No one died as a direct result of these techniques as far as I am aware.

....."aware" being the operative-word.​

"The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) released documents of forty-four autopsies held in Afghanistan and Iraq October 25, 2005. Twenty-one of those deaths were listed as homicides. The documents show that detainees died during and after interrogations by Navy SEALs, Military Intelligence, and Other Government Agency (OGA).

“These documents present irrefutable evidence that U.S. operatives tortured detainees to death during interrogation,” said Amrit Singh, an attorney with the ACLU. “The public has a right to know who authorized the use of torture techniques and why these deaths have been covered up.”​

 

[Dr.Who]

Me neither that I know of in American custody. But the potential is still there.

And the underlying point is it physical coercive torture. I've tried to explain why it's wrong best I can. It's like you can't bend a man's arm behind his back and make a restrained harmless prisoner feel like you're going to break it to get a confession... and then say the confession is good and hey we didn't actually break his arm.

You can see that is wrong can't you?

Yes it is morally wrong.

But legally it may be a necessary evil if making life unpleasant for a terrorist can (and did) stop a terrorist attack.

 

[top gun]

Yes it is morally wrong.

But legally it may be a necessary evil if making life unpleasant for a terrorist can (and did) stop a terrorist attack.

We can all rationalize anything if we like.

We can say something like... If an Al-Qeada group sets fire to a US military camp then it's OK to go burn down one of their civilian villages because the civilians will probably get out in time.

But it's still not right and should not and is not moral or legal... it's simply a rage & revenge response to a bad thing.

And a couple other points. Waterboarding didn't stop any major attack like 9-11. It might have gave up a couple players or gave some nebulous information about smaller plans but it's not at all like people on the Right would like to portray it to seem to justify it.

This wasn't some version of the TV show 24. When you saw the Abu Ghraib pics did that soldier girl with the cigarette hanging out the side of her mouth with the dog collar & leash on the prisoners neck with womans panties on their head look like Jack Bower to you? Seriously?

It wasn't anything like... The nuclear briefcase bomb is with Abdul in Atlanta at some motel and we know Rajah knows the address. It just simply wasn't like that at all.

All they were doing was using torture techniques to get the same kind of information one side or another would want in any regular POW situation. We don't torture POW's (well now after Bush I'm not sure at all that's even true) but we're not supposed to, and we shouldn't have tortured these military detainees either.

Bush got away with something here. President Obama stopped it. I have mixed feelings about a prosecution... but I hope the country remembers who did what.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

But legally it may be a necessary evil if making life unpleasant for a terrorist can (and did) stop a terrorist attack.

Yeah?

Name THREE attacks it stopped.

(....And, THESE don't count.)

​

"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.

Two weeks ago, Bush's vice president, Richard B. Cheney, renewed that assertion in an interview with CNN, saying that "the enhanced interrogation program" stopped "a great many" terrorist attacks on the level of Sept. 11.

"I've seen a report that was written, based upon the intelligence that we collected then, that itemizes the specific attacks that were stopped by virtue of what we learned through those programs," Cheney asserted, adding that the report is "still classified," and, "I can't give you the details of it without violating classification."

Since 2006, Senate intelligence committee members have pressed the CIA, in classified briefings, to provide examples of specific leads that were obtained from Abu Zubaida through the use of waterboarding and other methods, according to officials familiar with the requests.

The agency provided none, the officials said."​

 

[Dr.Who]

We can all rationalize anything if we like.

We can say something like... If an Al-Qeada group sets fire to a US military camp then it's OK to go burn down one of their civilian villages because the civilians will probably get out in time.

But it's still not right and should not and is not moral or legal... it's simply a rage & revenge response to a bad thing.

The interrogations were conducted according to the rules that were approved by both dems and pubs. What you described would not be according to any rules.

And a couple other points. Waterboarding didn't stop any major attack like 9-11. It might have gave up a couple players or gave some nebulous information about smaller plans but it's not at all like people on the Right would like to portray it to seem to justify it.

all three of the last cia directors (both under dems and pubs) said that important information was gained through harsh interrogation.

After he was subjected to the “waterboard” technique, KSM became cooperative, providing intelligence that led to the capture of key al Qaeda allies and, eventually, the closing down of an East Asian terrorist cell that had been tasked with carrying out the 9/11-style attack on Los Angeles.

The May 30, 2005 Justice Department memo that details what happened in this regard was written by then-Principal Deputy Attorney General Steven G. Bradbury to John A. Rizzo, the senior deputy general counsel for the CIA.

“You have informed us that the interrogation of KSM—once enhanced techniques were employed—led to the discovery of a KSM plot, the ‘Second Wave,’ ‘to use East Asian operatives to crash a hijacked airliner into’ a building in Los Angeles,” says the memo.

“You have informed us that information obtained from KSM also led to the capture of Riduan bin Isomuddin, better known as Hambali, and the discover of the Guraba Cell, a 17-member Jemaah Islamiyah cell tasked with executing the ‘Second Wave,’” reads the memo. “More specifically, we understand that KSM admitted that he had [redaction] large sum of money to an al Qaeda associate [redaction] … Khan subsequently identified the associate (Zubair), who was then captured. Zubair, in turn, provided information that led to the arrest of Hambali. The information acquired from these captures allowed CIA interrogators to pose more specific questions to KSM, which led the CIA to Hambali’s brother, al Hadi. Using information obtained from multiple sources, al-Hadi was captured, and he subsequently identified the Garuba cell.
​

http://www.dakotavoice.com/2009/04/cia-confirms-waterboarding-thwarted-attack-on-los-angeles/

Bush got away with something here. President Obama stopped it. I have mixed feelings about a prosecution... but I hope the country remembers who did what.

P. Obama says he will continue the practice of rendition which is just shipping people off to other countries for torture. He has not ended the war nor set a time table for it's end. He has increased the deficits that F. P. Bush increased. He has endorsed even more earmarks than the previous admin. He has not found a way to try or release the gitmo detainees. He is just as authoritarian and statist as Bush just in different ways.

(stupid blue font)

 

[BigRob]

Me neither that I know of in American custody. But the potential is still there.

And the underlying point is it physical coercive torture. I've tried to explain why it's wrong best I can. It's like you can't bend a man's arm behind his back and make a restrained harmless prisoner feel like you're going to break it to get a confession... and then say the confession is good and hey we didn't actually break his arm.

You can see that is wrong can't you?

We followed the rules established by Congress in a bipartisan fashion. According to the National Security Act Congress has to be briefed on the issue and give their approval. They did just that. Backtracking now after approving it and being "outraged" that it occurred is odd in my view. We did follow the rules.

I understand that. I'm saying the crime doesn't affect whether torture is right or wrong. Try them and if appropriate give them the death penalty, I don't care... but you don't torture human beings.

The law says who is entitled to the protection of the United States law. I have already outlined the major problems trying these people in Federal Court. It seems Obama has bought in to that as well because he is saying he might restart military tribunals.

It's a future problem as much or more than an immediate one. We have lost a big chunk of moral high ground and the world is taking note. This is one of the reasons why President Obama was so loved overseas during his campaign... and now.

I have hundreds of friends in England & Canada and I can't express how often they have talked to me about Bush and torture. It's really a topic to them I assure you.

I do not think we really lost any of the moral high ground for waterboarding three people. We lost more world popularity simply by invading Iraq, and a lot of it had nothing to do with waterboarding.

The very fact it's reached this level in their government and court system should tell you something.

Where is the indictment and evidence?

Well in my world of mental justification if I wouldn't go along with torturing a know baby rapist killer... I'm not blindly going along with torturing Bin Laden's chauffeur... but that's just me I guess.

Well if that baby rapist killer is an American citizen I would not either, and since we did not torture Bin Laden's chauffeur we are in the clear.

Unfortunately we now know President Bush asked people to look for ways around torture rules.

Bush simply operated within the legal framework that was establish, with Congressional approval for all actions.

And 12 hours would have most likely made no difference at all. And again the reason you have rules on this is so you don't violate a 1000 or 100,000 or 1,000,000 innocent peoples rights in the name of the one or two times it was accurate and expedient.

12 hours did make the difference. The rescue was delayed solely because of that fact. When the go ahead was received it was to late. I doubt the two soldiers parents would take much comfort in the fact that their kids are dead because a call was possibly routed through an American telecom company.

That's not what you said Rob. You specifically made the case that this group strapped explosives to kids and that the Viet Cong did not... go back up a post or two and look.

I never denied that this was done, I simply said that it is a violation of the Geneva Convention to fight in this manner, nullifying your POW status if we should choose.

And the rationale was EXACTLY the same. Back then the Conservatives were screaming we would be overrun by Communism every single bit as much... actually much more because Communism had been an issue longer... than radical Islam is now.

It's ALWAYS the end of the world when you want to justify doing anything you want... it has to be or people won't go alone with things that are usually considered as wrong.

That is easy to say since we won the Cold War, but had we lost it the world would be a very different place no doubt about that. As for the domino theory and containment, that was a widely accepted theory back when it was enacted and it is up for debate the merits of it, but it is one of those things we will never know how it would have turned out otherwise. So it is all speculation.



Tomato Tamoto.



I think it would "politically" tear the country apart. But I think It would also show we don't allow anyone even our President to act above the law. It's dicey I'll grant you. It's hard to convict a President.



And I don't blame Bush for 9-11. I'm saying to Conservatives shut up about how much safer you make anybody... because you don't.[/QUOTE]

 

[Mr. Shaman]

The interrogations were conducted according to the rules that were approved by both dems and pubs.

....And, you're convinced of that, how?



(BTW -> "Everybody knows..." doesn't qualify.)

​

 

[Mr. Shaman]

We followed the rules established by Congress in a bipartisan fashion. According to the National Security Act Congress has to be briefed on the issue and give their approval. They did just that. Backtracking now after approving it and being "outraged" that it occurred is odd in my view. We did follow the rules.

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.......


​

Executive Order 13440

(b) The Military Commissions Act defines certain prohibitions of Common Article 3 for United States law, and it reaffirms and reinforces the authority of the President to interpret the meaning and application of the Geneva Conventions."​

Fortunately.....everything's temporary.

Things CHANGE!! (...And, you folks with sadistic-tendencies will have to go back to blowing-up frogs.)​

EXECUTIVE ORDER -- ENSURING LAWFUL INTERROGATIONS

"Executive Order 13440 of July 20, 2007, is revoked."

".....such persons shall in all circumstances be treated humanely and shall not be subjected to violence to life and person (including murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment, and torture), nor to outrages upon personal dignity (including humiliating and degrading treatment), whenever such individuals are in the custody or under the effective control of an officer, employee, or other agent of the United States Government or detained within a facility owned, operated, or controlled by a department or agency of the United States."​

 

[top gun]

Dr.Who;95479]The interrogations were conducted according to the rules that were approved by both dems and pubs. What you described would not be according to any rules.

And much like much the President Bush did there was a lot of tweaking and omissions as to what was really going on in it's entirety.

all three of the last cia directors (both under dems and pubs) said that important information was gained through harsh interrogation.

I wouldn't care if for dramatic effect Jesus Christ himself landed and said torture them. It is not the right thing to do and the fact that the Bush administration saw it so necessary to come up with a "legal" rationale to cover what they wanted to do by all their tweaking of why torture should be applicable in these cases tells us that they knew it was wrong and would have ramifications if they just proceeded under already recognized standards.

P. Obama says he will continue the practice of rendition which is just shipping people off to other countries for torture. He has not ended the war nor set a time table for it's end. He has increased the deficits that F. P. Bush increased. He has endorsed even more earmarks than the previous admin. He has not found a way to try or release the gitmo detainees. He is just as authoritarian and statist as Bush just in different ways.

Do you not have a TV?

President Obama has been in office for about 100 days and he's officially made waterboarding and other tortures off limits. He has set a date for removal of all combat forces. He has included the costs of the war in the budget for both Iraq & Afghanistan which Bush in his natural fraud & trickery way of course did not. President Obama has said that Gitmo will be shut down by the end of the year.

Considering it's only been 100 days... the man's done great!

(stupid blue font)

I post my way and you post yours. I'm on a lot of blogs and the blue helps me locate my posts quickly so I can more easily respond when they get buried by multiple posts on previous pages.

But on a humorous note! I feel that very same way about your actual content sometimes... Tomato/Tamato I guess.

 

[BigRob]

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.......





Fortunately.....everything's temporary.

Things CHANGE!! (...And, you folks with sadistic-tendencies will have to go back to blowing-up frogs.)​

Shaman, your reply had absolutely nothing to do with the fact that Congress was briefed and approved of what was happening.

 

[BigRob]

President Obama has been in office for about 100 days and he's officially made waterboarding and other tortures off limits. He has set a date for removal of all combat forces. He has included the costs of the war in the budget for both Iraq & Afghanistan which Bush in his natural fraud & trickery way of course did not. President Obama has said that Gitmo will be shut down by the end of the year. [/COLOR]

As a side note about the manner in which the war was funded. That is really the best way to fund wars since you are able to get an actual number of how much it is really costing. To put money up front for it is simply a guess, and more than likely more will have to be added later.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Shaman, your reply had absolutely nothing to do with the fact that Congress was briefed and approved of what was happening.

<Yaaaaawwwwwnnnnn.....>



....And, you're convinced of that, how?



(BTW -> "Everybody knows..." doesn't qualify.)

​

 

[top gun]

BigRob;95482]We followed the rules established by Congress in a bipartisan fashion. According to the National Security Act Congress has to be briefed on the issue and give their approval. They did just that. Backtracking now after approving it and being "outraged" that it occurred is odd in my view. We did follow the rules.

The law says who is entitled to the protection of the United States law. I have already outlined the major problems trying these people in Federal Court. It seems Obama has bought in to that as well because he is saying he might restart military tribunals.

I do not think we really lost any of the moral high ground for waterboarding three people. We lost more world popularity simply by invading Iraq, and a lot of it had nothing to do with waterboarding.

I've blocked all this together because it's somewhat repetative to what I just responded to above.

Condensed: Torture is wrong & waterboarding is torture. Don't care who said it was OK but do know the Bush administration as in his reasons going into Iraq used deception to convince people on many things he just wanted to do.

I agree Bush made us much less popular around the world. In fact I was reminded of that repeatedly just a couple weeks ago in Jamaica by the British, French, Canadian and even one German tourists.

If it wasn't for the "anonymity" thing I love to give you my Facebook page so you could see the responses from all over the world sent to me on George Bush.

Well if that baby rapist killer is an American citizen I would not either, and since we did not torture Bin Laden's chauffeur we are in the clear.

And I see both as just as equally bad. The goal here for me is not to find a loophole to torture anyone. Interrogate without torture... try... confict... if guilty punish harshly. That's how I roll...

The "chauffeur" was an analogy. In your sense of right & wrong he'd be eligible for torture. That could not be more clear... that's the problem.

12 hours did make the difference. The rescue was delayed solely because of that fact. When the go ahead was received it was to late. I doubt the two soldiers parents would take much comfort in the fact that their kids are dead because a call was possibly routed through an American telecom company.

I do not agree. And I feel for the soldiers parents because their sons were sent somewhere into harms way on a series of Bush initial lies. I respect the great sacrifice these soldiers make on a daily basis.

That is easy to say since we won the Cold War, but had we lost it the world would be a very different place no doubt about that. As for the domino theory and containment, that was a widely accepted theory back when it was enacted and it is up for debate the merits of it, but it is one of those things we will never know how it would have turned out otherwise. So it is all speculation.

I'm simply saying Communism was looked at in the very same way (actually much worse) than radical Islam back in the day. I wasn't a fan of Joe Mcarthy... not a fan of President Bush... and for similar reasons.

That's a personal choice we make as we look at someone in their entirety. We all must make our own evaluations. That's mine... you're entitled to yours.