|
Confirmed: "torture" saved L.A. from 9/11 style attack (pg. 5)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| The17sss |
Shameful.... NY Times shows how the Obama administration covered up the fact that even their own DNI acknowledges the interrogations produced actionable and critical information. They had to break out the black magic marker to stay consistent in their moral high ground message. Cheney wasn't fishing when he asked for the release of the rest of those memos:
| quote: | President Obama’s national intelligence director told colleagues in a private memo last week that the harsh interrogation techniques banned by the White House did produce significant information that helped the nation in its struggle with terrorists.
“High value information came from interrogations in which those methods were used and provided a deeper understanding of the al Qa’ida organization that was attacking this country,” Adm. Dennis C. Blair, the intelligence director, wrote in a memo to his staff last Thursday.
Admiral Blair’s assessment that the interrogation methods did produce important information was deleted from a condensed version of his memo released to the media last Thursday. Also deleted was a line in which he empathized with his predecessors who originally approved some of the harsh tactics after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.
“I like to think I would not have approved those methods in the past,” he wrote, “but I do not fault those who made the decisions at that time, and I will absolutely defend those who carried out the interrogations within the orders they were given.” |
http://www.nytimes.com/glogin?URI=h...7DcQ2FYQ7DQ3Ck5
"Withholding the truth that waterboarding produced information that saved hundreds of American lives, perhaps thousands, shows that Obama values public relations more than he does the truth. He wants to argue that none of this was necessary to secure the nation against terrorist attacks. In order to make that argument, he redacted Blair’s memo, including his defense of his predecessors, whom Blair acknowledges had to face some tough decisions to uncover plots against America."
-EM |
|
|
| Halcyon+On+On |
Well that's one way to look at it.
You could just as well say that Obama was witholding the public release of information in favour of national security. Surely one such as yourself could not disapprove of such a thing. |
|
|
| Shakka |
Is the argument more that torture (and I think there are many shades of gray to consider) is wrong because of the physical nature or that information gathered under duress may be tainted because the torturee may have only said what he needed to say to stop the torture?
I can see both sides of the argument, but at the end I kind of think a case by case approach is better than some broad sweeping generalized rule that might prevent doing something a little unsavory when a very critical moment might justify it. I don't think it's a strategy that should be done in a systematic way by default, but I think in some cases the ends probably do justify the means, but certainly not always, and nobody is ever going to bat 1000%.
I also think there is a difference between the U.S. using harsh interrogation techniques to get valuable, actionable, life-saving information vs. when torture is used simply to cause pain and suffering for amusement.
As far as I'm concerned, an enemy combatant who is already known to be guilty of criminal activity is fair game to tighten the screws on to try to get out as much information as possible. These are not innocent people simply being physically abused with some hope that they might say something useful.
I also think that it's better if the gruesome details of said activities are not broadly disseminated to the public because they don't have the appetite for it, though I think deep down most people feel safer knowing that there are people willing to take off their gloves and get in the mud in order to protect their freedom, even if they don't like the methods with which it sometimes happens. It's an ugly topic and ugly things happen.
I'd be willing to be a cheeseburger or two that if presented a situation in which a high value suspect (KSM for example) was in custody who was known to have information but was unwilling to give it up, Barack Obama would have a hard time not giving a green light to the use of harsher interrogation techniques if he believed there was even a slim chance that it might yield some incremental information. I think he'd prefer it if it were as difficult as possible to directly link him to such an order, but I would bet those cheeseburgers that he'd sign off on such an order if faced with the duty to make a decision.
Call me barbaric if you will, but I just think that's a realistic viewpoint. |
|
|
| Alccode |
This whole question about torture being justifiable: I don't believe the means always justify the end. Especially in this case. Once you cross that line of torturing others, you're already headed down a slippery slope of similar moral offences. What's next, spying on citizens (ignores inherent privacy rights -- another moral slip), unfair and mock trials (ignores fair legal defence -- another moral slip), and so on? Oh wait, these are already happening in western nations!
In the course of life we all have choices of how to conduct ourselves. If we use methods that are morally questionable, we are most definitely sabotaging our own humanity. It's just that it's such an intangible thing, makes it difficult to see the dangers of losing it. But when you get to a point when enough of your humanity is gone, the depravity is clear to everyone. I would pray that it would even be clear to yourself, but that's sadly not always the case once one has gone far enough. Even Hitler honestly thought he was doing the Right Thing, he was that far gone in the loss of his moral integrity.
There really is no evil, just a big moral scale. So watch out that those who you consider inherently "good" don't fall down and become "evil" after sliding down the moral scale far enough. Just because you might think you're on "the good side" doesn't mean that "evilness" is a totally different category that you could never be in, by definition of being in the "good".
By adopting waterboarding techniques and similar extreme torture methods, the U.S. risks joining ranks with the "Evil" countries who also adopt those measures.
Also, using the emotional impact of 9/11 imagery (visual or otherwise, "if you were part of the victims' families you wouldn't be so loosey goosey about torture") is a flawed move. Like someone else said above, perfectly good intelligence about 9/11 was gathered using "standard" (read: morally acceptable) techniques.
And if I had a relative who died during 9/11, I myself wouldn't even think twice: I would still firmly oppose torture of any kind for intelligence purposes. Let's go one step further -- say that there was credible evidence that a 9/11-style attack is imminent in Toronto where I live, and that it became clear that through the use of torture, more specific information could be discovered that would potentially thwart the attacks. Would I object to it, even if my own life was at stake? Most definitely yes. If I didn't, I would have stepped that much closer to joining ranks with the devil (so to speak -- or not) even if only in my mind I thought it would be a good idea. How could I say I live in an enlightened society that attempts to uphold the highest and most just human ideals, if I was tacitly approving of some of the morally lowest human activities? It would be plain hypocritical.
Furthermore, using the argument that waterboarding et al. might save future lives from attacks (like in L.A., apparently, though the legitimacy of that might be doubtful) is again flawed because, as we've seen with 9/11, there was more than enough intelligence to know that it was coming. Even if there wasn't enough intelligence in certain instances, just points to a failure of intelligence, not a failure of overall methods. If you're not doing a good job gathering info about dangers to society, asking to use torture techniques seems to me to be just a "last resort" when you've already failed in your "normal" methods. But it's an unacceptable last resort as I've already said above.
I'm sorry this has gone on at length, but I thought that this issue would be so common sense (of not torturing others) that I'm surprised that people still think it's justifiable. And this whole incident of that former CIA chief defending the methods is just disgusting. The U.S. founding fathers are most assuredly rolling in their graves right now. |
|
|
| Halcyon+On+On |
| I wonder if people would so willingly approve of US prisoners being tortured for information... |
|
|
| Shakka |
| quote: | Originally posted by Halcyon+On+On
I wonder if people would so willingly approve of US prisoners being tortured for information... |
Of course not! But if it is for the purpose of gathering information that would not otherwise be obtained I think we have to assume and accept that it happens.
I also am not convinced that waterboarding is "extreme" torture. I think of extreme torture to be stuff that is physically barbaric, causes permanent physical harm or disfigurement (like chopping off someone's dick, pouring acid on them, breaking bones, and that sort of thing).
And Alccode, I can see some of your points fair enough, but in the same breath I think that if we don't have the will or the stomach to do what it takes, to a great degree we are exposing a huge potential weakness.
This just isn't a black and white issue for me so I'm not willing to cast judgement. Maybe I just watch too much 24. |
|
|
| atbell |
That's not the point.
There was a good clip on Anderson Cooper last night where Paul someone is shareing the screen with Ari Flesher.
Paul says:
"In world war two we executed Japanese soilders who waterboarded Americans."
Ari just stares ahead.
The dead time is all the response you need.
The point is that victory by any means is not what a civilized country does. The people who died in the world wars died so that this type of thing would not happen again, not so it could be used by thier childeren. |
|
|
| Moral Hazard |
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
That's life. I don’t see why you should have to undermine your own principles by engaging in activities such as torture. |
I have to agree. Honestly, you cannot protect American ideals by flagrantly violating them. If acts of torture are allowed to continue then I'm afraid the great country you seek to protect is already lost. |
|
|
| Shakka |
| quote: | Originally posted by atbell
That's not the point.
There was a good clip on Anderson Cooper last night where Paul someone is shareing the screen with Ari Flesher.
Paul says:
"In world war two we executed Japanese soilders who waterboarded Americans."
Ari just stares ahead.
The dead time is all the response you need.
The point is that victory by any means is not what a civilized country does. The people who died in the world wars died so that this type of thing would not happen again, not so it could be used by their childeren. |
Compare and contrast that with the way the colonial Americans destroyed the Redcoats who fought in such a civilized manner that it was strategically dumb as and bitched that guerrilla warfare was barbaric and uncivilized. Where do you draw the line? I don't think the people who fought in WWII did so to preserve some concept of civilized battle--I think that's an oxymoron. Is waterboarding worse than simply shooting them dead on the battlefield? Is it worse than the napalm we dropped on Vietnam in the 60's and 70's? I don't think our society has devolved much since Nam. I just think there are ugly realities that we have to live with when it comes to war.
I also think there is a wide range of belief of what exactly constitutes torture. Frankly, I find it torturous to listen to a lot of the music that is advocated on this website, but I tolerate it nonetheless. I also think my daughter's screams qualify as torture given the long-term damage they're doing to my eardrums, but I am not going to prosecute her or set up a commission to investigate it further.:D |
|
|
| Alccode |
Shakka, you have some interesting and well-though-out points so I'm going to respond to them, but note that I'm simultaneously responding to "pro-torture" attitudes in general, as expressed by others in these forums as well.
| quote: | Originally posted by Shakka
Is the argument more that torture (and I think there are many shades of gray to consider) is wrong because of the physical nature or that information gathered under duress may be tainted because the torturee may have only said what he needed to say to stop the torture?
I can see both sides of the argument, but at the end I kind of think a case by case approach is better than some broad sweeping generalized rule that might prevent doing something a little unsavory when a very critical moment might justify it. I don't think it's a strategy that should be done in a systematic way by default, but I think in some cases the ends probably do justify the means, but certainly not always, and nobody is ever going to bat 1000%.
|
This, I think, is the strongest and most reasonable way of putting the pro-torture argument, but I still think that, given the evidence, it's not ultimately justifiable. So far, we've got the ex-CIA chief saying that the torture techniques (like waterboarding) really did help, but have nothing else to go on other than his word. Can we be sure that he doesn't have ulterior motives, of standing for his friends in the Bush administration, when he says that, or is he being truthful?
The BBC ran a very interesting documentary film series a few years ago called, "The Power of Nightmares", which folks here may have already seen or heard of (I think someone else posted it on TA, which is how I found out). Aside from the overall premise, what I found interesting in that documentary was just how easy it was to interpret people as being "terrorists". I recall the segment of evidence for terrorist activities collected from a few tourists (who I believe were Pakistani) which consisted of a shaky camera that was filming their journey through a major U.S. amusement park. When the camera would halt on a garbage can, for example, just for even a split second (maybe the fellow was talking to someone and got distracted), it was used as evidence for the sinister nature of the film, e.g., that they were flagging that garbage can as a potential site to plant a bomb in, etc. etc. But the "terrorists" turned out to be perfectly innocent, and were ultimately released. Countless such falsely accused "terrorists" are documented.
Here's more examples of this kind of approach, from FBI memos released in 2004, reported about here:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...-2004Dec25.html
I'm going to quote the relevant bit:
| quote: | | In public statements after their release and in documents filed with federal courts, the detainees have said they were beaten before and during interrogations, "short-shackled" to the floor and otherwise mistreated as part of the effort to get them to confess to being members of al Qaeda or the Taliban. |
(emphasis mine) They didn't have anything more useful to ask them about except whether they were part of al-Qaeda or not. And just to sate that desire to "catch the terrorists", the detainees were mistreated and humiliated:
| quote: |
"On a couple of occasions, I entered interview rooms to find a detainee chained hand and foot in a fetal position to the floor, with no chair, food or water," an unidentified agent wrote on Aug. 2, 2004, for example. "Most times they had urinated or defecated on themselves, and had been left there for 18, 24 hours or more."
|
So, I wouldn't be surprised at all if many of these terrorist attacks that were apparently thwarted just in time due to the use of torture didn't end up being due to a self-created fantasy. I.e., if you're desperately looking for heinous terrorist attack plots, and let it onto your victims that you believe they are invovled in their planning, then torture them, who is to say that if they do give you "information", it wasn't just to stop the torture since they clearly see that's all you want?
The Red Cross Gitmo Torture Report provides a very explicit and conclusive example of just such fabrication of info just to avoid torture (it's an interesting read, I highly recommend reading the entire document). Among the documented interviews and investigations there of fourteen "High Value Detainees", one, of a Khaled Shaik Mohammed, is most revealing. At the end of his description of his experiences in Guantanamo, he reflects,
| quote: | | During the harshest period of my interrogation I gave a lot of false information in order to satisfy what I believed the interrogators wished to hear in order to make the ill-treatment stop. I later told the interrogators that their methods were stupid and counterproductive. I'm sure that the false information I was forced to invent in order to make the ill-treatment stop wasted a lot of time and led to several false red-alerts being placed in the U.S. |
If one (if not more) "high value detainee" freely admitted afterwards of inventing false information about terrorist attacks in order to stop the torture, it really casts doubt on any claims of torture-averted terrorist strikes. The odds are that the information was false in the first place. And the incident in L.A.? Who knows, maybe the "terrorist cell" arrested there consisted of people who just looked like they could fit the bill but were in reality either innocent, or harboured some negative feelings but could never act on them (recall the Power of Nightmares information about this). There was recently just such a case in Toronto, with I don't recall how many arrested that were subsequently released since they were innocent.
| quote: |
I also think there is a difference between the U.S. using harsh interrogation techniques to get valuable, actionable, life-saving information vs. when torture is used simply to cause pain and suffering for amusement.
|
Seeing as how it's questionable that those harsh interrogation techniques were of any good use at all, let's consider the other reason you mention. Anyone remember this? (note the smiling faces and "thumbs up" gesture)
If we again go back to that Red Cross document and read the testimony of those "high value detainees", we will see that the kinds of things they were subjected to seem to indicate that their perpetrators may well have seemed to enjoy themselves in causing pain and suffering. It's not explicitly mentioned, but you can read between the lines both in Khaled Shaik Mohammed's case and in the case of the other high-value detainees. For example, why stick something up someone's rectum if it's not to humiliate them and, thus, garnering some enjoyment? "Hey look, this terrorist is going to get it up his ass!" Let's quote the entire account of Khaled Shaik Mohammed:
| quote: |
iii) Khaled Shaik Mohammed reported the following regarding his transfer to and detention in Afghanistan, where he was held for three days at the start of March 2003 and in his subsequent place of detention, where he was held from 06 March to 22 September 2003:
“During the transfer from Pakistan to Afghanistan my eyes were covered with a cloth
tied around my head and with a cloth bag pulled over it. A suppository was inserted
into my rectum. I was not told what the suppository was for. I was dressed in a shalwar
kameez, shackled hands and feet and put sitting in a vehicle for the journey to the air-
port. I was then put in a sitting position on a plane. The transfer was OK, with no par-
ticular problems to report. The flight was short, only about 1 hour. I arrived at night.
The transfer from the plane to the place of detention took about 15–20 minutes. Dur-
ing my time in this place of detention I could hear planes taking off and landing. I think
the place was Bagram.
After arrival my clothes were cut off of me, the bag and blindfold were removed
and photographs were taken of me naked. I remained naked throughout the three days
I stayed in this place of detention.
I was checked by a doctor and asked about my medical history. I told the doctor
about the pain I was still suffering from the beating in Pakistan. [During the two days he was detained at Rawlapindi he was questioned by a CIA agent who allegedly
punched him several times in the stomach, chest and face. The same agent reportedly
threw him on the floor and trod on his face three times. He was not allowed to sleep
during his detention in Pakistan].
I was then placed in a cell, about 2m x 4 m, naked, where I was kept in a standing
position with my hands cuffed and chained to a bar above my head. My feet were flat
on the floor. At first I was questioned for about one hour with no other forms of ill-
treatment. After about one hour I was taken to another room where I was made to
stand on tiptoes for about two hours during questioning. Approximately thirteen per-
sons were in the room. These included the head interrogator (a man) and two female
interrogators, plus about ten muscle guys wearing masks. I think they were all Ameri-
cans. From time to time one of the muscle guys would punch me in the chest and stom-
ach. This was repeated during two nights.
Also during this period I was on four occasions taken to a separate room away
from the main interrogation room. Here cold water from buckets was thrown onto me
for about forty minutes. Not constantly as it took time to refill the buckets. After
which I would be taken back to the interrogation room.
On one occasion during the interrogation I was offered water to drink, when I
refused I was again taken to another room where I was made to lie of the floor with
three persons holding me down. A tube was inserted into my anus and water poured
inside. Afterwards I wanted to go to the toilet as I had a feeling as if I had diarrhoea.
No toilet access was provided until four hours later when I was given a bucket to use.
Whenever I was returned to my cell I was always kept in the standing position with
my hands cuffed and chained to a bar above my head.
On one occasion I was taken to another cell and was allowed to sleep for a little
while, I think for only about one hour, before being returned to my cell standing,
naked with my hands shackled above my head.
Music was always playing in the corridor outside my cell, but it was not very loud.
For a toilet a bucket was provided inside the cell. A guard came and lowered my
hands to allow me to use it. However, I was not allowed to clean myself afterwards and
was immediately again returned to the former position.
I was not allowed to pray. I could not bathe or wash. I was not provided with any
time outdoors. Some Afghani style bread was given to me on some occasions, as a
reward for when they thought I was cooperating.
After three days in Afghanistan I was dressed in a tracksuit. My eyes were covered
with a cloth tied around my head. A cloth bag was then pulled over my head. Head-
phones were placed over my ears—playing music, but not too loud. I was transported
about ten minutes by vehicle and then placed in a plane sitting, leaning back, with my
hands and ankles shackled in a high chair. I fell asleep. The first proper sleep in over
five days. I therefore don’t know how long the journey lasted.
On arrival the transfer from the airport to the next place of detention took about
one hour. I was transported sitting on the floor of a vehicle. I could see at one point
that there was snow on the ground. Everybody was wearing black, with masks and army boots, like Planet-X people. I think the country was Poland. I think this because
on one occasion a water bottle was brought to me without the label removed. It had
e-mail address ending in “.pl”. The central-heating system was an old style one that I
would expect only to see in countries of the former communist system.
After arrival my clothes were again cut off of me, the bag and blindfold were
removed and photographs were again taken of me naked. I was put in a cell with cam-
eras where I was later informed by an interrogator that I was monitored 24 hours a
day by a doctor, psychologist and interrogator. I think the cell was underground. I had
to go down steps to get to it. It was about 3m x 4m with wooden walls.
It was here that the most intense interrogation occurred, led by three experienced
CIA interrogators, all over 65 years old and all strong and well trained. There were the
“emirs.” Although of course they never revealed their own names, I gave them names
by which I could refer to them, all beginning with ‘Abu’. I think that ‘Abu Captain’
was of South American origin, whereas ‘Abu Hanan’ was perhaps of Moroccan origin
and ‘Abu White’ was of Eastern European descent.
As the interrogation again resumed I was told by one of the “emirs” that they had
received the green-light from Washington to give him “a hard time”. They never used
the word “torture” and never referred to “physical pressure”, only to “a hard time”,
I was never threatened with death, in fact I was told that they would not allow me to
die, but that I would be brought to the “verge of death and back again”.
Apart from when I was taken for interrogation to another room, I was kept for one
month in the cell in a standing position with my hands cuffed and shackled above my
head and my feet cuffed and shackled to a point in the floor. Of course during this
month I fell asleep on some occasions while still being held in this position. This
resulted in all my weight being applied to the handcuffs around my wrists resulting in
open and bleeding wounds. The cuffs around my ankles also created open, bleeding
wounds. [Scars consistent with this allegation were visible on both wrists as well as on
both ankles.] Both my feet became very swollen after one month of almost continual
standing.
Initially I was interrogated for approximately eight hours each day. This gradually
became less until after one month it was about four hours each day.
For the interrogation I was taken to a separate room. The number of people present
varied greatly from one day to another. Other interrogators, including women, were
also sometimes present along with the ‘emirs’. A doctor was also usually present. If I
was perceived not to be cooperating I would be put against a wall and punched and
slapped in the body, head and face. A thick flexible plastic collar would also be placed
around my neck so that it could then be held at the two ends by a guard who would use
it to slam me repeatedly against the wall. The beatings were combined with the use of
cold water, which was poured over me using a hose-pipe. The beatings and use of cold
water occurred on a daily basis during the first month.
In addition I was also subjected to ‘water-boarding’ on five occasions, all of which
occurred during that first month. I would be strapped to a special bed, which could be
rotated into a vertical position. A cloth would be placed over my face. Cold water from a bottle that had been kept in a fridge was then poured onto the cloth by one of
the guards so that I could not breathe. This obviously could only be done for one or
two minutes at a time. The cloth was then removed and the bed was put into a vertical
position. The whole process was then repeated during about one hour. Injuries to my
ankles and wrists also occurred during the water-boarding as I struggled in the panic of
not being able to breathe. Female interrogators were also present during this form of
ill-treatment and a doctor was always present, standing out of sight behind the head of
bed, but I saw him when he came to fix a clip to my finger which was connected to a
machine. I think it was to measure my pulse and oxygen content in my blood. So they
could take me to breaking point.
After each session of torture I was put into a cell where I was allowed to lie on the
floor and could sleep for a few minutes. However, due to shackles on my ankles and
wrists I was never able to sleep very well.
The harshest period of the interrogation was just prior to the end of the first month.
The beatings became worse and I had cold water directed at me from a hose-pipe by
guards while I was still in my cell. The worst day was when I was beaten for about half
an hour by one of the interrogators. My head was banged against the wall so hard that
it started to bleed. Cold water was poured over my head. This was then repeated with
other interrogators. Finally I was taken for a session of water boarding. The torture on
that day was finally stopped by the intervention of the doctor. I was allowed to sleep
for about one hour and then put back in my cell standing with my hands shackled
above my head.
Music was playing 24 hours/day in the corridors, but not very loud. I was allowed
to pray after about one month. Koran was given in April 2003. It was confiscated on
four occasions during my stay in that place of detention. The toilet consisted of a
bucket in the cell, which I could use on request, but I was not allowed to clean myself
after toilet during the first month. I was allowed to shower twice during the first
month. After these two showers I was allowed to sleep for a little while on the floor of
my cell before being returned to the standing position with hands cuffed above my
head. During the first month I was not provided with any food apart from on two
occasions as a reward for perceived cooperation. I was given ‘Ensure’ to drink every 4
hours. If I refused to drink then my mouth was forced open by the guard and it was
poured down my throat by force. At my request the Ensure was later provided a little
warmed. I was weighed every day during the first month. This was done on a weekly
basis later. At the time of arrest I weighed 78kg. After one month in detention I
weighed 60kg.
I wasn’t given any clothes for the first month. Artificial light was on 24 hours a day,
but I never saw sunlight. I was never taken outdoors.
After about one month I was moved to another cell. I was given clothes to wear. I
was no longer kept in a standing position. I was only shackled by the ankles. I could
shower once a week. The interrogation became less harsh. No more physical assault,
but threats along the lines of “we will take you to another room” or by having the
plastic collar put on the table in front of me during the questioning. I was provided with a Styrofoam mattress. They started to give me food twice a day. To begin with the
it consisted only of rice and beans. Later, after June 2003, I began to receive some
meals with sardines, canned meat and bread buns. The guards would sometimes bring
the food already bitten, and would handle me roughly when they took me to the
shower. These things improved after I complained to one of the ‘emirs’.
On June 4th I was moved to a third cell. This move occurred after I complained
about the constant music that was still being played outside my cell. The new cell was
a cage like structure built inside an underground room. I preferred it as there was no
music and, as it was a cage structure instead of solid walls, the ventilation was better.
I was again kept shackled by the feet, but not the wrists. Water was provided in two
bottles. One for drinking, one for the toilet. Toilet paper was provided. Toilet still con-
sisted of a bucket inside the cell. It was removed on a daily basis.
During the harshest period of my interrogation I gave a lot of false information in
order to satisfy what I believed the interrogators wished to hear in order to make the
ill-treatment stop. I later told the interrogators that their methods were stupid and
counterproductive. I’m sure that the false information I was forced to invent in order
to make the ill-treatment stop wasted a lot of their time and led to several false red-
alerts being placed in the US.
|
Note that his plight decreased over time, largely I assume as the higher ups started getting worried about the long-term consequences of these techniques (or maybe someone was already intervening).
| quote: |
As far as I'm concerned, an enemy combatant who is already known to be guilty of criminal activity is fair game to tighten the screws on to try to get out as much information as possible. These are not innocent people simply being physically abused with some hope that they might say something useful.
|
But it turns out that this is exactly the case in several instances.
| quote: |
I also think that it's better if the gruesome details of said activities are not broadly disseminated to the public because they don't have the appetite for it, though I think deep down most people feel safer knowing that there are people willing to take off their gloves and get in the mud in order to protect their freedom, even if they don't like the methods with which it sometimes happens. It's an ugly topic and ugly things happen.
|
Again, this can be a dangerous slippery slope. And labelling people as "not having the appetite" for it can also be misleading. Everyone is capable of committing "evil". Just look at the Stanford prison experiments. Rather, when the overall public objects to the gruesome details of "enhanced interrogation techniques", they do so not because they don't have the stomach for it, but because they know that it's wrong.
| quote: |
I'd be willing to be a cheeseburger or two that if presented a situation in which a high value suspect (KSM for example) was in custody who was known to have information but was unwilling to give it up, Barack Obama would have a hard time not giving a green light to the use of harsher interrogation techniques if he believed there was even a slim chance that it might yield some incremental information. I think he'd prefer it if it were as difficult as possible to directly link him to such an order, but I would bet those cheeseburgers that he'd sign off on such an order if faced with the duty to make a decision.
|
This was addressed above, but just wanted to point out that it's doubtful whether such a fictitious scenario would ever be played out as you present it -- i.e., an actual, real terrorist attack that could only be averted using torture. Real attacks like 9/11 leave massive intelligence trails that are readily picked up on by U.S. authorities; however, in the case of 9/11 these trails were plain ignored, as admitted by the former administration (I won't enter into conspiracy theories, thank you very much!).
EDIT: minor text rearrangements and typo fixes |
|
|
| The17sss |
Alccode.... How quickly you give credence to KSM's account, as if he's a beacon of truth and honesty. What he said, true or not, is just part of their playbook. I agree with Shakka that it should be done on a case by case basis; everything is its own situation... and how can you deny that this case's end wasn't justified by the means? A piece of scumbag who masterminded the 9/11 attacks was waterboarded, and the info obtained by doing so lead to another 9/11 type attack on Los Angeles being stopped.
Do you understand the implications from the release of these memos? Why would Obama have them released, but not release what was achieved AND make sure certain details of documented successful data was blacked out? Why would he, with ZERO intelligence or national security experience rebuff his own CIA chief plus the 3 before him when they urged him not to release the data? Could their urgings possibly be because they believed doing so would make the country less safe?
And it will... as I said before, now the enemy KNOWS the outer limits on what we will do to obtain information, and they can prepare against it. Now they know what we won't do anymore; it is a fantastic recruitment tool. Coupled with that, CIA officers in the field will absolutely be hesitant to do their job now. Today, a veteran CIA officer said the news of those memos being released "hit the agency like a car bomb in the driveway" .... meanwhile the sychophantic media was saying Obama was treated like a rock star by the CIA. ing appalling.
David Ignatius from the WaPo describes what will happen:
| quote: | At the Central Intelligence Agency, it's known as "slow rolling." That's what agency officers sometimes do on politically sensitive assignments. They go through the motions; they pass cables back and forth; they take other jobs out of the danger zone; they cover their backsides.
Sad to say, it's slow roll time at Langley after the release of interrogation memos that, in the words of one veteran officer, "hit the agency like a car bomb in the driveway." President Obama promised CIA officers that they won't be prosecuted for carrying out lawful orders, but the people on the firing line don't believe him. They think the memos have opened a new season of investigation and retribution.
The lesson for younger officers is obvious: Keep your head down. Duck the assignments that carry political risk. Stay away from a counterterrorism program that has become a career hazard.
Obama tried personally to reassure the CIA workforce during a visit to Langley on Monday. He said all the right things about the agency's clandestine role. But it had the look of a campaign event, with employees hooting and hollering and the president reading from his teleprompter with a backdrop of stars that commemorate the CIA's fallen warriors. By yesterday, Obama was deferring to the attorney general whether to prosecute "those who formulated those legal decisions," whatever that means.
Obama seems to think he can have it both ways -- authorizing an unprecedented disclosure of CIA operational methods and at the same time galvanizing a clandestine service whose best days, he told them Monday, are "yet to come." Life doesn't work that way -- even for charismatic politicians. Disclosure of the torture memos may have been necessary, as part of an overdue campaign to change America's image in the world. But nobody should pretend that the disclosures weren't costly to CIA morale and effectiveness. |
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...9042102969.html
Obama is trying to prop himself up as the unequivable moral authority and that past presidents (namely the last one) can't hold a moral candle to him. It's all about him and his poll numbers and the appearance of being "The One". Why else would he do the things listed above? Why else would he do things like listen to Ortega rip apart the U.S. for 50 minutes, not stand up for the goodness of his own country, then thank him for not blaming him for things that happened to Nicaragua when he was 3 years old? That's like saying, "Yeah, I agree... the U.S. has an atrocious past... I'm just glad you recoginze that's got nothing to do with me, but now it's gonna be all better now that I, the ultimate moral authority, am president." He treats truly oppressive dictators who have crushed their people for decades with more respect and reverence than he does people in his own country who oppose his policies. |
|
|
| Krypton |
| quote: | Originally posted by The17sss
For all the bleeding hearts out there who don't realize the world is a dangerous place:
http://www.cnsnews.com/public/conte...px?RsrcID=46949
So why didn't Obama release this info too? Simple.... because he knows that if the public could see the details of the techniques side by side with evidence that the program saved American lives, the vast majority would support continuing it.
This flies in the face of such talking points by Krypton et al that torture never works, and people will simply say anything to get it to stop. But hell, KSM never should have had that happen to him even though Los Angeles was spared, right?
I, for one, am glad Cheney has called for the specific CIA reports showing evidence of thwarted attacks by their approved interrogation techniques to also be released. People who think torture will recruit scores of new terrorists against America should be more worried that the release of the CIA memos will do worse... not only will you have clandestine operations officers in the field being more hesitant to apply techniques out of fear of getting prosecuted, but the anti-American crazies now know the extent of what we'd be willing to do to obtain information and can readily prepare for training against it (even if we aren't allowed to do it anymore). 4 different CIA directors urged Obama not to release the memos, but we should listen to a community organizer over those who have spent their lives in the world of intelligence and counter-intelligence? lol. But he's gotta hold the moral high ground on everything I guess.
Waterboarding, sleep deprivation, etc. are an insult to the word "torture" anyway, if any of you read what kind of ed up things other countries do to their captives. |
Do you realize that this "techniques" we prosecuted as war crimes in World War II? What are you going to say when our enemies do their prisoners as we do to ours? |
|
|
|
|
