AP Mobile: Internal CIA Report :Interogators threatenned to kill suspects children.

[Larry]

Are we talking about the 109-page internal report yet? I linked it earlier in this thread. Has anyone read it? I mean, at least debate the legalities and contents of the actual report instead of bashing each other over whose irrelevant arguments are more fantasy vs. reality.

What, you expect us to actually examine new information, and perhaps factor that information into the opinions tha we all formed about 5 years ago?

Now where'd that dead horse get off to?

Edit: I'll go take a shot at some of it. (I guarantee I'm not reading all 109 pages.)

(And if the part you quoted is any indication, I suspect it's going to be pretty much useless.)

[TimmySmith]

If threatening to kill a terrorists kids prevents one person from actually being shot, so be it.

[Larry]

You can't even commit to saying you would threaten or waterboard a terrorist to possibly prevent 9/11

No, I won't join you in your imaginary world where people know what's going to happen in the future.

(Unless Leonard Nimoy tells me, personally.)

How you coming with that claim that these are real-world scenarios you're pulling out of your Philly?

[Larry]

If threatening to kill a terrorists kids prevents one person from actually being shot, so be it.

We could prevent another 9/11 by blowing up every building in the US that's over 10 stories tall. Sound good to you?

[TimmySmith]

We could prevent another 9/11 by blowing up every building in the US that's over 10 stories tall. Sound good to you?

As far as I know we HAVE prevented another 9/11. We did not do it with hallmark cards. Sorry.

[helptheSKINS]

No, I won't join you in your imaginary world where people know what's going to happen in the future.

(Unless Leonard Nimoy tells me, personally.)

How you coming with that claim that these are real-world scenarios you're pulling out of your Philly?

Every post continues to get better. I ask you if it would be alright to use enhanced interrogation on a terrorist that knows the details about 9/11 and you say that. Larry, please explain to me what the purpose of interrogating (on any level) ANYONE is if it's not trying to figure out what will happen in the future? Here's the simplest one I can possibly think of. Yes I know you will skirt it but I enjoy watching you squirm. My guess is you will say this can only happen in fantasy land which clearly isn't true. There's a reason we have intelligence agencies.

A terrorist attack that will take American lives is planned for tomorrow and you have one of the terrorists involved in the planning in custody. Is it OK use enhanced interrogation to get the info that could foil the attack?

Start squirming now.......I'm sure everyone is enjoying the show.

[Larry]

Every post continues to get better. I ask you if it would be alright to use enhanced interrogation on a terrorist that knows the details about 9/11 and you say that. Larry, please explain to me what the purpose of interrogating (on any level) ANYONE is if it's not trying to figure out what will happen in the future? Here's the simplest one I can possibly think of. Yes I know you will skirt it but I enjoy watching you squirm. My guess is you will say this can only happen in fantasy land which clearly isn't true. There's a reason we have intelligence agencies.

A terrorist attack that will take American lives is planned for tomorrow and you have one of the terrorists involved in the planning in custody. Is it OK use enhanced interrogation to get the info that could foil the attack?

Start squirming now.......I'm sure everyone is enjoying the show.

Let me know when you're ready to discuss reality.

(Or read page 2 of this thread. )

(I'll give you a hint: You can doctor up your imaginary scenario another 20 different ways. Use pretty colors. Use bigger print. Throw in some more insults. I'm not going to play "let's pretend" with you. For the reasons I've already given.)

(How you coming with that claim that these things you're making up are real world situations? How about, instead of trying to invent imaginary worlds, you actually back up the claims that you've made?)

[jkypoo]

You can't even commit to saying you would threaten or waterboard a terrorist to possibly prevent 9/11

What about the intelligence the government had prior to 9/11? Such as the names of suspected terrorists attending flight school and a memo outlining the possibility of airplanes being used as weapons? What about the war games being run to train to prevent such an attack should it come to fruition? The government had advanced intelligence and training, and what good did it do us?

If threatening to kill a terrorists kids prevents one person from actually being shot, so be it.

And, again, to both of you: We are not talking about threatening or torturing terrorists. That, simply, is not the topic of discussion.

[jkypoo]

A terrorist attack that will take American lives is planned for tomorrow and you have one of the terrorists involved in the planning in custody. Is it OK use enhanced interrogation to get the info that could foil the attack?

The OP and attached article says nothing about torturing terrorists. Nothing. So I don't see the point of your hypothetical situation.

[helptheSKINS]

The OP and attached article says nothing about torturing terrorists. Nothing. So I don't see the point of your hypothetical situation.

Great job to both of you! I have never seen anyone avoid a simple question like the two of you have. Larry has determined that intelligence is only to see what happened in the past, not to find out about plans for future terrorist actions. Larry, please notify the CIA of their new role.

jkypoo - please see the thread title. I'm glad we agree that making threats is not torture. You're making progress.

[Larry]

Smoot,

I'm on page 21 (of 160), which contains a list of the EITs supposedly authorized.

Thought they might be worth posting in this thread. (I've cleaned up the formatting and some OCR errors, here. And I'm not going to put them in a "quote" box, to make it easier if someone wants to quote this post and cut and paste.)

Enhanced Interrogation Techniques

• The attention grasp consists of grasping the detainee with both hands, with one hand on each side of the collar opening, in a controlled and quick motion. In the same motion as the grasp, the detainee is drawn toward the interrogator.

• During the walling technique, the detainee is pulled forward and then quickly and firmly pushed into a flexible false wall so that his shoulder blades hit the wall. His head and neck are supported with a rolled towel to prevent whiplash.

+ The facial hold is used to hold the detainee's head immobile. The interrogator places an open palm on either side of the detainee's face and the interrogator's fingertips are kept well away from the detainee's eyes.

• With the facial or insult slap, the fingers are slightly spread apart. The

interrogator's hand makes contact with the area between the tip of the detainee's chin and the bottom of the corresponding earlobe.

• in cramped confinement, the detainee is placed in a confined space, typically a small or large box, which is usually dark. Confinement in the smaller space lasts no more than two hours and in the larger space it can last up to 18 hours.

• Insects placed in a confinement box involve placing a harmless insect in the box with the detainee. .

• During wall standing, the detainee may stand about 4 to 5 feet from a wall with his feet spread approximately to his shoulder width. His arms are stretched out in front of him and his lingers rest on the wall to support all of his body weight. The detainee is not allowed to reposition his hands or feet.

+ The application of stress positions may include having the detainee sit on the floor with his legs extended straight out in front ofhim with his arms raised above his head or kneeling on the floor while leaning back at a 45 degree angle.

• Sleep deprivation will not exceed 11 days at a time.

• The application of the waterboard technique involves binding the detainee to a bench with his feet elevated above his head. The detainee's head is immobilized and an interrogator places a cloth over the detainee's mouth and nose while pouring water onto the cloth in a controlled manner. Airflow is restricted for 20 to 40 seconds and the technique produces the sensation of drowning and suffocation.

Some of those things sound, to me, to be so incredibly mild that I wonder if I'm misreading them. I don't think any if them comply with Geneva, but I don't think they go too much beyond it. Some of the others, to me, are clearly torture.

Resulting in lots of room for people on opposing sides to argue past each other, by focusing on only some of the items on the list.

[jkypoo]

jkypoo - please see the thread title. I'm glad we agree that making threats is not torture. You're making progress.

helptheSKINS - please see the thread title. Please understand the difference between a terrorist and a suspect. Maybe then I can quit repeating it. And any progress with you is not forward progress or even beneficial. So don't be so proud. And I have said repeatedly that this is not about torturing terrorists. Thanks for paying attention!

[Larry]

Finding some interesting stuff, here. Pages 22 and 23 (I'm going according to the PDF page numbers, to make it easy for people who want to look at the same thing I'm looking at to find it.) talk about "the torture convention". (Which I'm assuming is some UN treaty, but I'm not certain of that.)

(Long quote follows)

The Torture Convention specifically prohibits

"torture/' which it defines in Article 1 as:

. any act by which

severe

pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is

intentionally

inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession,

punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is

suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or

a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any

kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the

instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official

or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include

pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to

lawful sanction. [Emphasis added.]

Article 4 of the Torture Convention provides that states party to the

Convention are to ensure that all acts of "torture" are offenses under

their criminal laws. Article 16 additionally provides that each state

party "shall undertake to prevent in any territory under its

jurisdiction other acts of cruel inhuman or degrading treatment or

punishment which do not amount to acts of torture as defined in

Article 1."

38. (VI IFOVO) The Torture Convention applies to the United

States only in accordance with the reservations and understandings

made by the United States at the time of ratification. l6 As explained

to the Senate by the Executive Branch prior to ratification:

Article 16 is arguably broader than existing U.S. law. The phrase

"cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment" is a

standard formula in international instruments and is found in the

Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and the European Convention on

Human Rights. To the extent the phrase has been interpreted in the

context of those agreements, "cruel" and "inhuman" treatment or

punishment appears to be roughly equivalent to the treatment or

punishment barred in the United States by the Fifth, Eighth and

Fourteenth Amendments. "Degrading" treatment or punishment,

however, has been interpreted as potentially including treatment

that would probably not be prohibited by the U.S. Constitution.

[Citing a ruling that German refusal to recognize individual's

gender change might be considered "degrading" treatment.]

To make clear that the United States construes the phrase to be

coextensive with its constitutional guarantees against cruel,

unusual, and inhumane treatment, the following understanding is

recommended:

"The United States understands the term 'cruel, inhuman or

degrading treatment or punishment; as used in Article 16 of

the Convention, to mean the cruel, unusual, and inhumane

treatment or punishment prohibited by the Fifth, Eighth

and/or Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the

United States."17 [Emphasis added.]

Now, what I'm reading, here, is that in 94, the US signed a treaty which, at the time we ratified the treaty, gave prisoners more rights than the US Constitution. We knew that it gave these rights, and agreed to it anyway, with the declaration that we were only agreeing to give prisoners Constitutional rights, but nothing further.

I'm wondering how we get from "prisoners have all of the protections of the US Constitution" to "waterboarding is OK". Is the government going to argue that waterboarding US Citizens is Constitutional?

[ardowling]

First I want to correct something I posted way back on page 7 or 8 the LTC I was referencing was LTC Allen West, he used what I would call EITs to save his men:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allen_West_(former_U.S._military_officer)

While serving in Taji, Iraq on August 20, 2003 as commander of the 2d Battalion 20th Field Artillery, 4th Infantry Division, Lieutenant Colonel West was in charge of the interrogation of an Iraqi police officer who was suspected of having information about planned attacks on American forces. According to the Iraqi police officer, Yehiya Kadoori Hamoodi claimed that during the interrogation, soldiers under West's supervision assaulted him attempting to get him to talk.(they must have threatened his kids)

The police officer insisted that he did not know anything about planned attacks and was loyal to the United States Army. However, when the detainee didn't talk, Lieutenant Colonel West fired his 9mm pistol close to the man's head and at this point, the man gave information about a planned ambush, resulting in its being thwarted. According to West, there were no further ambushes on U.S. forces in Taji until he was relieved of command on October 4, 2003.

LTC West gave up his carrer to save his men, and is a hero in my book and should have been treated as such and I'm not the only one:

After West's resignation was brought to public attention the next Fall, he received over two thousand letters and e-mails from the American public offering him moral support. In addition, a letter was drafted to the secretary of the Army, its signatories being ninety-five members of Congress in West's support. Even a prominent critic of the Abu Graib affair, Sen. John W. Warner of Virginia, wrote a letter to his constituents in support of West's honorable intentions during the controversial incident.

In January 2004, the conservative Frontpage Magazine named West its Man of the Year.[1].

Its kind of funny how quickly this suspect gave up info when the right pressure was applied, of course some of you would want LTC West imprisoned, I'm sure milk and cookies would have gotten the same result from the suspect. :doh:

[NavyDave]

A terrorist attack that will take American lives is planned for tomorrow and you have one of the terrorists involved in the planning in custody. Is it OK use enhanced interrogation to get the info that could foil the attack?

Dude, liberals and defending the country at all costs go together like oil and water. Heck they can't even bring themselves to call terrorists terrorists or acknowledge the WAR on Terror.

None of them have been in a situation where they encountered any of these pieces of human debris so they stick to ivory tower theories betting that their locales are insignificant to be targeted by those in the religion of peace in the future.

Yeah there are some you can say are Terrorist sympathizers who are also on the blame America first bandwagon.

[Baculus]

does contain something that's a bit important. (I've highlighted them.)

Bac isn't saying "US prisoners have always been treated perfectly".

His first quote is arguing (at least, as I read it) that one of the reasons why we agree to things like the Geneva Conventions is in the hopes that it will be reciprocated. (Not that they are guaranteed to be reciprocated.)

His second (IMO) is that yes, some real atrocities have happened, but that in general they've been treated, well, decently. (Something which I might disagree with, but which I'm certain depends on your own definition of "decently".)

But I'll say, again: His post was a lot closer to what you stated, than I had remembered. I stand corrected.

You are spot on, Larry, and you have interpreted my words correctly. Maybe my point was a little better understood.

[Baculus]

Never saw Andersonville?

It happens and HAS BEEN happening alot more than the public is aware of. If it saves American lives, then so be it

Here's some reading for you

http://hnn.us/roundup/entries/5036.html

The problem is, we don't know if it always saves lives. Worse yet, the information we have received from interrogation has, at times, be inaccurate. This is why many people do not believe torture is a good way to extract information. If it was, then the Inquisition must have had a great track record for finding witches.

[Baculus]

Dude, liberals and defending the country at all costs go together like oil and water. Heck they can't even bring themselves to call terrorists terrorists or acknowledge the WAR on Terror.

None of them have been in a situation where they encountered any of these pieces of human debris so they stick to ivory tower theories betting that their locales are insignificant to be targeted by those in the religion of peace in the future.

Yeah there are some you can say are Terrorist sympathizers who are also on the blame America first bandwagon.

My nephew is a liberal Democrat who is on his second tour in Iraq. I respectfully disagree with your assertion.

Liberalism fought the Nazis. Liberalism fought the Cold War. Just because liberals want to abide by international agreements to which we are a party doesn't mean liberals have sympathy with terrorists.

[NavyDave]

The problem is, we don't know if it always saves lives. Worse yet, the information we have received from interrogation has, at times, be inaccurate. This is why many people do not believe torture is a good way to extract information. If it was, then the Inquisition must have had a great track record for finding witches.

Well we know that the big fish after interrogation gave us very accurate information to prevent further acts of terrorism in the US, but thanks to liberals and the media, Terrorist know how to train against the tactics we used to get information, now.

[sacase]

Just sent 2 PMs in reply, before I saw this post.

Every time I get into these "I'm responding to your post from yesterday, so this may have been covered in a subsequent post" exchanges, I remember the film

2001

.

They really didn't go into it, but there's some dialog in the film that was put there to indicate that the astronauts were so out of touch with Earth that they would send a message, and then they wouldn't know until Earth's next message whether Earth got the first message.

Many of their "excahnges" with Mission Control began with the voice of Mission Control (who was actually a USAF air traffic controller who Kubrick hired specifically because he sounded American, military, and techie) saying something like "X-Ray Delta One, this is Mission Control. Roger your two niner three seven."

But, as to the "The Geneva Conventions don't apply" claim, I'll point out that The people who wrote them disagree. (Final paragraph)

That was a interpratation written in 2003, that is not what was in the actual convention. We all know there are differnet "legal" opinions.

[sacase]

Unfortunately, your estimate doesn't count for much. I am not saying you are wrong, but calling me clueless because of an estimate that you came up with is kind of moronic. If you can somehow back it up, then we can talk.

My estimate is far more accurate than yours, I will leave it at that.I am just calling a spade a spade.

I never said it was a law enforcement action. And I am not the one that termed them "suspected terrorists" or "detainees," the government did. My point is that the terms imply no guilt, only suspected guilt. The people being tortured are not terrorists, criminals, or prisoners. And the reason that they are not classified as anything other than detainees is because then they would be guaranteed certain due processes and particular rights as such. The term is relatively recent, created to circumvent the Conventions. You have done nothing in that quote but back up what I have been saying all along. If you really think that the term "suspect" or "detainee" makes someone a criminal or terrorist, then you are an unfortunate person.

No you keep using definitions and acting like this is a law enforcement action. You have done this throughout the whole thread. You continue to do so by acting like our soldiers are police officers. Hell, you use criminal here. If you are not Afghani and you are fighting US forces in Afghanistan, then you are a terrorist, plane and simple. Not a hard concept.

So, I am a fool because I don't spout ill-informed, ignorant, prejudice, propaganda? Because I see the bigger picture? Because I refuse to sit around recited what I am told? Apparently the term "fool" is more relative than I suspected. Maybe you should invest in a mirror.

That is pretty much all you are spouting. I have formed my opinions through DIRECT observation, something I can pretty much guarantee you haven't done.

We are not talking about wartime events taking place on a battlefield. We are talking about torturing suspects in a facility removed from the actual battlefield, so your scenario is worthless. And I would counter that you are the real problem, because it is not weak to be wise or rise above the nature of your enemy, in fact it takes far more strength. Yours is a weakness to degrade the ideals that this country has fought so long to establish and defend. We are fighting for the American way, and your perverted assumptions about that way are far removed from that ideal. And, again, I have and will not defend terrorists. We are talking about suspects. Again, not my term, the governments.

Do you honestly think we just grab people off the street and toss them in gitmo. I suggest you read up on FM 34-52. I believe the version we started Afghanistan and Iraq on was the version written in 1992 and then was revised in 2006. How do you think that the people who got into gitmo got there? Osmosis? Once again they were picked up on the battlefield fighting against our soldiers. Your problem is you are trying to attribute western thinking and values to them. You are taking the word of terrorists, suspect or otherwise, over our soldiers, I find that sad and pathetic. I will stick with Joe, you can stick with Haji.

Maybe you misread the question. Or maybe you are obtuse. The question was a counter question. I asked, would you consider it torture if a Christian was forced to urinate on a bible or defecate on a cross/rosary/crucifix? That is not the question you responded to, was it?

Seriously bro, my answer was obvious. I don't care. Make me piss on the bible, cross, rosary and anything you put in front of me, it won't phase me. Its not toture. So no I would not consider it toture if you made a christian piss on a bible.

Again, you have contradicted yourself and helped to prove one of my previous points. Earlier you said it was a Muslim problem, which is incorrect. I would, however, partially agree with the fact that it is an extremist problem, or a problem involving those that have perverted the religion. Much like abortion clinic bombings are not the result of Christians as a whole, but Christian extremists, or Christians who have perverted the religion.

Wow...that is all I can say, I didn't contradict myself one bit. It IS a muslim problem. There have been over 13,000 terrorist attacks since 2001 committed by muslim terrorists. I would say that is a problem. But if you want to be blind that is on you.

[Lil Kenzo]

No,it's not reality.So you are saying that threats made by American interrogators to glean intelligence is comprable to be-heading,hanging,or shooting people?

Again, your looking to far into it. What I am saying is that its an everyday thing. It's all wrong. Regardless whether its a be-heading or threatening to kill their families. Now all of a sudden there is this big whole argument over something that has been going on for years.

Your telling me that you honestly believe Americans have never used the same tactics that any 3rd world country has. Please...it sounds to me like denial.

[Larry]

That was a interpratation written in 2003, that is not what was in the actual convention. We all know there are differnet "legal" opinions.

Uh, I'm not 100% certain you're wrong, but the document I linked to certainly doesn't appear to say that. Can you tell me where you're getting that from?

[Larry]

If you are not Afghani and you are fighting US forces in Afghanistan, then you are a terrorist, plane and simple. Not a hard concept.

Speaking of hard concepts, could you please give us your definition of "terrorist?

[Baculus]

Again, your looking to far into it. What I am saying is that its an everyday thing. It's all wrong. Regardless whether its a be-heading or threatening to kill their families. Now all of a sudden there is this big whole argument over something that has been going on for years.

Your telling me that you honestly believe Americans have never used the same tactics that any 3rd world country has. Please...it sounds to me like denial.

I am sure we have. As a principled, moral nation, though, that doesn't mean we will approve of it. Why? Because it would cheapen us.