the torture memos [Archive] - hailRedskins.com Fan Board

fent

04-16-2009, 06:03 PM

after reading Bybee's memo, it appears that his whole legal basis was a set of memos they wrote to interpret the statutes that define torture. none of these memos or interpretations have ever seen the light of day in a courtroom because up until now there's been no reason that they be questioned. the statute defines torture as :

an act committed by a person acting under the color of law specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions) upon another person within his custody of physical control.

(and now we get into the part where Fent has to remember all his thoughts of reading an 18 page memo and how they fit together since he didn't take notes)

the memos that he references go on to add the assumption severe physical pain means excruciating pain that is difficult to endure and is akin to the pain accompanying serious physical injury. i guess you have to define it somehow and this seems reasonable. however, i don't necessarily agree that severe mental pain or suffering requires the effects to last for months on end as Bybee contends. as he breaks down each of the proposed actions he comes to the conclusion that waterboarding is in fact an action suggesting impending death, but that it's not torture because the mental effects dissipate before this DOJ-created threshold of "months" has been reached. i have very serious misgivings about the legal logic of admitting that a reasonable person would find an action to be imminent death and in the next sentence saying that doesn't meet the requirements to be considered torture because when you stop doing the act, the fear of death goes away.

futhermore, while not as disturbing as his writings on waterboarding, i begin to doubt his logic and his intellectual honesty when he groups the terms "pain" and "suffering" as one issue when they are clearly separated by "or" in the statute. in my mind, "or" makes it very clear that these are two separate entities and i come to the conclusion that he's stretching to make the statute fit what he wants to authorize rather than making the action fit the statute.

just my thoughts. i'm by no means a legal expert (yet) but i've only read one of them and i'm pretty taken aback by the conclusions DOJ came to.

Ibleedburgundy

04-16-2009, 06:18 PM

All good points Fent.

While I have zero sympathy for Zubayda, just the image of Americans doing these things under the false pretense of legality makes me cringe. This isn't new information (so far) in fact I'm impressed by the degree of accuracy regarding everything I've heard about these memos via the Washington Post/NY Times over the past several years. How are we so bad at keeping secrets?

skinguy

04-17-2009, 07:43 AM

By any means necessary....
agreed.

i don't want to , but . . . have to agree :(

fent

04-17-2009, 10:12 AM

maybe i'm cut out for this legal thing after all ;)

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2009/04/bybee-at-nuremberg.html#more

I also just finished reading the 2002 Bybee memo. As a lawyer, one of the things that surprised me the most was Bybee arguing that "suffering" did not have a meaning independent of "pain" in the phrase "severe physical or mental pain or suffering" - in fact, he goes out of his way to change the phrase to "pain AND suffering" (page 11).

Under the canon against surplusage, courts interpret statutes so as to avoid creating surplus, redundant, or unnecessary language. Bybee clearly violates this long-established common law canon by defining "suffering" to mean the same thing as "pain." This is especially egregious because the language here is not "pain and suffering" (which could arguably be a phrase of art), but "pain or suffering," which inherently suggests that the two are different things and that the presence of either justifies a finding of torture. Instead, Bybee defines away the "suffering" element, since it is by far the more problematic. Just to be clear - this is a fundamental issue of statutory interpretation that would be clear to any first year law student.

By ignoring standard issues of statutory construction such as these, Bybee makes clear that he is arguing a position rather than trying to reach the correct result.

CNYSkinFan

04-17-2009, 11:01 AM

By any means necessary....

agreed.

i don't want to , but . . . have to agree :(

So we must protect America by compromising the very values that America stands for....grrrreat

(not to mention Torture besides being sadistic is a wholly unreliable means of getting accurate information)

akhhorus

04-17-2009, 11:06 AM

Whether or not torture is justified, it doesn't work! You torture someone enough and they'll tell you what they think you want to hear.

redskin_rich

04-17-2009, 11:09 AM

Whether or not torture is justified, it doesn't work! You torture someone enough and they'll tell you what they think you want to hear.

Who's to say that wasn't the objective?

akhhorus

04-17-2009, 11:11 AM

Who's to say that wasn't the objective?

If thats the case, then everyone who green lit it should go to jail.

We interrogated Abu Zubaydah without torture and he told us some useful info. It was decided to torture him and he started spinning these wild stories about massive terror plots, none of which turned out to be remotely true.

PHWbc

04-17-2009, 11:15 AM

this is a fundamental issue of statutory interpretation that would be clear to any first year law student

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2009/04/bybee-at-nuremberg.html#more

Yup, it is clear to this one.

Mens Rea: specifically intended
Actus Reus: inflict severe physical pain OR inflict severe mental pain OR inflict (severe) suffering

RedskinsDave

04-17-2009, 04:21 PM

Whether or not torture is justified, it doesn't work! You torture someone enough and they'll tell you what they think you want to hear.

Says the people who are against torture. The problem is no one is going to argue the benefits.

BurgundyNGold

04-17-2009, 04:23 PM

It seems to me that just being aggressively interrogated can be construed as "suffering".

akhhorus

04-17-2009, 04:28 PM

Says the people who are against torture. The problem is no one is going to argue the benefits.

Thats basic psych. Torture really just doesn't work. All you're going to get is what they think you want to hear. Anne Applebaum(who's no liberal at all) wrote about this:

Link (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A2302-2005Jan11.html)

Or listen to Army Col. Stuart Herrington, a military intelligence specialist who conducted interrogations in Vietnam, Panama and Iraq during Desert Storm, and who was sent by the Pentagon in 2003 -- long before Abu Ghraib -- to assess interrogations in Iraq. Aside from its immorality and its illegality, says Herrington, torture is simply "not a good way to get information." In his experience, nine out of 10 people can be persuaded to talk with no "stress methods" at all, let alone cruel and unusual ones. Asked whether that would be true of religiously motivated fanatics, he says that the "batting average" might be lower: "perhaps six out of ten." And if you beat up the remaining four? "They'll just tell you anything to get you to stop."

Or read the book "the interrogators" written by a military interrogator who served in Afghanistan. As soon as they were ordered to start using "stress" techniques, the flow of any useful information stopped from their detainees. Their most effective technique was to dress up an italian-american sergeant in an Israeli Defense Forces uniform and have him laugh and point at the detainees in their cages(and pretend to speak hebrew with the interrogators who led them around). The detainees were scared poop-less.

Ibleedburgundy

04-17-2009, 06:41 PM

Yeah, apparently these detainees are much more scared of Israel than anything else:

Alter's essay created quite a stir -- and to his considerable surprise, a lot of whispered support from liberals. Around the same time, historian Jay Winik wrote about the usefulness of torture, how Philippine agents in 1995 got a certain Abdul Hakim Murad to reveal a plot to blow up 11 American airliners over the Pacific and send yet another plane, this one loaded with nerve gas, into CIA headquarters in Langley. After being beaten nearly to death, Murad was finally broken by the hollow threat to turn him over to Israel's Mossad.

What's odd is that Cohen seems to be using this as an example of effective torture while saying it was the threat to send them to Israel that ultimately made the guy sing. I've been meaning to read more about this case.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/26/AR2009012601851_pf.html

BurgundyNGold

04-22-2009, 12:56 PM

akhhorus

04-22-2009, 01:11 PM

Ugh. Disgusting

Link (http://www.mcclatchydc.com/227/story/66622.html)

The Bush administration applied relentless pressure on interrogators to use harsh methods on detainees in part to find evidence of cooperation between al Qaida and the late Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein's regime, according to a former senior U.S. intelligence official and a former Army psychiatrist.

(snip)

Former Vice President Dick Cheney and others who advocated the use of sleep deprivation, isolation and stress positions and waterboarding, which simulates drowning, insist that they were legal.

A former senior U.S. intelligence official familiar with the interrogation issue said that Cheney and former Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld demanded that the interrogators find evidence of al Qaida-Iraq collaboration.

"There were two reasons why these interrogations were so persistent, and why extreme methods were used," the former senior intelligence official said on condition of anonymity because of the issue's sensitivity.

"The main one is that everyone was worried about some kind of follow-up attack (after 9/11). But for most of 2002 and into 2003, Cheney and Rumsfeld, especially, were also demanding proof of the links between al Qaida and Iraq that (former Iraqi exile leader Ahmed) Chalabi and others had told them were there."

It was during this period that CIA interrogators waterboarded two alleged top al Qaida detainees repeatedly — Abu Zubaydah at least 83 times in August 2002 and Khalid Sheik Muhammed 183 times in March 2003 — according to a newly released Justice Department document.

"There was constant pressure on the intelligence agencies and the interrogators to do whatever it took to get that information out of the detainees, especially the few high-value ones we had, and when people kept coming up empty, they were told by Cheney's and Rumsfeld's people to push harder," he continued.

"Cheney's and Rumsfeld's people were told repeatedly, by CIA . . . and by others, that there wasn't any reliable intelligence that pointed to operational ties between bin Laden and Saddam, and that no such ties were likely because the two were fundamentally enemies, not allies."

Senior administration officials, however, "blew that off and kept insisting that we'd overlooked something, that the interrogators weren't pushing hard enough, that there had to be something more we could do to get that information," he said.

People need to go to jail.

Link (http://www.propublica.org/article/dozens-of-prisoners-held-by-cia-still-missing-fates-unknown-422)

Last week, we pointed out that one of the newly released Bush-era memos inadvertently confirmed that the CIA held an al-Qaeda suspect [1] named Hassan Ghul in a secret prison and subjected him to what Bush administration lawyers called "enhanced interrogation techniques." The CIA has never acknowledged holding Ghul, and his whereabouts today are secret.

But Ghul is not the only such prisoner who remains missing. At least three dozen others who were held in the CIA's secret prisons overseas appear to be missing as well. Efforts by human rights organizations to track their whereabouts have been unsuccessful, and no foreign governments have acknowledged holding them

I understand that we were in extraordinary situations after 9-11, but the reaction went way too far and now every single Liberal fantasy and accusation about the Bush years will be assumed to be true. Reading these memos and the justifications for the tactics used along with the tap dancing and flat out lying about how effective they were sickens me.

fent

04-22-2009, 02:26 PM

I'm glad they exposed these memos. The discussion about what is and is not torture needs to be discussed and decided upon.

Is waterboarding torture? Probably, and we can discuss that but some of these tactics almost certainly aren't torture as defined by the nebulous "suffering" criteria. If they are, then a lot of the kids I knew growing up were "tortured" by their parents, every guy in my platoon was "tortured" in boot camp and any suspect who was ever so scared that he peed himself or vomited during a police interrogation has been "tortured", as well. We need to decide once and for all what is acceptable and what is not.

I will say that, regardless of the interrogation tactic used, if you need to do it 180+ times -- hell even more than 15 or 20 times -- it ain't working.

Bradbury admits in one of his memos that the actions we were taking were condemned by the State Department when done in other countries. Apparently somewhere in the process he decided that it's torture if done by darker people with funny accents and sunglasses (to borrow a new descriptor from Karl) but it's simple interrogation when done by an American.

I think in the long run the definition of what is torture will be defined in the same way SCOTUS defines pornography. Certain things will definitely be added to a "banned" list, but for the most part, I really don't see a way you address the overall issue without simply saying, "you know where the line is, you cross it, you pay a severe price." As soon as you start legislating what constitutes torture, something will be contrived that isn't on the list, so even though it provides the fear of imminent death, it must be okay.

Keino

04-22-2009, 07:15 PM

agreed.

i don't want to , but . . . have to agree :(

Only he was being facetious while you are being......you.

BurgundyNGold

04-23-2009, 09:39 AM

Only he was being facetious while you are being......you.
I'm only about 60% sure that DJ was being facetious, lol.

dj_stouty

04-23-2009, 10:18 AM

I'm only about 60% sure that DJ was being facetious, lol.

Pretty much. I don't believe you need to go to the massive extremes to get someone to talk, but I think there are acceptable levels of torture to ensure the safety of our country. We are dealing with terrorists here...

RedskinsDave

04-23-2009, 10:27 AM

Ugh. Disgusting

Link (http://www.mcclatchydc.com/227/story/66622.html)

(snip)

People need to go to jail.

Link (http://www.propublica.org/article/dozens-of-prisoners-held-by-cia-still-missing-fates-unknown-422)

I understand that we were in extraordinary situations after 9-11, but the reaction went way too far and now every single Liberal fantasy and accusation about the Bush years will be assumed to be true. Reading these memos and the justifications for the tactics used along with the tap dancing and flat out lying about how effective they were sickens me.

And we were safe. People need to STFU and stop acting like they are so up in arms. This is precisely why Americans should be be happy they are safe and stop asking how it is so.

To paraphrase Col. Jessup:

Son, we live in a world that has walls, and those walls have to be guarded by men who get info. Whose gonna do it? You? You, Lt. Whineburg? They have a greater responsibility than you could possibly fathom. You weep for terrorists, and you curse the CIA. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what they know. That waterboarding torture, while tragic, probably saved lives. And their existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves lives. You don't want the truth because deep down in places you don't talk about at parties, you want them in that hole, you need them in that hole. They have neither the time nor the inclination to explain themselves to a people who rise and sleep under the blanket of the very freedom that they provide, and then questions the manner in which they provide it. They would rather you just said thank you, and went on your way, Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a weapon, and stand a post. Either way, I don't give a damn what you think you are entitled to.

akhhorus

04-23-2009, 10:32 AM

And we were safe.

Don't even try that. Torture didnt keep us safe. And before you say 9-11, we had a lot of info on that plot, but no one had enough of the various info nuggets to see the big picture. And we didn't have to torture anyone. The Saudis found out about the London bombing plot without torturing(Woodwards State of Denial), we just didnt believe it.

People need to STFU and stop acting like they are so up in arms. This is precisely why Americans should be be happy they are safe and stop asking how it is so.

The ends don't justify the means. We're America, we're supposed to be better than the terrorists. That's what separates us from the rest of the world.

Nevermind that torture just doesn't work. If you waterboard someone 183 times in a single month, IT ISN'T WORKING!

To paraphrase Col. Jessup:

Son, we live in a world that has walls, and those walls have to be guarded by men who get info. Whose gonna do it? You? You, Lt. Whineburg? They have a greater responsibility than you could possibly fathom. You weep for terrorists, and you curse the CIA. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what they know. That waterboarding death, while tragic, probably saved lives. And their existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves lives. You don't want the truth because deep down in places you don't talk about at parties, you want them in that hole, you need them in that hole. They have neither the time nor the inclination to explain themselves to a people who rise and sleep under the blanket of the very freedom that they provide, and then questions the manner in which they provide it. They would rather you just said thank you, and went on your way, Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a weapon, and stand a post. Either way, I don't give a damn what you think you are entitled to.

Then why are the torture supporters blatantly lying about how waterboarding stopped some LA plot. How come everyone involved wanted to cover it up. If you authorized torture and thought you were doing the right thing, then you should be proud of what you authorized.

There's no proof that any torture stopped any plot or provided any useful info, there's proof that torture ruined the interrogation of Zubaydah.

RedskinsDave

04-23-2009, 10:40 AM

The ends don't justify the means. We're America, we're supposed to be better than the terrorists. That's what separates us from the rest of the world.

Nevermind that torture just doesn't work. If you waterboard someone 183 times in a single month, IT ISN'T WORKING!

Then why are the torture supporters blatantly lying about how waterboarding stopped some LA plot. How come everyone involved wanted to cover it up. If you authorized torture and thought you were doing the right thing, then you should be proud of what you authorized.

There's no proof that any torture stopped any plot or provided any useful info, there's proof that torture ruined the interrogation of Zubaydah.

Oh horse crap. It works. Like I said already, the problem is no one is going to come out and say it does because that makes them pro-torture and they would get reamed sideways for it. How do you know the L.A. attacks are a lie?

This isn't 1948 and these guys aren't soldiers following orders. They will die for their mission, which if you forgot being we've been safe for so many years, is to KILL US and as many as they can at one time.

Maybe you'd prefer we offer them tea and crumpets and ask pretty please for the info. I am sure that will work. It's pretty curious that the guys who do this sort of thing for a living are willing to do it. I guess they might actually know more than the armchair quarterbacks eating bon-bons and typing furiously on their laptops.

BurgundyNGold

04-23-2009, 11:09 AM

Pretty much. I don't believe you need to go to the massive extremes to get someone to talk, but I think there are acceptable levels of torture to ensure the safety of our country. We are dealing with terrorists here...
That's what I think has to be defined. I don't think sleep deprivation for a while is torture. I don't think that filling them with mortal fear (provided there's little or no actual danger) is torture or even sufficient "suffering" either. But what tactics can and should we use? What among them (that actually get results) are morally acceptable to us? These have to be discussed and decided in the light.

akhhorus

04-23-2009, 11:36 AM

Oh horse crap. It works.

No it doesn't. If you let me torture you at the draft party, I can guarantee I'll get a signed or video taped confession from you about your torrid love affair with Larry Craig by the end of Round 1. Thats the only point of torture: to get someone to confess to what you want them to confess to. Thats why the Brits gave up using it on IRA members and the French stopped using it on Algerians or why the Israelis(who have carte blanche to deal with Palestinians) only use sensory deprivation.

Like I said already, the problem is no one is going to come out and say it does because that makes them pro-torture and they would get reamed sideways for it. How do you know the L.A. attacks are a lie?

Because the claim was that waterboarding KSM in 2002 exposed the plot(the FBI didn't think much of the plot). We didn't capture him until 2003 and the "plot" was broken up in 2002.

And if anyone could point to a major plot that torture disrupted, the supporters of it would be screaming it. But according to FBI director Mueller, torture didn't stop anything: Link (http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/probes-of-bush-administration/flashback-bushs-fbi-director-said-torture-didnt-foil-any-terror-plots/)

This isn't 1948 and these guys aren't soldiers following orders. They will die for their mission, which if you forgot being we've been safe for so many years, is to KILL US and as many as they can at one time.

I don't disagree, but torturing fanatics won't get you anywhere. The fear of death is pointless against people willing to die for their cause. Go out and kill them. Thats war. Torturing someone isn't. The Brits couldn't get anything from torturing IRA members in the 70s and 80s, and they stopped using it.

Maybe you'd prefer we offer them tea and crumpets and ask pretty please for the info. I am sure that will work. It's pretty curious that the guys who do this sort of thing for a living are willing to do it. I guess they might actually know more than the armchair quarterbacks eating bon-bons and typing furiously on their laptops.

Don't try to characterize my position with your nonsense. I'm in favor of of what the rules were before these memos: it got us workable info, even from high level AQ members. I would be more than happy to buy you a copy of the book I mentioned earlier and you can see how they actually did it and how it fell apart after they were forced to start using more "aggressive" methods.

akhhorus

04-23-2009, 11:49 AM

An FBI agent who was involved in the interrogations wrote an Op-ed for the NYT today:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/23/opinion/23soufan.html?_r=3&ref=opinion

One of the most striking parts of the memos is the false premises on which they are based. The first, dated August 2002, grants authorization to use harsh interrogation techniques on a high-ranking terrorist, Abu Zubaydah, on the grounds that previous methods hadn’t been working. The next three memos cite the successes of those methods as a justification for their continued use.

It is inaccurate, however, to say that Abu Zubaydah had been uncooperative. Along with another F.B.I. agent, and with several C.I.A. officers present, I questioned him from March to June 2002, before the harsh techniques were introduced later in August. Under traditional interrogation methods, he provided us with important actionable intelligence.

We discovered, for example, that Khalid Shaikh Mohammed was the mastermind of the 9/11 attacks. Abu Zubaydah also told us about Jose Padilla, the so-called dirty bomber. This experience fit what I had found throughout my counterterrorism career: traditional interrogation techniques are successful in identifying operatives, uncovering plots and saving lives.

There was no actionable intelligence gained from using enhanced interrogation techniques on Abu Zubaydah that wasn’t, or couldn’t have been, gained from regular tactics. In addition, I saw that using these alternative methods on other terrorists backfired on more than a few occasions — all of which are still classified. The short sightedness behind the use of these techniques ignored the unreliability of the methods, the nature of the threat, the mentality and modus operandi of the terrorists, and due process.

Defenders of these techniques have claimed that they got Abu Zubaydah to give up information leading to the capture of Ramzi bin al-Shibh, a top aide to Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, and Mr. Padilla. This is false. The information that led to Mr. Shibh’s capture came primarily from a different terrorist operative who was interviewed using traditional methods. As for Mr. Padilla, the dates just don’t add up: the harsh techniques were approved in the memo of August 2002, Mr. Padilla had been arrested that May.

fent

04-23-2009, 12:22 PM

That's what I think has to be defined. I don't think sleep deprivation for a while is torture. I don't think that filling them with mortal fear (provided there's little or no actual danger) is torture or even sufficient "suffering" either. But what tactics can and should we use? What among them (that actually get results) are morally acceptable to us? These have to be discussed and decided in the light.

i agree that sleep deprivation likely doesn't fit the definition of torture (depending on how you deprive)...hell, taken by themselves, most of the actions in Bybee's memos aren't that bad if you're subjected to just one of them at any given time. the problem comes with adding them together to create a program like we were putting these combatants through. i'm not a medical professional that can determine what that line is, but i'm pretty sure that when the Pentagon admits that a dozen detainees have died because of these actions, and the Red Cross estimates the number to be closer to 100, your course of action has crossed over into the land of "extreme."

fent

04-23-2009, 12:24 PM

An FBI agent who was involved in the interrogations wrote an Op-ed for the NYT today:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/23/opinion/23soufan.html?_r=3&ref=opinion

statements like this will start popping up all over the place now. now that this data is no longer classified, folks like Soufan are free to give their side of the story.

and for those defending these actions, the fundamental question is not whether these actions stopped an attack. that's a red herring that has nothign to do with the issue at hand. the question we must ask ourselves and our nation is are we willing to step down from the moral high ground and inflict pain or suffering so great that a person's mental capacities and physical well-being are forever altered. we must ask ourselves if we can look at the world and with a straight face say "you here in cambodia are commiting a heinous crime against humanity, but when we do it over here, because the end goal is different, it's okay."

BurgundyNGold

04-23-2009, 04:34 PM

statements like this will start popping up all over the place now. now that this data is no longer classified, folks like Soufan are free to give their side of the story.

and for those defending these actions, the fundamental question is not whether these actions stopped an attack. that's a red herring that has nothign to do with the issue at hand. the question we must ask ourselves and our nation is are we willing to step down from the moral high ground and inflict pain or suffering so great that a person's mental capacities and physical well-being are forever altered. we must ask ourselves if we can look at the world and with a straight face say "you here in cambodia are commiting a heinous crime against humanity, but when we do it over here, because the end goal is different, it's okay."
I know people who have been traumatized by a trip to the doctor or to the IRS for an audit. I know other people who have become physically affected by creditors calling them about their debts. Should we consider these things to be "torture"?

Suffering is subjective. So are some of these "torture" techniques. Try people in court if you like but even things like waterboarding are completely open to interpretation as "torture". Personally, I don't think that much of what these people are labeling as "torture" or "suffering" are truly "torture" or "suffering". A beheading, on the other hand, probably comes with both.

Before we decide to ride a high horse, we should at least determine the breed and height of said horse. I don't like the subjective classification of "suffering". It varies completely based on the individual and something relatively minor could be considered suffering.

BTW, does the forced rape that goes on in American prisons count as "torture"? I'm pretty sure there is some suffering going on there. Shouldn't we start with rampant, systematic and well documented situations like these in our own country before we start some crusade to defend and protect some terror suspect being sleep deprived overseas?

BurgundyNGold

04-23-2009, 04:40 PM

i agree that sleep deprivation likely doesn't fit the definition of torture (depending on how you deprive)...hell, taken by themselves, most of the actions in Bybee's memos aren't that bad if you're subjected to just one of them at any given time. the problem comes with adding them together to create a program like we were putting these combatants through. i'm not a medical professional that can determine what that line is, but i'm pretty sure that when the Pentagon admits that a dozen detainees have died because of these actions, and the Red Cross estimates the number to be closer to 100, your course of action has crossed over into the land of "extreme."
The problem is that people are trying to say that some or all of these techniques in and of themselves are torture and should be banned. I have no problem establishing where the line should be. You should be able to get whatever you want by depriving someone of sleep for 3 days. By then, they're Timothy Leary. I don't even have a problem with waterboarding, which is mostly just mind over matter (I'm fairly certain that Michael Phelps or others well acclimated to the water would laugh at the whole procedure if someone tried it on them). The problem, as you say, is when they go to the extreme. 180+ waterboarding sessions for KSM? Really? After 12 or 15 you should have gotten the picture that it wasn't going to give you what you were looking for.

akhhorus

04-23-2009, 04:41 PM

I know people who have been traumatized by a trip to the doctor or to the IRS for an audit. I know other people who have become physically affected by creditors calling them about their debts. Should we consider these things to be "torture"?

Suffering is subjective. So are some of these "torture" techniques. Try people in court if you like but even things like waterboarding are completely open to interpretation as "torture". Personally, I don't think that much of what these people are labeling as "torture" or "suffering" are truly "torture" or "suffering". A beheading, on the other hand, probably comes with both.

Before we decide to ride a high horse, we should at least determine the breed and height of said horse. I don't like the subjective classification of "suffering". It varies completely based on the individual and something relatively minor could be considered suffering.

BTW, does the forced rape that goes on in American prisons count as "torture"? I'm pretty sure there is some suffering going on there. Shouldn't we start with rampant, systematic and well documented situations like these in our own country before we start some crusade to defend and protect some terror suspect being sleep deprived overseas?

We have the standards in place: the Geneva conventions, which we've agreed to and never tried to withdraw from. Thats why the FBI/CIA/DOD refused the "enhanced interrogation" techniques until ordered to do so by the DOJ/White House and why the FBI withdrew entirely from the interrogations after they saw the DOJ/WH authorized waterboarding/etc. You can interrogate a prisoner all you want, you can even sleep deprive them(within limits), you can lie to them all you want, but physical duress is out of bounds.

BurgundyNGold

04-23-2009, 04:50 PM

We have the standards in place: the Geneva conventions, which we've agreed to and never tried to withdraw from. Thats why the FBI/CIA/DOD refused the "enhanced interrogation" techniques until ordered to do so by the DOJ/White House and why the FBI withdrew entirely from the interrogations after they saw the DOJ/WH authorized waterboarding/etc. You can interrogate a prisoner all you want, you can even sleep deprive them(within limits), you can lie to them all you want, but physical duress is out of bounds.
You can put them in labor details. Isn't that physical duress? And what physical duress is making them stand naked or other humiliation techniques?

akhhorus

04-23-2009, 04:53 PM

You can put them in labor details. Isn't that physical duress?

Well, there's specific rules on Prisoner Labor.

http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/91.htm

The Detaining Power may utilize the labour of prisoners of war who are physically fit, taking into account their age, sex, rank and physical aptitude, and with a view particularly to maintaining them in a good state of physical and mental health.

Non-commissioned officers who are prisoners of war shall only be required to do supervisory work. Those not so required may ask for other suitable work which shall, so far as possible, be found for them.

If officers or persons of equivalent status ask for suitable work, it shall be found for them, so far as possible, but they may in no circumstances be compelled to work.

Article 50

Besides work connected with camp administration, installation or maintenance, prisoners of war may be compelled to do only such work as is included in the following classes:

(a) Agriculture;

(b) Industries connected with the production or the extraction of raw materials, and manufacturing industries, with the exception of metallurgical, machinery and chemical industries; public works and building operations which have no military character or purpose;

(c) Transport and handling of stores which are not military in character or purpose;

(d) Commercial business, and arts and crafts;

(e) Domestic service;

(f) Public utility services having no military character or purpose.

Should the above provisions be infringed, prisoners of war shall be allowed to exercise their right of complaint, in conformity with Article 78.

Article 51

Prisoners of war must be granted suitable working conditions, especially as regards accommodation, food, clothing and equipment; such conditions shall not be inferior to those enjoyed by nationals of the Detaining Power employed in similar work; account shall also be taken of climatic conditions.

The Detaining Power, in utilizing the labour of prisoners of war, shall ensure that in areas in which prisoners are employed, the national legislation concerning the protection of labour, and, more particularly, the regulations for the safety of workers, are duly applied.

Prisoners of war shall receive training and be provided with the means of protection suitable to the work they will have to do and similar to those accorded to the nationals of the Detaining Power. Subject to the provisions of Article 52, prisoners may be submitted to the normal risks run by these civilian workers.

Conditions of labour shall in no case be rendered more arduous by disciplinary measures.

Article 52

Unless he be a volunteer, no prisoner of war may be employed on labour which is of an unhealthy or dangerous nature.

No prisoner of war shall be assigned to labour which would be looked upon as humiliating for a member of the Detaining Power's own forces.

The removal of mines or similar devices shall be considered as dangerous labour.

Article 53

The duration of the daily labour of prisoners of war, including the time of the journey to and fro, shall not be excessive, and must in no case exceed that permitted for civilian workers in the district, who are nationals of the Detaining Power and employed on the same work.

Prisoners of war must be allowed, in the middle of the day's work, a rest of not less than one hour. This rest will be the same as that to which workers of the Detaining Power are entitled, if the latter is of longer duration. They shall be allowed in addition a rest of twenty-four consecutive hours every week, preferably on Sunday or the day of rest in their country of origin. Furthermore, every prisoner who has worked for one year shall be granted a rest of eight consecutive days, during which his working pay shall be paid him.

If methods of labour such as piece-work are employed, the length of the working period shall not be rendered excessive thereby.

Article 54

The working pay due to prisoners of war shall be fixed in accordance with the provisions of Article 62 of the present Convention.

Prisoners of war who sustain accidents in connection with work, or who contract a disease in the course, or in consequence of their work, shall receive all the care their condition may require. The Detaining Power shall furthermore deliver to such prisoners of war a medical certificate enabling them to submit their claims to the Power on which they depend, and shall send a duplicate to the Central Prisoners of War Agency provided for in Article 123.

Article 55

The fitness of prisoners of war for work shall be periodically verified by medical examinations at least once a month. The examinations shall have particular regard to the nature of the work which prisoners of war are required to do.
If any prisoner of war considers himself incapable of working, he shall be permitted to appear before the medical authorities of his camp. Physicians or surgeons may recommend that the prisoners who are, in their opinion, unfit for work, be exempted therefrom.
Article 56

The organization and administration of labour detachments shall be similar to those of prisoner of war camps.

Every labour detachment shall remain under the control of and administratively part of a prisoner of war camp. The military authorities and the commander of the said camp shall be responsible, under the direction of their government, for the observance of the provisions of the present Convention in labour detachments.

The camp commander shall keep an up-to-date record of the labour detachments dependent on his camp, and shall communicate it to the delegates of the Protecting Power, of the International Committee of the Red Cross, or of other agencies giving relief to prisoners of war, who may visit the camp.

Article 57

The treatment of prisoners of war who work for private persons, even if the latter are responsible for guarding and protecting them, shall not be inferior to that which is provided for by the present Convention. The Detaining Power, the military authorities and the commander of the camp to which such prisoners belong shall be entirely responsible for the maintenance, care, treatment, and payment of the working pay of such prisoners of war.

Such prisoners of war shall have the right to remain in communication with the prisoners' representatives in the camps on which they depend.

And what physical duress is making them stand naked or other humiliation techniques?

I don't think its in-bounds to humiliate them like that.

BurgundyNGold

04-23-2009, 04:55 PM

Well, there's specific rules on Prisoner Labor.

http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/91.htm

I don't think its in-bounds to humiliate them like that.
Can you inject them (hmmm, or feed them?) truth serum like in 24, lol?

fent

04-23-2009, 04:56 PM

I know people who have been traumatized by a trip to the doctor or to the IRS for an audit. I know other people who have become physically affected by creditors calling them about their debts. Should we consider these things to be "torture"?

Suffering is subjective. So are some of these "torture" techniques. Try people in court if you like but even things like waterboarding are completely open to interpretation as "torture". Personally, I don't think that much of what these people are labeling as "torture" or "suffering" are truly "torture" or "suffering". A beheading, on the other hand, probably comes with both.

Before we decide to ride a high horse, we should at least determine the breed and height of said horse. I don't like the subjective classification of "suffering". It varies completely based on the individual and something relatively minor could be considered suffering.

BTW, does the forced rape that goes on in American prisons count as "torture"? I'm pretty sure there is some suffering going on there. Shouldn't we start with rampant, systematic and well documented situations like these in our own country before we start some crusade to defend and protect some terror suspect being sleep deprived overseas?

how do you determine to define it if you can't use terms like pain or suffering? do you want a list of specific actions that are banned? that'll end up being a classic example of squeezing tighter just to watch more water slip out through your fingers.

our intelligence system has survived for 200+ years without needing to take actions like we've taken lately. we've survived since Geneva with the growing threat of nuclear war without physical duress. hell, we now have several strong sources (soufan, zelikow, mueller) saying that all the relevant information we have needed to protect our country over the last 8 years came from long-established non-torture interrogation techniques. all the evidence so far points to a concerted effort on the part of very senior administration officials to create, and then hide, an interrogation system that ended up killing at least a large handful of people. we also have 30-some known detainees missing and unaccounted for in GITMO and other prisons. at some point we have to move on from "these were just slaps to the face" to "what the heck was going on here?"

akhhorus

04-23-2009, 04:57 PM

Can you inject them (hmmm, or feed them?) truth serum like in 24, lol?

I remember reading at article about the Army's interrogation school and the problems 24 has created. The automatically flunk anyone who thinks that Jack Bauer's interrogation methods are remotely realistic lol.

dj_stouty

04-23-2009, 05:09 PM

Can you inject them (hmmm, or feed them?) truth serum like in 24, lol?

No, because needles freakin hurt!

akhhorus

04-23-2009, 11:06 PM

Hmmm

Link (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/23/AR2009042304718_2.html?hpid=topnews&sid=ST2009042304720)

At the time, Obama was leaning toward adopting the Army Field Manual rules for intelligence interrogations but wanted to receive a broader perspective. He sent Craig; retired Gen. James L. Jones, now the national security adviser; foreign policy adviser Denis McDonough; former senators David L. Boren (D-Okla.) and Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.); and former CIA general counsel Jeffrey H. Smith to Langley.

During the meetings, then-CIA Director Michael V. Hayden, his deputy Steve Kappes and about 20 other senior CIA officers sought to explain the agency's counterterrorism and rendition programs and to present the best case for retaining the option of reestablishing secret prisons and using aggressive interrogation methods, according to four of those present. Hayden emphasized that the agency had discarded most of the old programs, including the secret prisons, in 2006.

The use of waterboarding ended in 2003, but Hayden said he wanted to keep the flexibility to utilize some of the other, less controversial techniques. Boren and Smith said the group was not convinced that whatever useful intelligence had been gleaned from the programs warranted keeping them as an option.

"They said that they had produced valuable intelligence," Smith said. "We took them at their word." But the group's consensus was that "whatever utility it had at the outset . . . the secret prisons and enhanced techniques were no longer playing a useful role -- the costs outweighed the gains." He said those costs included obvious damage to America's values and identity, and problems with U.S. allies that strongly opposed the use of such methods.

Boren, who chaired the Senate intelligence committee from 1987 to 1993 and is now president of the University of Oklahoma, said that attending the briefings was "one of the most deeply disturbing experiences I have had" and that "I wanted to take a bath when I heard it. I was ashamed of it." He said he concluded that "fear was used to justify the use of techniques that violate our values and weaken our intelligence" and that the agency did not prove those methods "are particularly effective at getting the truth."

One of those present said that when asked, the CIA officers acknowledged that some foreign intelligence agencies had refused, for example, to share information about the location of terrorism suspects for fear of becoming implicated in any eventual torture of those suspects. Sources said that Jones shared these concerns and that, as a former military officer, he worried that any use of harsh interrogations by the United States could make it more likely that American soldiers in captivity would be subjected to similar tactics.

redskin_rich

04-24-2009, 12:28 AM

BurgundyNGold

04-24-2009, 08:38 AM

Sleep deprivation, bright lights, loud music, and threats is all one thing. Simulated drowning and asphyxiation is another, as is humiliation. Putting someone in immediate mortal terror or brainwashing them is disgusting, no matter who it is. We are supposed to be better than that.
We should release all Americans from prison and military boot camp immediately, lol.

As for the argument that they are terrorists and don't apply to normal standards; Who are we, if we don't apply to normal standards?
Once we establish the standards, I agree. Before 9/11, we had a Pollyanna outlook on terrorism and enemy combatants. We went overboard in response, clearly. The pendulum should settle somewhere in the middle.

BurgundyNGold

04-24-2009, 10:19 AM

how do you determine to define it if you can't use terms like pain or suffering? do you want a list of specific actions that are banned? that'll end up being a classic example of squeezing tighter just to watch more water slip out through your fingers.
Yes, I think that we should identify which techniques should be used and to what extent. I wouldn't necessarily broadcast the finer points (so that folks can train to subvert interrogation efforts if captured) but I think that we have to decide what is fair play, what is out of bounds and, more importantly, why which is which.

our intelligence system has survived for 200+ years without needing to take actions like we've taken lately.
Do you really believe that the CIA and black operations haven't done these things and far worse over the years? The only difference is that the scale is smaller and they are never broadcast. What goes on TDY stays on TDY, lol.

Now, the CIA and the KGB may have had a certain code of ethics regarding the capture and treatment of each other's covert agents (though, the KGB liked their drugs for interrogation techniques) but those niceties didn't apply to agents of other regimes. Furthermore, such an understanding of treatment was never extended by most nations and certainly not by revolutionaries, militias or terror cells.

we've survived since Geneva with the growing threat of nuclear war without physical duress. hell, we now have several strong sources (soufan, zelikow, mueller) saying that all the relevant information we have needed to protect our country over the last 8 years came from long-established non-torture interrogation techniques. all the evidence so far points to a concerted effort on the part of very senior administration officials to create, and then hide, an interrogation system that ended up killing at least a large handful of people. we also have 30-some known detainees missing and unaccounted for in GITMO and other prisons. at some point we have to move on from "these were just slaps to the face" to "what the heck was going on here?"
"Surving since Geneva", as you say, is disproportionately misleading. The vast majority of those years were spent under the relative stability of the Cold War framework and the post-Cold War years before fundamentalist extremism went global. You're not dealing with people who have the same code of ethics or outlook on life.

Part of what made the Geneva accords have teeth was the fact that the people who had access to war making capabilities all agreed to abide by them. Over the past 20 years or so (and increasingly every day) that capability has expanded beyond nation states and revolutionary factions of a nation's military. Anybody can buy a grenade launcher. Hell, a lot of these people have been handed weapons and training by nation states as part of an asymmetrical warfare initiative by that nation.

We keep trying to force fit the square peg of an antiquated Geneva standards written by different men of a different era for a different world into the round hole that is the 21st century world of asymmetric warfare fueled by ideological fanaticism that knows no borders.

The Geneva standards are a good guideline but they are sorely in need of a 21st century update that takes into account asymmetric warfare, speaks in terms of specifics when it comes to treatment, interrogation and holds offenders accountable to the world. Then there has to be an international effort to enforce it. Short of that, it's going to be more of the same.

fent

04-24-2009, 10:49 AM

Yes, I think that we should identify which techniques should be used and to what extent. I wouldn't necessarily broadcast the finer points (so that folks can train to subvert interrogation efforts if captured) but I think that we have to decide what is fair play, what is out of bounds and, more importantly, why which is which.

We have those...it's called the Army Field Manual. Those techniques are what provided us all the useful information we've had. Looking back on history we have the examples of Churchill and even the Luftwaffe who refused to physically contact their prisoners and still got the information they needed. Churchill is a pretty good correlation for the immediate aftermath of 9/11 in my mind because his country was being bombed into the stone age while he steadfastly refused to resort to these tactics.

Do you really believe that the CIA and black operations haven't done these things and far worse over the years? The only difference is that the scale is smaller and they are never broadcast. What goes on TDY stays on TDY, lol.

Now, the CIA and the KGB may have had a certain code of ethics regarding the capture and treatment of each other's covert agents (though, the KGB liked their drugs for interrogation techniques) but those niceties didn't apply to agents of other regimes. Furthermore, such an understanding of treatment was never extended by most nations and certainly not by revolutionaries, militias or terror cells.

I don't pretend to know what the CIA and other black-ops did off the grid. I do know we have zero evidence that there was a concerted effort coming down from 1600 Penn and the Naval Observatory authorizing and condoning this kind of action prior to 9/12/2001. Just as I've argued with the lobbying issues the GOP had over the last 5 years, when you have 535 members and thousands of staff members, you're going to have a handful of bad actors. when you're talking decades of work and thousands of agents, you're going to have some go off the deep end. The problem becomes when the official government-sponsored policy is to take these actions.

"Surving since Geneva", as you say, is disproportionately misleading. The vast majority of those years were spent under the relative stability of the Cold War framework and the post-Cold War years before fundamentalist extremism went global. You're not dealing with people who have the same code of ethics or outlook on life.

Part of what made the Geneva accords have teeth was the fact that the people who had access to war making capabilities all agreed to abide by them. Over the past 20 years or so (and increasingly every day) that capability has expanded beyond nation states and revolutionary factions of a nation's military. Anybody can buy a grenade launcher. Hell, a lot of these people have been handed weapons and training by nation states as part of an asymmetrical warfare initiative by that nation.

We keep trying to force fit the square peg of an antiquated Geneva standards written by different men of a different era for a different world into the round hole that is the 21st century world of asymmetric warfare fueled by ideological fanaticism that knows no borders.

The Geneva standards are a good guideline but they are sorely in need of a 21st century update that takes into account asymmetric warfare, speaks in terms of specifics when it comes to treatment, interrogation and holds offenders accountable to the world. Then there has to be an international effort to enforce it. Short of that, it's going to be more of the same.

Geneva absolutely needs to be updated. I think the moment we realized (admittedly a little too late for 3,000+ Americans) that the greatest threat to our sovereignty was no longer the big red monster across the pond, we should have immediately been looking to update the majority of our treaties to deal with these concerns. Bush tried to do this with his opting out of the ABM Treaty with Russia. Looking back I think it was probably a better idea to re-negotiate the treaty and open the door to China and other nations to enter, but he chose to exit it completely and I have a sneaking suspicion the reasoning for that was dubious at best.

We also need to clarify with the other countries that recognize Geneva how best to deal with enemy combatants that fight on behalf of an organization, not a country. It's pretty obvious that there's a gray area there that those who negotiated the treaty never had to consider. However, the foundation of Geneva still stands, especially for a country that dares to name itself the moral compass of the globe. To borrow a quote from Shepherd Smith (who provides me with a little hope that at least one person at FNC has some integrity) "We are America. We do not f**king torture!" When it comes down to it, yes, we're under attack by a group whose entire goal in life is to wipe us off the face of the earth, but the moment we stoop to the levels that we did to attempt to get information from them (or false confessions as it appears may be what was going on), we immediately lose the moral capacity to lead the civilized world and we legitimize the claims of the very people trying to destroy us.

BurgundyNGold

04-24-2009, 11:16 AM

We have those...it's called the Army Field Manual. Those techniques are what provided us all the useful information we've had. Looking back on history we have the examples of Churchill and even the Luftwaffe who refused to physically contact their prisoners and still got the information they needed. Churchill is a pretty good correlation for the immediate aftermath of 9/11 in my mind because his country was being bombed into the stone age while he steadfastly refused to resort to these tactics.
In part, that might have been because he didn't want Germany to resort to those tactics. In any case, I do not subscribe to the moral certitude of Churchill that flag waving historians would recount. After all, Churchill *did* resort to the same senseless bombing of civilians when he pushed hard for the fire bombing of Desden that killed 100,000 well after the outcome of the war had been determined.

I don't pretend to know what the CIA and other black-ops did off the grid. I do know we have zero evidence that there was a concerted effort coming down from 1600 Penn and the Naval Observatory authorizing and condoning this kind of action prior to 9/12/2001. Just as I've argued with the lobbying issues the GOP had over the last 5 years, when you have 535 members and thousands of staff members, you're going to have a handful of bad actors. when you're talking decades of work and thousands of agents, you're going to have some go off the deep end. The problem becomes when the official government-sponsored policy is to take these actions.
I agree with you 100% that it was wrong and a debilitating strike to the credibility of America's moral projection when the WH actively pursued and allowed torture to be used against enemy combatants. Where the disconnect is found is in the details.

Geneva absolutely needs to be updated. I think the moment we realized (admittedly a little too late for 3,000+ Americans) that the greatest threat to our sovereignty was no longer the big red monster across the pond, we should have immediately been looking to update the majority of our treaties to deal with these concerns. Bush tried to do this with his opting out of the ABM Treaty with Russia. Looking back I think it was probably a better idea to re-negotiate the treaty and open the door to China and other nations to enter, but he chose to exit it completely and I have a sneaking suspicion the reasoning for that was dubious at best.
Agreed. Bush was an unmitigated disaster on more fronts than most folks will ever know. I really do think that we was worse than Carter.

We also need to clarify with the other countries that recognize Geneva how best to deal with enemy combatants that fight on behalf of an organization, not a country. It's pretty obvious that there's a gray area there that those who negotiated the treaty never had to consider. However, the foundation of Geneva still stands, especially for a country that dares to name itself the moral compass of the globe. To borrow a quote from Shepherd Smith (who provides me with a little hope that at least one person at FNC has some integrity) "We are America. We do not f**king torture!" When it comes down to it, yes, we're under attack by a group whose entire goal in life is to wipe us off the face of the earth, but the moment we stoop to the levels that we did to attempt to get information from them (or false confessions as it appears may be what was going on), we immediately lose the moral capacity to lead the civilized world and we legitimize the claims of the very people trying to destroy us.
We need to expand Geneva to answer the question of "Which among these expanded techniques should be considered torture?" and to define unacceptable "suffering" for all. Without this, who is to make that determination? My suffering might be your torture, but your suffering might be acceptable to the next person.

I think your analogy to identifying pornography is correct; however, unlike pornography, we cannot leave it at that. It is simply not enough to invoke bumper sticker morality about torture and decry the hitherto nebulous, subjective standard of "suffering". Some of these techniques are neither and may have value while the ones that clearly are torture make us look like morally bankrupt hypocrites. In 20, 50 or 100 years when we're more "enlightened" or "progressive" (lol), might we consider a 30 minute delay in lunch delivery to be "suffering" and, by extension, torture? Who knows. The standards need to be discussed and established now so that it is clear to and for all.

Once these standards are decided, they need to be enforced. By everyone. Personally, I believe that the Hague should be ramped up to accept and try the fundamental extremists. That's one way to empty out GTMO. And when the US or other international terror hunters (Interpol) catches these people in international terror efforts -- or piracy -- they should be handed over to that court and tried in that forum. That's the only was to provide international legitimacy to the efforts to marginalize extremists.

akhhorus

04-24-2009, 11:29 AM

In part, that might have been because he didn't want Germany to resort to those tactics. In any case, I do not subscribe to the moral certitude of Churchill that flag waving historians would recount. After all, Churchill *did* resort to the same senseless bombing of civilians when he pushed hard for the fire bombing of Desden that killed 100,000 well after the outcome of the war had been determined.

Thats an act of war though.

In Agreed. Bush was an unmitigated disaster on more fronts than most folks will ever know. I really do think that we was worse than Carter.

He's pushing Buchanon territory. Not only did he clusterf*ck things up, he mentally checked out in winter 06. Petraeus was effectively running Iraq policy from his appointment at Centcom with no input from Bush, Paulsen was doing the same for the economy.

In We need to expand Geneva to answer the question of "Which among these expanded techniques should be considered torture?" and to define unacceptable "suffering" for all. Without this, who is to make that determination? My suffering might be your torture, but your suffering might be acceptable to the next person.

I disagree: Geneva needs to be expanded to discuss stateless detainees. Thats how DOJ was able to justify their actions.

In Once these standards are decided, they need to be enforced. By everyone. Personally, I believe that the Hague should be ramped up to accept and try the fundamental extremists. That's one way to empty out GTMO. And when the US or other international terror hunters (Interpol) catches these people in international terror efforts -- or piracy -- they should be handed over to that court and tried in that forum. That's the only was to provide international legitimacy to the efforts to marginalize extremists.

Totally disagree: try them in federal court for material support of Al Queda and any other crimes we can pin on them. You can put the court in camera for when intel material is used. I don't like having to go hat in hand to some international body when we have the structure in place.

BurgundyNGold

04-24-2009, 11:45 AM

Thats an act of war though.
Was it? It was well known inside and outside of Germany that Dresden was a "clean" city with no military stationed there -- only civilians and a few POW encampments. It was far away from any engagement area and the bombing occurred a mere 12 weeks before the end of the war. You will not convince me that air assault was necessary, as the Germans were already defeated and they knew it within and without.

He's pushing Buchanon territory. Not only did he clusterf*ck things up, he mentally checked out in winter 06. Petraeus was effectively running Iraq policy from his appointment at Centcom with no input from Bush, Paulsen was doing the same for the economy.
He seriously may have hastened the decline of the hegemony he sought to protect and expand more than any other collection of factors could have done.

I disagree: Geneva needs to be expanded to discuss stateless detainees. Thats how DOJ was able to justify their actions.
Geneva needs to be expanded to establish an entire framework for handling terrorism and piracy.

Totally disagree: try them in federal court for material support of Al Queda and any other crimes we can pin on them. You can put the court in camera for when intel material is used. I don't like having to go hat in hand to some international body when we have the structure in place.
The door is closing on that option. It's been nearly 8 years since 9/11. Our inability to catch the AQ #1 and #2 people -- despite 2 wars and $1T spent -- has worn that option thin. Add in our disastrous enemy combatant and interrogation/torture policy and you're left with no credibility in handing international affairs. The only way to get legitimacy and international condemnation is to do so behind a unified platform for war crimes, terrorism and piracy.

If it is a single-nation terrorist crime where the suspect is caught in the nation where the crime was committed, I believe the jurisdiction should be for that of the country injured. If it involves 2 or more country, jurisdiction should be the international courts with any injured country having the right to petition for extradition.

akhhorus

04-24-2009, 01:25 PM

Was it? It was well known inside and outside of Germany that Dresden was a "clean" city with no military stationed there -- only civilians and a few POW encampments. It was far away from any engagement area and the bombing occurred a mere 12 weeks before the end of the war. You will not convince me that air assault was necessary, as the Germans were already defeated and they knew it within and without.

Tell that to the russians who stormed Berlin. If Dresden provided 1 bullet or soldier to the German war effort or could still furnish war supplies(and they had a number of military factories inside the city), they were a legitimate target.

You are on better logical foundation comparing Churchill's ordered executions of SS members post war to US torture, but I don't think there's much equivalency.

He seriously may have hastened the decline of the hegemony he sought to protect and expand more than any other collection of factors could have done.

Agreed.

Geneva needs to be expanded to establish an entire framework for handling terrorism and piracy.

There's already international framework on piracy. I don't think Geneva needs much more for terrorism except definition.

The door is closing on that option. It's been nearly 8 years since 9/11. Our inability to catch the AQ #1 and #2 people -- despite 2 wars and $1T spent -- has worn that option thin. Add in our disastrous enemy combatant and interrogation/torture policy and you're left with no credibility in handing international affairs. The only way to get legitimacy and international condemnation is to do so behind a unified platform for war crimes, terrorism and piracy.

I disagree with that. We've tried AQ members in court before and after 9-11. If we tried KSM in open court for his role in 9-11 there would be legitimacy to it. Thats the best solution to GItmo: if we have proof that they're a member of AQ or provided material support, charge and try them. If not, let them go.

If it is a single-nation terrorist crime where the suspect is caught in the nation where the crime was committed, I believe the jurisdiction should be for that of the country injured. If it involves 2 or more country, jurisdiction should be the international courts with any injured country having the right to petition for extradition.

I agree with that, but the nation where the act happened has ultimate jurisdiction.

fent

04-24-2009, 04:47 PM

just to add a little historical backdrop to the debate.

"McCain is referencing the Tokyo Trials, officially known as the International Military Tribunal for the Far East. After World War II, an international coalition convened to prosecute Japanese soldiers charged with torture. At the top of the list of techniques was water-based interrogation, known variously then as 'water cure,' 'water torture' and 'waterboarding,' according to the charging documents. It simulates drowning." Politifact went on to report, "A number of the Japanese soldiers convicted by American judges were hanged, while others received lengthy prison sentences or time in labor camps."

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2007/dec/18/john-mccain/history-supports-mccains-stance-on-waterboarding/

BurgundyNGold

04-24-2009, 05:35 PM

just to add a little historical backdrop to the debate.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2007/dec/18/john-mccain/history-supports-mccains-stance-on-waterboarding/
This evidence stands alone to repudiate the decision to allow waterboarding. I cannot believe the DOJ officials didn't take this fact into account when weighing their decision. This should have been a 30 second discussion followed by a swift dismissal of allowing waterboarding.

BurgundyNGold

05-01-2009, 03:13 PM

Charles Krauthammer weighs in...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/30/AR2009043003108.html?hpid=opinionsbox1

akhhorus

05-01-2009, 03:17 PM

Charles Krauthammer weighs in...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/30/AR2009043003108.html?hpid=opinionsbox1

Sullivan takes Krauthammer down better than I could. (http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2009/05/krauthammer-withdraw-from-geneva.html)

skinguy

05-01-2009, 05:34 PM

BurgundyNGold

05-01-2009, 05:49 PM

" . . . We are dealing with terrorists here.. "

~ " . . terrorists . . " ---> insurgents . . ;)
Depending on where you are. The folks training in the Afghan terror camps and breaking bread with AQ are definitely terrorists. Those are the folks in GTMO. In Iraq, there are definitely insurgents. Some of whom have been applying terrorism to meet their goals. I don't know that we have any Iraqi insurgents in GTMO getting deep torture massages. They did get the "humiliation" business at Abu Ghraib, though.

akhhorus

05-01-2009, 05:57 PM

Froomkin does a good job pointing out the flaws in Krauthammer also: Link (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/white-house-watch/torture/krauthammers-asterisks.html)

BurgundyNGold

05-01-2009, 06:06 PM

Froomkin does a good job pointing out the flaws in Krauthammer also: Link (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/white-house-watch/torture/krauthammers-asterisks.html)
So, waterboarding was only employed for the 8 months between August 2002 and March 2003 and has since been discontinued?

To me, this is the most egregious form of physical interrogation that can probably be classified as torture, in congruence to the US military findings of the same against Japanese soldiers after WWII. Yet, it would seem that the practice was relatively short lived.

For the record, I don't agree with Krauthammer that there is a ticking time bomb out there. I do, however, agree that you do what you have to do at the time if lives are at stake and deal with the consequences later.

As for the other methods that Froomkin labels as "torture", I think those are open to interpretation for the moment.

topcop

05-06-2009, 11:32 PM

[QUOTE=As for the other methods that Froomkin labels as "torture", I think those are open to interpretation for the moment.[/QUOTE]

I think the bigger problem is that the "underlings" see what the "upperlings" are doing overseas, and think it is okay to use it here, on the "localings" of America. (http://www.killercop.com/Pages/torturedcoverup.htm):smash

TC:

RedskinsDave

05-07-2009, 10:09 AM

I think the bigger problem is that the "underlings" see what the "upperlings" are doing overseas, and think it is okay to use it here, on the "localings" of America. (http://www.killercop.com/Pages/torturedcoverup.htm):smash

TC:

That's a reliable source. Was no blog available?

firehawk157

05-08-2009, 01:02 PM

akhhorus

05-08-2009, 01:37 PM

Worst first post ever. Sorry dude, but this was bad.

Nah. We've had much worse lol.

shally

05-10-2009, 06:52 PM

Nah. We've had much worse lol.

now there is a nice thread for the summer doldrums..

a rogues gallery of the most outrageous first posts ever to appear here... and how many total posts the miscreants reached before being banned (or finding redemption, lol)

i still get a kick out of some of the more violent arguments that have broken out on this site...

firehawk157

05-13-2009, 08:55 AM

Nah. We've had much worse lol.
I don't know dude. I'm not sure anyone else can pack so much fail into so small a post.

Horrible grammar and syntax - check
Uber questionable source - check
Horrible quoting - check
Blatant and egregious use of fallacies - check
Use of fallacies to illustrate very clearly biased "point" - check

It took me more words to talk about what was bad about that post than it actually did for him to write it. His ability to shrink epic fail into that small of a space is something other trolls will remain in marvel of for centuries to come.

dj_stouty

05-13-2009, 10:04 AM

Horrible grammar and syntax - check

Hey...whats wrong with bad grammer and sintax? ;)

RedskinsDave

05-13-2009, 11:18 AM

Is anyone else laughing their ass off at Pelosi's embarrassing spin? Every time that whore says she had no idea, someone proves otherwise.

fent

05-13-2009, 11:39 AM

as former intelligence committee ranking member, you'd think she knows not to screw with the CIA like that. that being said, she'll likely be able to deny the allegations to her grave because the CIA report says that the meeting times and topics are only their best recollection because they don't have complete files for some reason. i think she knew what was going on but it somehow never crossed her mind that she should/could do anything about it or didn't realize how bad some of these things were in practice. i think the worst i've seen so far is Senator Whitehouse who yesterday said (paraphrased) that he was briefed on all of this in the last couple years, and thought it was an abomination, but didn't do anything about it or say anything because he didn't think that anyone would do anything about it.

Ibleedburgundy

05-13-2009, 01:09 PM

firehawk157

05-13-2009, 01:35 PM

If I found out a Republican congressperson agreed with me on an issue or acted in a way that I would approve of, I would applaud that person. In that light I don't get why Republicans are bashing Pelosi for doing precisely what they would have done in her shoes-and by that I mean telling the world "We do not torture" while you are actively torturing people in a concerted and organized effort for the first time in our nation's history.

It's the hypocrisy of it all. All the outrage is coming out now when it's politically correct to do so and there wasn't a letter or any form of outrage (secret or otherwise) about it when it was actually going on. And there's the whole issue with the blatant lies.

Serious question though: what were her/Whitehouse's options? You get a higher-than-top secret briefing (Not sure if it's SCI on that level, whatever) from the CIA. If you talk it's punishable with prison time, potentially treason. So who do you air your grievances to? The Bush administration? As silly as 'doing nothing' sounds, I really don't see what good it would do to meet with the gang that can't shoot straight and try to convince them to, uh, shoot straight. -a laughable proposition from all angles.

The briefing was probably at the top secret level honestly. The torture memos were annotated top secret so that's where the briefing probably was at. As for what should she have done? At the very least, made a fuss about it at the highest levels. Register her complaints. Start a senate inquiry. The fact is, she just got the briefing and did nothing.

If anyone ought to be bashing Pelosi, it should be liberals. And even then it should be for lying, nothing more. Only an ignoramus would act like she should have publically blown the whistle on the whole operation. They wouldn't have a point anyway because the information leaked. The public was surprisingly informed. I'm sure those far lefties are out there, and in her district, and their votes are the reason why she is lying now.

It's obviously spin though. Any idiot can see she changed her mind AFTER it became politically correct to do so.

akhhorus

05-13-2009, 01:42 PM

The briefing was probably at the top secret level honestly. The torture memos were annotated top secret so that's where the briefing probably was at. As for what should she have done? At the very least, made a fuss about it at the highest levels. Register her complaints. Start a senate inquiry. The fact is, she just got the briefing and did nothing.

Well, not to be picky about your facts, but Pelosi is in the House, not the Senate. And when she(or her aide) was supposedly briefed in 2003, she had zero power as House Minority leader to do anything about it(and the program was ended that year or 04 by DOJ). You can't demand an inquiry about something in the minority(if the issue is popular enough so that someone in the minority could get a vote passed for something like that, politicians in the majority would beat you to it).

I'd like to see what she(and the Intel committees leadership on both sides) were actually told in 03.

fent

05-13-2009, 03:30 PM

akhhorus

05-13-2009, 03:39 PM

there's not a court in the world that's going to convict anyone, let alone a sitting member of congress, for going public with info that the U.S. government was torturing detainees. she swore an oath to support and defend the constitution, and if she was honestly read in to the issue, thought that it was torture, and then didn't even take the time to write a protest letter (which her replacement on the Intelligence Committee did) it rings a little hollow that she's out there condemning it now and calling for the heads of those that were involved. the jury's still out as to what she knew and when. i wouldn't be surprised to find out she's telling the god's honest truth, but let's not act like she was powerless to do anything. there's only so far that "it's that damn Texan's fault" will carry you, and unfortunately for Nancy - if she did know what was going on - it won't carry her through that aftermath.

At the very least, if she knew what was going on(and we still don't have an answer for that), she should have tried to shut it down in 2007. The fact that the Dems didn't really make any efforts to embarrass Bush with this in 2007(Bush couldn't shut down a committee hearing) is odd. We still don't really know who knew what, and Porter Goss(who's been pushing this 'Pelosi and the Dems knew what's been going on all along) isn't a reliable source.

That being said: its extremely odd that Senator Pat Roberts won't comment on the reports that Rockefeller was told that they were using "enhanced interrogation techniques" but didn't mention waterboarding and won't comment if the CIA report that they both got a "slide presentation" on torture technique was accurate also.