G: CIA Waterboarded Al-Qaida Suspects 266 times

[RedlightG20]

And for that matter, isnt executing them a form of torutre itself?

I do not believe all forms of execution are considered torture. For instance, burning to death is considered torture, but a more humane way of execution, like by firing squad, is not. If I recall, this was a supreme court ruling that I read somewheres.

[JMS]

I don't care if it was legal or illegal. I'm saying it happened. Not trying to throw out the "I know people in high places", but my brother is a retired intelligence officer, a best friend of mines' father was in the CIA during WW2, Korea and Vietnam....and another friend whose parents were in the CIA. I went through survival school while in the military and we talked about how it was going on then (early 90's)

I'm saying, that if you honestly think that torture(to include waterboarding and much worse) was not going on until the Bush admin, you are wrong.

I would again disagree. If you are saying our soldiers did terrible things in WWII which would be illegal by existing law at the time; sure I can go along with that. I've got a picture of a bunch of US servicemen under McAurther riding on a tank in the Pacific, and one of htem has a necklace made of human ears. No doubt the Japanese did terrible terrible things in WWII and we got right down in the gutter with them when we chased them across the Pacific. European theatre too. That Steven Ambrose book Band of Brothers showed a Capt Speirs who shot POW's during the D day inasion, what it didn't show is Capt Speirs also shot the sargent in his own company and killed him for disobeying an order. No doubt terrible things happen during war. That's really not what we are talking about.. What we are talking about is a policy not taken by men in the heat of battle, but taken by our leadership as a considered process... I disagree that it's been American policy during WWII, or even vietnam or since to torture folks. Has it happenned, sure; but not as a Presidential policy. It's actually not a common thing for the President of the United States to disregard American Law on the treatment of POW's.

[Larry]

You know what's funny to me? If we do it to a suspected terrorist, it's torture.

But if we do it to each other... It's a TV show.

I'm certain I can find some people, on the internet, who will torture and rape you, if you pay them a lot of money.

'Course, that thing called "consent" enters into it.

If you spend all weekend sitting in your apartment, then it's killing time. If the door's been locked, by somebody else, then it's "doing time".

[ljs]

That's really not what we are talking about.. What we are talking about is a policy not taken by men in the heat of battle, but taken by our leadership as a considered process... I disagree that it's been American policy during WWII, or even vietnam or since to torture folks. Has it happenned, sure; but not as a Presidential policy. It's actually not a common thing for the President of the United States to disregard American Law on the treatment of POW's.

it is what I'm talking about...I'm not talking about "in the heat of battle". I'm talking about CIA investigators/interrogator..the same types we had waterboarding guys from Iraq...we had those same "types" in each war previously. We just never disclosed it til GWB. (or made it a "formal" policy)

[LaxBuddy21]

Yeah, you're right. His argument is clearly worse than "He confessed under torture, therefore he deserved to be tortured." Obviously worse than "Hey, as long as there's a chance that it might same one American life". It's clearly worse then "Well, our torture isn't as bad as their torture". Or "Hey, they're not part of my group, so who cares?"

And, for that matter, clearly any argument that begins with "These people . . . " is batter than his.

(In case you can't tell, that was sarcasm.)

Frankly, in this debate, arguing about which argument is stupider is a little like, well, arguing about which kind of torture is better.

Yes its way worse than those arguments. I am tired of the tree hugging liberals that did too many drugs growing up hugging trees and preaching peace that are so out of touch with reality and now think they know how to run a country! People do bad things and deserved to get punished for them. If someone is withholding information that could save innocent lives and refusing to tell, they need to be made to tell. When someone kills another human being with malicious intent or is a part of the killing in any way, THEY HAVE NO RIGHTS! We need to stop trying to protect peoples rights who dont care about the rights of anyone else. They are scum and should be treated as such.

ETA: I will apologize up front if anyone was offended by my hippie rant but man the unrealistic nature of people boggles my mind sometimes. Yea peace would be wonderful and it would be great if people didnt get hurt and there was no war and no bad people but its just not the slightest bit realistic and we have to live in a real world! Cant live in the fantasy one people want to try to create just because it would be nicer.

[JMS]

Fair question. I can only tell what I am not happy with: the declassification of detailed national security information regarding our interrogation techniques and limits.

Keastman, as reasonable as what you say sounds, fact is the US Army field manual has dictated policy for soldiers on the treatment of POW's and what is and isn't allowed for a hundred years right up until Bush changed that policy. That manual was in the public domain for that entire time, right up until Bush tried to change that policy too.

Fact is we historically don't want grey area in how we treat prisoners, just like we don't want grey area in how our soldiers are treated.

I am actually okay with Obama reversing the Bush administration policy even though I am not against waterboarding suspected high level terrorists. However, I am taking issue with him declassifying all this information for the public, both American and international, to digest. Personally, I think Obama's admin. should have reversed Bush admin's waterboarding policy and moved on.

I disagree. here is my point. I don't object to torture based on moral groiunds, I believe that torture is stupid because I believe it doesn't work. If I pull your toenails off, you are basically going to tell me anything I want to hear. Anything. That's a historical fact documented not only by our ancestors but by many cultures which have continued to allow torture right up through the 20th century not for information gathering but rather for punative means.

Now you and others might feel that's a mistaken belief, and that torture really is a wonder invention Bush thought up from scratch to get good actionable intelligence. Neither one of us can support our beliefs today because all the data is classified.

If we are going ot avoid going down these tangents in the future, first we have to understand exactly how useful this exersize was. We know it hurt our international relations. We know it was a major recruting tool for Al Quada. We know it violated United States law, and we also know several justice dept lawyers are going to be prosecuted. Wouldn't you like to know what we got for all this cost?

I would. I really would. In the show 24 Jack Bower always get's his information and frankly his track record is great. I just don't think reality works like Keither Southerlands scripted dramas. If it did I would have Keither teaching classes and we would be kneecaping all our captives.

[JMS]

it is what I'm talking about...I'm not talking about "in the heat of battle". I'm talking about CIA investigators/interrogator..the same types we had waterboarding guys from Iraq...we had those same "types" in each war previously. We just never disclosed it til GWB. (or made it a "formal" policy)

I disagree here too. In WWII we had very involved interrogation techniques we actually imployed immigrants who had language skills in the interrogations. We quickly realized we got much more information by isolating, befriending, and debreifing than we did by torturing... Again we had allies in WWII who did torture so we had metrics to compare it to.

Likewise in Vietnam. Our chief interrogator in was one of GWB's biggest critics during the Iraq War. I read an article he wrote. The south vietnamese tortured POW's and basically didn't get jack out of it, he claimed. The POW's would end up telling the interogators anything they wanted to hear to get the pain to stop. Useless.

The United States signed an innternational agreement which we basically wrote in the Geneva convention after WWII, it's not true that we signed that with a wink and a nod knowing we would just "continue" to torture folks anyway. We as a country have not tortured as policy in any of our wars.... not clandestinedly, not opennly, when it's occured it's been isolated cases not based on congressional laws, treaties or presidential policy.

[Mad Mike]

I'm certain I can find some people, on the internet, who will torture and rape you, if you pay them a lot of money.

'Course, that thing called "consent" enters into it.

If you spend all weekend sitting in your apartment, then it's killing time. If the door's been locked, by somebody else, then it's "doing time".

Yet still, in the end, all we are doing is scaring these people. Look at the latest headlines over use of insects. If you submitted that plan to Scare Tactics, it would be rejected as boring. It's the kind of thing you do to a kid brother.

As for consent. They knew when they took up arms against us that they could be killed or captured. Don't tell me they didn't know what could happen when their own manuals for captured prisoners includes the use of drills and meat hooks. Their own people will throw acid in the face of a little girl for trying to get an education. The idea that we are lowering ourselves to their level by scaring them in ways that would be tame in some frat houses is just absurd.

[NavyDave]

Is torturing going to change anything? The 3,000 people were murdered, we can't change the past.

Yet liberals still go to the past to Bash America. Guess its time to remind people by posting links to some of those 3000 people aflame jumping to their deaths or the reposted video of captured troops being burned alive and gutted.

But of course waterboarding is waaaaaaaaaaay more outrageous and we are above using techniques to gather information to keep us and my troops safe.

But answer me this what is really torture? Partially birthing a baby drilling a hole in its head then vacuuming out its contents or inducing labor with poison, letting him/her slowly die or using a technique on a murderer to gather intel to prevent future carnage.

Yeah preventing a bombing of the Brooklyn tunnel after using the technique should be ignored.

[ACW]

Yet liberals still go to the past to Bash America. Guess its time to remind people by posting links to some of those 3000 people aflame jumping to their deaths or the reposted video of captured troops being burned alive and gutted.

But of course waterboarding is waaaaaaaaaaay more outrageous and we are above using techniques to gather information to keep us and my troops safe.

But answer me this what is really torture? Partially birthing a baby drilling a hole in its head then vacuuming out its contents or inducing labor with poison, letting him/her slowly die or using a technique on a murderer to gather intel to prevent future carnage.

Yeah preventing a bombing of the Brooklyn tunnel after using the technique should be ignored.

:doh::doh::doh:

[zoony]

I think Thiebear said it best- if it's part of what we do to recruits in boot camp, how can you call it torture?

[Coltsfan in VA]

I think Thiebear said it best- if it's part of what we do to recruits in boot camp, how can you call it torture?

I don't think they are waterboarded 266 times. And I'm sure they stop if it appears that it will injure the recruit.

[Burgold]

You are talking about what was, not what has been or is. There have been very few "checks and balances" on the Bush administration; and even fewer on the prisoners. They haven't even published the names of who we confined, how long we confined them, or why we were confining them. Basically we've had all the checks and balances in Gitmo as Castro has had with his political prisoenrs and that's only just changing. It's a national disgrace.

I don't disagree with this at all. Had there been adequate checks the disclosure of these memos would be unnecessary and actually more secrecy would be palpable.

I think we're saying the same thing while chasing each other around the Bush.

I think who, why, where and how we imprison folks should not be clandestine nearly a decade after the illegal policy first began. I also think this country was founded on checks and balances, because the founding fathers didn't want the citizenry to rely on blind trust of it's leaders. I think we've taken a gigantic leap backwards in that respect, one engineered through fear.

There is a point where the who, what, and where is a useful secret. However, that's also where checks come in. Someone needs to check that the things being done in secret are kosher. Unfornately, that wasn't done. This makes everything seem more nefarious... even the stuff that was done correctly and for the best reasons.

If we can't be open about what our givernemnt does, the very very least we can do is be open about what our government did.

Again, I agree. We may disagree on the who gets to know what when a little, but I think we're on the same page

I'm not opposed to torture. I'm apposed to the American people being kept ignorate about the actions of it's governemnt, and finatically opposed to that ignorance spanning decades. The price of living in a free society is being open about your actions, even the ones you are embarressed by.

I'm also opposed to the government breaking our laws and those who did so being able to do so in the veil of national security and ignorace created by this atmosphere of fear. Allowing that to continue is a recipe for more abuse.

We should all be opposed to an unfettered Government. Few are trustworthy enough to be given absolute free reign. There may be times when it is necessary to hold one's nose, but that should be done with eyes open and with witnesses.

[NavyDave]

Liberals still want us to defend using the Marquess of Queensberry rules in a battle where we can get sucker punched with a 2 by 4 with nails in it.

[The Evil Genius]

Just out of curiosity, how many people that are okay with torturing these suspects are also okay with the local police beating a confession out of a suspected rapist or murderer?

[Kilmer17]

Just out of curiosity, how many people that are okay with torturing these suspects are also okay with the local police beating a confession out of a suspected rapist or murderer?

Im fine with local police waterboarding suspects. And Im NOT okay with the CIA beating a confession out of terror suspects.

[The Evil Genius]

Im fine with local police waterboarding suspects. And Im NOT okay with the CIA beating a confession out of terror suspects.

Contrarian remlik strikes again.

[Larry]

Liberals still want us to defend using the Marquess of Queensberry rules in a battle where we can get sucker punched with a 2 by 4 with nails in it.

And we want to kidnap children and have homosexuals shove things down their throats, too. Christian children.

[Larry]

I disagree here too. In WWII we had very involved interrogation techniques we actually imployed immigrants who had language skills in the interrogations. We quickly realized we got much more information by isolating, befriending, and debreifing than we did by torturing... Again we had allies in WWII who did torture so we had metrics to compare it to.

Likewise in Vietnam. Our chief interrogator in was one of GWB's biggest critics during the Iraq War. I read an article he wrote. The south vietnamese tortured POW's and basically didn't get jack out of it, he claimed. The POW's would end up telling the interogators anything they wanted to hear to get the pain to stop. Useless.

The United States signed an innternational agreement which we basically wrote in the Geneva convention after WWII, it's not true that we signed that with a wink and a nod knowing we would just "continue" to torture folks anyway. We as a country have not tortured as policy in any of our wars.... not clandestinedly, not opennly, when it's occured it's been isolated cases not based on congressional laws, treaties or presidential policy.

Back when this discussion started, somebody posted a link to an article in New Yorker. They interviewed the former head of the NYPDs (FBI's?) anti-terrorism group.

He said that the terrorists expect to be tortured. That they're convinced that Americans are animals. The Great Satan. They just assume that if captured, that's what's going to happen. (That's the way things are, where they come from. And they think that we're worse.)

He said that in his experience, the best way to get information from a captured terrorist, quickly, and to get major, accurate information was to . . .

Get them a court-appointed lawyer, and let the lawyer explain to them the American concept of "plea bargain".

And this was the interrogator who successfully got real, captured, al Qaeda terrorists to confess, in open court, to bombing one of our embassies.

He explained that, if you're going to torture a prisoner, then the prisoner is going to do everything he can to hold out as long as possible. To keep his mouth shut. If he can't do that, then he'll lie. If he can't do that, then he'll tell you whatever he figures is the least important thing he knows. Even if he knows he's going to lose, his victory is to hold out as long as possible.

Whereas, with his method, the prisoner will actively go through his memory, looking for whatever he knows is the most important, and offer you that, first. Because he wants the best deal.

I may be able to fond the link.

[JMS]

I think Thiebear said it best- if it's part of what we do to recruits in boot camp, how can you call it torture?

Well the fact that we've called it torture for 70 years might mean something. Also we might do it to recruites but I don't think we do it 100 times plus to recruites, nor do we continue to do it recruites for over and over again per session....

Put it this way, we executed Japanese guards who did this to American POW's in WWII. Clearly it violates the geneva convention, and clearly we've considered it torture long before Bush/Cheney decided it wasn't.....

I know let's waterboard Cheney and Rummy 100 times and see if they think it's torture then... See if they're alive to complain.

[JimboDaMan]

Im fine with local police waterboarding suspects. And Im NOT okay with the CIA beating a confession out of terror suspects.

In the Commonwealth of Virginia, you can be arrested simply from the accusation of another citizen, no other evidence required. They just sign an affidavit of some kind and into slammer you go.

So you're travelling thru VA and stop at the wrong 7-11, the clerk swears you look just like the fella who stuck them up last week. You have no problem getting waterboarded a few times so the local constables can get to the bottom of things? Mind you, since you DIDN'T stick the place up you won't be giving up any details about the crime, which means you'll be waterboarded quite a bit more than "a few" times.

[Predicto]

I think Thiebear said it best- if it's part of what we do to recruits in boot camp, how can you call it torture?

Fine. And if it isn't torture, then why all the fuss about releasing the information? What's wrong with clearing the air?

[JimboDaMan]

I think Thiebear said it best- if it's part of what we do to recruits in boot camp, how can you call it torture?

I dunno if waterboarding a guy once it really torture. Unpleasant, maybe even a lot worse than unpleasant, but I dunno about torture.

But there's no question in my mind that continuing to do it 182 more times is torture. There's no other rational way to look at it.

Not that I feel bad for these guys if they're guilty. That's the problem, they're not guilty. They're probably not innocent, but until we bring them to trial they're not guilty and we have no justification for using waterboarding as a punishment. Lets try 'em, find 'em guilty, and shoot, hang, poison or whatever their sorry guilty asses and be done with them.

[pmo33]

I dunno if waterboarding a guy once it really torture. Unpleasant, maybe even a lot worse than unpleasant, but I dunno about torture.

But there's no question in my mind that continuing to do it 182 more times is torture. There's no other rational way to look at it.

Not that I feel bad for these guys if they're guilty. That's the problem, they're not guilty. They're probably not innocent, but until we bring them to trial they're not guilty and we have no justification for using waterboarding as a punishment. Lets try 'em, find 'em guilty, and shoot, hang, poison or whatever their sorry guilty asses and be done with them.

If in fact these POS's were involved with the planning on 9/11 then i think waterboarding is quite tame compared to what they deserved.

As far as im concerned every tooth and nail on their bodies should have been pulled out, etc. until we got every single name and piece of info we wanted.

that is what they deserve for killing innocent americans.

i think a big problem with our generation is how soft we have become.

Clear messages need to be sent to their idiots.. mess with america and you get it.. period.

[JimboDaMan]

If in fact these POS's were involved with the planning on 9/11 then i think waterboarding is quite tame compared to what they deserved.

As far as im concerned every tooth and nail on their bodies should have been pulled out, etc. until we got every single name and piece of info we wanted.

that is what they deserve for killing innocent americans.

i think a big problem with our generation is how soft we have become.

Clear messages need to be sent to their idiots.. mess with america and you get it.. period.

So lets bring them to trial. Convict them. And execute them.

Or we can continue to pour water on them and put panties over their heads to show their confederates what badasses we are.