The CIA has for the first time publicly admitted using the controversial method of "waterboarding" on terror suspects.

CIA director Michael Hayden told Congress however that it had only been used on three people, and not at all for the past five years.

He said the technique had been used on high-profile al-Qaeda detainees including Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.

Link (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7229169.stm)

So is their testimony inadmissible?

They're using waterboarding on demonic muslim terrorists who blow up innocent civilians, saw innocent people's heads off, and commit other atrocities. I think the terrorists got off way too easy.

It was illegal at the time, therefore, those responsible should be tried for war crimes.

Meanwhile some of the alledged "victims" have already been released, committed new atrocities, and continue their terrorism.

Meanwhile some of the alledged "victims" have already been released, committed new atrocities, and continue their terrorism.

What if they were innocent before being tortured? I know that if I'm an innocent guy who's captured and tortured for NO good reason, and released, I'm going to get angry and do something violent in return.

Unless, of course, you can guide me to some sources that indicate people who were proven guilty were tortured and released, only to recommit terrorist acts.

What if they were innocent before being tortured? I know that if I'm an innocent guy who's captured and tortured for NO good reason, and released, I'm going to get angry and do something violent in return.

Unless, of course, you can guide me to some sources that indicate people who were proven guilty were tortured and released, only to recommit terrorist acts.

I know. Bush is great at creating enemies where there might not have been any.

The guy they supposedly used it on was demonic muslim terrorist Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. He masterminded 911. He got off easy.

The guy they supposedly used it on was demonic muslim terrorist Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. He masterminded 911. He got off easy.

You said in your post "alleged victims", not Khalid.

But if he "admitted" it under waterboarding, is it admissible?

I'm pretty sure if GW Bush was waterboarded he would admit to being mastermind of 9/11 too.

You too, might find it expedient to become a mastermind in the same position.

No, any information gained by torture can only be used to raise the color-coded terror alert level, it can't be used for any real justice.

sure is better then beheading a journalist on live tv for being an american jew.

They're using waterboarding on demonic muslim terrorists who blow up innocent civilians, saw innocent people's heads off, and commit other atrocities. I think the terrorists got off way too easy.

so you think torture is justified even though it does not produce good results

so you think torture is justified even though it does not produce good results

it always brings good results. if the guy isnt a terrorists he can still tell you many secrets, like where he stashes hes money etc.

And you wouldnt make up anything to stop the torcher

so you think torture is justified even though it does not produce good results

I support my military in whatever they do. That "torture" is nothing compared to what the demonic muslim terrorists are doing.

I support my military in whatever they do.
Blindly following whatever the leadership does? That's scary...

You should watch Rendition.

No. I support/trust them. Of course I don't support waterboarding anyone innocent. The demonic terrorists caught in the act are not innocent. We didn't just pick these guys up at the mosque. :rolleyes:

No. I support/trust them. Of course I don't support waterboarding anyone innocent. The demonic terrorists caught in the act are not innocent. We didn't just pick these guys up at the mosque. :rolleyes:

Could you show me where these detainees were caught in the act? And what they have been charged with?

One very small example: at least 30 former Guantanamo Bay detainees have been killed or recaptured after taking up arms against allied forces following their release. And these 30 are just those recaptured or those who intelligence sources have identified as having returned to their terror activities upon release, so the number could be even higher.

An analysis of 516 Guantanamo detainees found 95 per cent were a potential threat to US interests. This was based on their affiliations with groups such as al-Qaeda, their enthusiasm for violent jihad, their having undertaken small-arms training or having been willing to perform a support role for terrorism.

That's just one very small, older example. There are many more.

http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/huston/070817

Also, Qari Esmhatulla, an Afghan Pushtun, was captured during Operation Anaconda, the U.S. military offensive in the mountains of eastern Afghanistan in March 2002. He admitted he had carried grenades to Taliban fighters during the mountain battle.
Yemeni national Salim Ahmed Hamdan admits to having been binLaden's personal driver and bodyguard. He was captured by U.S. forces in Afghanistan more than four years ago and is being held at Club Gitmo.

U.S. forces in Iraq capture terrorist Abu Abbas: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0WDQ/is_2003_April_21/ai_100443218
Iraqi, U.S. Troops Capture Terrorists, Weapons Caches: http://www.defenselink.mil/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=18419
US Raids Capture AQI Terrorists, Iranian Weapons:http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/009815.php
Iraqi Police capture suspected terrorists :http://www.blackanthem.com/News/iraqi-freedom/Iraqi-Police-capture-suspected-terrorists14256.shtml
U.S. Soldiers Capture Terrorists, Thwart Terrorist Acts in Iraq:http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/news/2005/09/mil-050924-afps01.htm
:(

Can you show me where they were charged and tried?

Link (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7229169.stm)

So is their testimony inadmissible?

Again: if you criticize waterboarders, you will only create more waterboarding. Why not open a dialogue?

Exhibit A:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,190621,00.html

Wonder why no one asked him about US involvement in the Iraq wars?

Exhibit A:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,190621,00.html

That's got NOTHING to do with our torturing detainees. Once someone is in our custody, we have a duty to treat them according to the law. The Bush administration broke the law, that much is clear. They also ruined any chance of prosecuting anyone using information obtained through torture.

She asked about terrorists who were charged and tried. Saddam was my first thought. Do you even remember how he was treated? Gourmet meals, cushy cell, healthcare, dental care. Torture my @ss....:(

That didn't have anything to do with terrorism. Just shows how deluded you are. By the way, we got alot of info from Saddam by treating him well.

No. I support/trust them. Of course I don't support waterboarding anyone innocent. The demonic terrorists caught in the act are not innocent. We didn't just pick these guys up at the mosque. :rolleyes:
Well, you said you support them in whatever they do. So you think if they do something it must be the right thing to do. Which basically gives them a ticket to do whatever they want.

That didn't have anything to do with terrorism. Just shows how deluded you are. By the way, we got alot of info from Saddam by treating him well.

Saddam didn't have anything to do with terrorism? :eek: He was one of the worst terrorists in history. :( He brutalized his own people. We didn't get much out of Saddam. We already knew most of what he babbled about.

Like the fact he already destroyed his WMDs?

I didn't think water boarding is torture. You can almost envision any methods that your captors try on themselves to not really be torture.

You wont find many people willing to test pulling out finger and toenails on themselves.

I would "try" solitary confinement, but it's still an effective psychological torture technique.

But if he "admitted" it under waterboarding, is it admissible?

Are you suggesting KSM wasn't behind 9/11?

so you think torture is justified even though it does not produce good results

Not true. The CIA has obtained useful information that has broken up plots through the waterboarding of select individuals. Anyone who assesses the merits of torture honestly — and by that, I mean without a preordained viewpoint or political objective — has to conclude that the verdict on the usefulness of torture is difficult to discern. There is numerous evidence it isn't effective, and numerous evidence — and in the case of the US, specific evidence — where it has been effective. So reaching an absolute position about it is difficult, if you're being honest in your judgments.

Useful or not, it's illegal.

Useful or not, it's illegal.

I can find no information on Waterboarding being Illegal, the Senate has never passed a bill which is need to go with the House Bill to make it illegal.


January 21, 2008
Is There Waterboarding In Hell?
By Randall Hoven
John McCain promised to do "whatever is necessary" to get Osama bin Laden, including following him "to the gates of hell." Ever the one to provide specifics, he would find hell, apparently, by "improving our intelligence capability dramatically." . His claims are reminiscent of John Kerry's claim that he "would stop at nothing to find and kill the terrorists."


Um -- guys? If you're looking for the mastermind of the 9/11 attacks that killed three thousand people on US soil, we already have him. His name is Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and he is, I think, at Guantanamo Bay right now. As I understand it, he was one of only three people we waterboarded. (I cannot be sure because the CIA does not keep me informed on these matters. Ask Nancy Pelosi for real details -- she was briefed .)


In KSM's case he gave up the "names and addresses of people who were involved with al Qaeda in this country and in Europe" as well as a plot to run an airliner into the Library Tower in Los Angeles In all, more than "a dozen al Qaeda plots to kill people were stopped because of the information they got from coerced interrogation."


Senator McCain is against waterboarding. He says it is torture and thus a war crime. And thanks to him, "there will no such thing as waterboarding" any more. It doesn't kill. It doesn't injure. It doesn't leave a mark. It's all over in a minute in most cases. It has been shown to provide information that has saved lives. And Congress, where Senator McCain serves, has never outlawed it, despite at least some members receiving classified briefings on it.

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/2441.html

http://www.hrw.org/english/docs/2004/05/24/usint8614.htm

Nothing new. From a "Christian" nation. Yeah right...

"Torture Is an American Value: Reality vs. the Rhetoric"
(http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article11238.htm)

Rotten to the core ...

"The US has used torture for decades. All that's new is the openness about it"
(http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1664174,00.html)

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/2441.html

(4) of a person who, in relation to an armed conflict and contrary to the provisions of the Protocol on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Mines, Booby-Traps and Other Devices as amended at Geneva on 3 May 1996 (Protocol II as amended on 3 May 1996), when the United States is a party to such Protocol, willfully kills or causes serious injury to civilians.

No mention of Waterboarding here.

http://www.hrw.org/english/docs/2004/05/24/usint8614.htm[/QUOTE]

A federal anti-torture statute (18 U.S.C. § 2340A), enacted in 1994, provides for the prosecution of a U.S. national or anyone present in the United States who, while outside the U.S., commits or attempts to commit torture. Torture is defined 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 or physical control.” A person found guilty under the act can be incarcerated for up to 20 years or receive the death penalty if the torture results in the victim’s death.

That's right. Waterboarding isn't incidental to lawful sanctions.

Nothing new. From a "Christian" nation. Yeah right...

"Torture Is an American Value: Reality vs. the Rhetoric"
(http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article11238.htm)

Rotten to the core ...

"The US has used torture for decades. All that's new is the openness about it"
(http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1664174,00.html)

So has every other nation on earth, when it become in the best interest of said nations the gloves come off.

England.

'The obscenity of H-blocks'
'THE SUNDAY PRESS' recently published the best, and certainly the most thorough, analysis of the H-block struggle and of the reasons why the 'blanket men' deserve political status yet to appear in an establishment newspaper.

The article entitled 'The obscenity of H-blocks' and subtitled 'Immediate issue is humanitarian' was by 'The Sunday Press' columnist Claud Gordon.

ISSUED BY THE NATIONAL H-BLOCK COMMITTEE

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

WHEN Bishop Cahal Daly recently described the British Government's treatment of the H-Block prisoners as 'foolish', he was putting it mildly.

As the facts about the punishment regime being inflicted on a selected group of men in Long Kesh prison camp become more widely known, the policy behind it is likely to prove a miscalculation as damaging to Britain's international reputation, as was Bloody Sunday in Derry - not to mention the repeated scandals over police torture of political suspects.

Quite apart from the merit or otherwise of the demand by the men 'on the blanket' for special status, or for political status, one aspect of the story which must eventually stand to Britain's disgrace in the eyes of Europe and America is the apparently vindictive and retaliatory cruelty with which the prison authorities, acting under the political guidance of the government, responded to a protest which began simply as a refusal to wear prison clothes and do prison chores.


India

Long Oppressed People of Nagalim Expose Torture by India, Seek Voice for Freedom.
Publication: Business Wire
Date: Tuesday, May 30 2006

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- The URL in the last graph should read http://www.nagalim.us/ (sted http://www.nagalim.nl/).

The corrected release reads:
LONG OPPRESSED PEOPLE OF NAGALIM EXPOSE TORTURE BY INDIA, SEEK VOICE FOR FREEDOM
Citizens of the People's Republic of Nagalim, a remote country of 4 million people, has been subjugated by India for more than 50 years and
has seen over 300,000 of its people brutally tortured and killed, according to honorary Ambassador Grace Collins. Today Nagalim for the first time appealed to the U.S. Government for help in reaching a peaceful resolution to their bid for freedom.


Iraq under Saddam

VIDEO: TORTURE AND BEHEADINGS: DURING SADDAM's REGIME - Benador ...
VIDEO: TORTURE AND BEHEADINGS: DURING SADDAM's REGIME - Benador Associates. ... Videos like the present one are to be found in the streets of Iraq. ...
http://www.benadorassociates.com/article/6086

Moslems in Iraq:

Al-Qaeda tells British cells to carry out wave of beheadings ...
Feb 4, 2007 ... Al-Qaeda tells British cells to carry out wave of beheadings ... torture and beheading of Ken Bigley, a British engineer, in Iraq in 2004. ...
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-2583241,00.html

No, the gloves don't "come off". We are a civilized nation that is supposed to follow it's own laws.

Not true. The CIA has obtained useful information that has broken up plots through the waterboarding of select individuals. Allegedly. The CIA has negative credibility in this matter - what they say is less likely because they say it.

Dozens - probably hundreds - of people were tortured at Abu Ghraib and Gitmo: at Gitmo, at least, the CIA was involved. "Select individuals" my ass.

Besides: How much info have they destroyed, and how much have they lost in prevented opportunity for info, and how much info gathering time and expertise have they wasted chasing the kinds of garbage they claim to have obtained as "info" ? A good accounting includes the costs, not just the benefits.

The comparison is not with no info gathered, but with info gathered using better and more effective and less self-destructive means. And after that, the effects on a society of setting up its government with a clandestine torture agency can be tossed unto the scales.

The CIA was never very good at interrogation, it was never their area of training or expertise, and torturing has not improved their batting average if the crap they've proudly released is representative.

No, the gloves don't "come off". We are a civilized nation that is supposed to follow it's own laws.

That's the thing, isn't it? By torturing its detainees, the US has shown itself to be no better than leaders like Saddam, who did torture prisoners.

As a result, the US has now has no legitimate standing in criticising regimes who do use torture on their prisoners. The US has effectively made themselves pariah's in regards to human rights abuses.

They're using waterboarding on demonic muslim terrorists who blow up innocent civilians, saw innocent people's heads off, and commit other atrocities. I think the terrorists got off way too easy.
You're not understanding the way this stuff works very well. Even if the subject is a "demonic muslim terrorist" it has no bearing on what techniques should and should not be allowed. The objective of an interrogation is intelligence gathering, not punishment. Anybody who acts otherwise is a really shitty interrogator, and their ass is going to get thrown in the brig when somebody up the chain catches wind of gratuitous abuse to sate some weird sadist bent.

That's right. Waterboarding isn't incidental to lawful sanctions.

Provide citation that it isn't lawful sanctions, the Senate has not made it unlawful.

No, the gloves don't "come off". We are a civilized nation that is supposed to follow it's own laws.

And under our own laws Waterboarding is not Illegal.

It has not been done so because the Senate Hasn't taken up the issue, and made it so.

Isn't the US a signatory to the Geneva Convention?

And what about this?

Water boarding was designated as illegal by U.S. generals in Vietnam 40 years ago. A photograph that appeared in The Washington Post of a U.S. soldier involved in water boarding a North Vietnamese prisoner in 1968 led to that soldier's severe punishment.

"The soldier who participated in water torture in January 1968 was court-martialed within one month after the photos appeared in The Washington Post, and he was drummed out of the Army," recounted Darius Rejali, a political science professor at Reed College.

And this?

All nations that are signatory to the United Nations Convention Against Torture have agreed they are subject to the explicit prohibition on torture under any condition, and as such there exists no legal exception under this treaty. (The treaty states "No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat of war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture.") Additionally, signatories of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights are bound to Article 5, which states, "No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment."

United States

The United States has a historical record of regarding waterboarding as a crime, and has prosecuted individuals for the use of the practice in the past. In 1947, the United States prosecuted a Japanese military officer, Yukio Asano, for carrying out a form of waterboarding on a U.S. civilian during World War II. Yukio Asano received a sentence of 15 years of hard labor.[31] The charges of Violation of the Laws and Customs of War against Asano also included "beating using hands, fists, club; kicking; burning using cigarettes; strapping on a stretcher head downward."[74]

In its 2005 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices, the U.S. Department of State formally recognized "submersion of the head in water" as torture in its examination of Tunisia's poor human rights record,[75] and critics of waterboarding draw parallels between the two techniques, citing the similar usage of water on the subject. On September 6, 2006, the U.S. Department of Defense released a revised Army Field Manual entitled Human Intelligence Collector Operations that prohibits the use of waterboarding by U.S. military personnel. The department adopted the manual amid widespread criticism of U.S. handling of prisoners in the War on Terrorism, and prohibits other practices in addition to waterboarding. The revised manual applies only to U.S. military personnel, and as such does not apply to the practices of the CIA.[76] However, under international law, violators of the laws of war are criminally liable under the command responsibility, and could still be prosecuted for war crimes.[77]

Or do you mean the White House has okayed waterboarding of US troops?

Isn't the US a signatory to the Geneva Convention?

And what about this?



Or do you mean the White House has okayed waterboarding of US troops?

The act that you are talking about wasn't in compliance with regulations on interrogation of POWs, and the NVA
was a POW at the Time, and S.A.M. you have again just proven that the U.S. investigates, charges, brings to Trial, and convicts Troops that commit crime against the G.C. and IHL, if we did this to a individual that only waterboarded a POW, what do you think we did to any one collecting heads?

And under our own laws Waterboarding is not Illegal.

It has not been done so because the Senate Hasn't taken up the issue, and made it so.

that not entirely true

Isn't the US a signatory to the Geneva Convention?

And what about this?



And this?



Or do you mean the White House has okayed waterboarding of US troops?


In its 2005 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices, the U.S. Department of State formally recognized "submersion of the head in water" as torture

Doesn't happen in waterboarding, the head is not submersed, been there in survival school.

On September 6, 2006, the U.S. Department of Defense released a revised Army Field Manual entitled Human Intelligence Collector Operations that prohibits the use of waterboarding by U.S. military personnel. The department adopted the manual amid widespread criticism of U.S. handling of prisoners in the War on Terrorism, and prohibits other practices in addition to waterboarding. The revised manual applies only to U.S. military personnel, and as such does not apply to the practices of the CIA.

This applies to the Military, and they have complied with the rules, the Senate still hasn't taken up the Issue, and made it illegal for the Intelligence community in special circumstance, so it does appear that waterboarding is rare, and used for specific targets, in high threat situations.

The people being waterboarded in Gitmo are not under US Military jurisdiction?

The Nazis thought it was legal to kill Jews and Poles. The international community obviously did not agree.

Are you saying the Nuremberg Trials were a mistake?

However, under international law, violators of the laws of war are criminally liable under the command responsibility, and could still be prosecuted for war crimes



UN Special Rapporteur on Torture Manfred Nowak sharply criticized the White House Wednesday for defending the use of waterboarding , calling the practice "absolutely unacceptable under international human rights law." Nowak's comments, as well as the White House defense of the interrogation technique, came after CIA Director Michael Hayden confirmed at a Tuesday Senate Intelligence Committee hearing that waterboarding had been used on three terror detainees


Would it be legal to try the US intelligence for crimes against humanity?

The Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 used the language of the Geneva Conventions to bar "cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment" of war on terror detainees.

The head of the CIA said Thursday it is uncertain whether the use of waterboarding, a form of simulated drowning widely condemned as torture, would be lawful if used today against Al-Qaeda detainees.

Would it be legal to try the US intelligence for crimes against humanity?

I would think that it would be yes, but thats the problem, its much harder to stand up to the bully then you may think.

BR
So has every other nation on earth, when it become in the best interest of said nations the gloves come off.

Oh. So that makes it OK.

From a nation whose president peppers his talk with constant reference to "FREEDOM" and "DEMOCRACY" and "HUMAN RIGHTS"!

Can you see how rotten this all is?
(No, denying it does not make it go away...)

BR
Doesn't happen in waterboarding, the head is not submersed, been there in survival school.

He he. So now you are an EXPERT are you? You are funny...

I have been waterboarded, even when i was a child my brother waterboarded me. It is nothing compared to pulling out fingernails or cutting off of heads.

The people being waterboarded in Gitmo are not under US Military jurisdiction?

Provide provable citation that any one at Gitmo was waterboarded, so far you seem to have provided information that the U.S. Military has and does bring to trial any soldier that commits waterboarding.

The Nazis thought it was legal to kill Jews and Poles. The international community obviously did not agree.

And WWII proved that they were wrong. So then why do you think its OK to kill Jews? You have never denounced the killing of Civilians, Jews or Iraqis, so why do you approve of those actions and not others?

Are you saying the Nuremberg Trials were a mistake?

The Nuremburg Trials were what they were, the trial of Nazi Leadership and Governmental Policy, and the people who implemented them.


Would it be legal to try the US intelligence for crimes against humanity?

If you can prove crimes against humanity, and that said specific actions were crimes against humanity.

Crimes against humanity:

In international law, a crime against humanity is an act of persecution or any large scale atrocities against a body of people, and is the highest level of criminal offense.

Isolated inhumane acts of this nature may constitute grave infringements of human rights, or depending on the circumstances, war crimes, but may fall short of meriting the stigma attaching to the category of crimes under discussion


The interesting thing is that no other country has tried to do so, have you ever ask why?................Maybe because they recognize that it isn't a crime against humanity,..............that they need the option open for their future security needs,...................they they themselves have at time in their past done the same, and will do so in the future, when it become necessary for the safety of the people and country.

For all the High Sounding Words, and Beating of Chests, all countries have and do use aggressive interrogation methods when it is a national imperative, India included, and there is no clearly defined law on the use of such methods in international law, and those treaties that do deal with the subject are regularly ignored by all countries when it is in their best interest, India Included.

BR


He he. So now you are an EXPERT are you? You are funny...

4 survival schools, 20 years in the Military.

BR


Oh. So that makes it OK.

From a nation whose president peppers his talk with constant reference to "FREEDOM" and "DEMOCRACY" and "HUMAN RIGHTS"!

Can you see how rotten this all is?
(No, denying it does not make it go away...)


In Reality? or in Utopia?

BR
4 survival schools, 20 years in the Military.

OK. Thats good. I gain new respect for you. So physically you get the picture. But you knew it was a limited excercise and thus merely a SMALL taste of the actual reality.

In Reality? or in Utopia?

Perhaps Obama can create a bit of utopia? We can only hope...

When the US convicted a Japanese commander of waterboarding American captives in WWII, during a brutal war with survival on the line, the US hanged him by the neck with a rope until he was dead.
I have been waterboarded, even when i was a child my brother waterboarded me. You have never been tortured by waterboarding.

When you had your mom pull a hangnail, that was not the same as being tortured by having your fingernails pulled out either.
Provide provable citation that any one at Gitmo was waterboarded, People at Gitmo were tortured, according to eyewitness testimony, FBI testimony, prisoner testimony, various admissions by military personnel, documentary records, and much circumstantial evidence including front page photographs in the major daily newspapers of the United States.

The US President had his personal lawyer write a formal opinion absolving him of war crimes for what was done at Gitmo - the argument was not that the Geneva Convention was not violated (it most certainly was), but that it didn't apply to treatment of the detainees at Gitmo. So not only were prisoners badly abused at Gitmo, but everybody knew about it and planned on it.
For all the High Sounding Words, and Beating of Chests, all countries have and do use aggressive interrogation methods when it is a national imperative, There is no national imperative involved here, and "aggressive interrogation methods" of that kind are crimes regardless.

I don't care what other nations do. Other nations do a lot of stupid, ugly, criminal things they, and we, would be better off not doing.

Buffilo when the FBI agents going there leave and complain to the media about the practices of a place people take notice.

When the US convicted a Japanese commander of waterboarding American captives in WWII, during a brutal war with survival on the line, the US hanged him by the neck with a rope until he was dead.
You have never been tortured by waterboarding.

The Japanese in question was convicted of inflicting the, Water Treatment or Water cure is a form of water torture in which the victim is forced to drink large quantities of water in a short time, resulting in gastric distension, water intoxication, and possibly death. The method used involved pumping large amounts of water in to the victim's stomach by a water hose being forced down his throat, and pumping him up with water, them strapping him on the floor and beating or jumping on the victims stomach, the victim being a POW, and this was done as punishment, or just because the Jap's though it was funny to watch.

When you had your mom pull a hangnail, that was not the same as being tortured by having your fingernails pulled out either.

So now you are claiming that we pull out fingernails? new direction here, called Red Herring.

People at Gitmo were tortured, according to eyewitness testimony, FBI testimony, prisoner testimony, various admissions by military personnel, documentary records, and much circumstantial evidence including front page photographs in the major daily newspapers of the United States.

Please post the photograph from the Major News Paper, your word is far from sufficient, and documentation of fact that what happened wasn't in compliance with law, and regulation.

Do you know what happens to circumstantal evedence in a Court of Law?

It is inadmissible as evidence.

The US President had his personal lawyer write a formal opinion absolving him of war crimes for what was done at Gitmo - the argument was not that the Geneva Convention was not violated (it most certainly was), but that it didn't apply to treatment of the detainees at Gitmo. So not only were prisoners badly abused at Gitmo, but everybody knew about it and planned on it.

Citation of Fact is required here, please post the (formal opinion absolving him of war crimes for what was done at Gitmo)

Again please post photographic evidence, as far as I know ever incident of alleged abuse of prisoners was investigated, and went through proper investigative action, and the appropriate action was then taken.

You are not a Lawyer, You are not a JAG Officer versed in Military Regulations, and the Code of Military Justice, you are not a International Law Expert, or Lawyer in International Law, all you are is a Liberal with a agenda, making accusations, in a wild and crazy rant.


There is no national imperative involved here, and "aggressive interrogation methods" of that kind are crimes regardless.

2,752 lives is not a National Imperative? 9/11 is not a National Imperative?
21 July 2005 London bombings aren't a National Imperative? 170 people Dead, and 600 wounded by bombing in Madrid, not a National Imperative?

And Spain is now accused of Torture:

The U.N. Committee against Torture has expressed concern over the rigors of the closed regime in Spanish prisons, in particular the limited number of hours outside per day; the exclusion from group, sport, or work activities; and the extreme security measures. “Generally speaking, it would seem that the physical conditions of imprisonment [of these prisoners] are at variance with prison methods aimed at their rehabilitation and could be considered prohibited treatment under Article 16 of the [Torture] Convention.”192 This article obligates all states parties to “undertake to prevent...other acts of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment which do not amount to torture as defined in article 1, when such acts are committed by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity.”193 In conjunction with article 16, article 11 obligates states parties to “keep under systematic review...arrangements for the custody and treatment of persons subjected to any form o

It seem that they have decided that aggressive interrogation techniques in dealing with terrorist are necessary.


I don't care what other nations do. Other nations do a lot of stupid, ugly, criminal things they, and we, would be better off not doing.

That is the problem, you don't care, your way doesn't care about the 2,757 live, you would not have used aggressive interrogation methods to learn of the attacks before hand and have let those people die just so you could claim that your hands didn't have any stain on them, well you have the stain of 2757 lives on them because your way would have let them die, any way.

You don't have access to the classified information recovered in aggressive interrogations, or knowledge of the act that have been stopped by such methods, you are screaming in the dark about something that you have only the smallest amount of information on, and most of that is second hand guess work based on self serving reports of Lawyers, and guess work, The FBI deals whit criminal matters, and has a different set of rules in dealing with civilians.

The Military has another set of rules for dealing with Pow, and Combatants, and Terrorist.

The way these two organizations deal with their respective domains are almost mutually exclusive of each other.

The G.C. allows speaks to this in Article Three, and how Detainee are to be treated before being classified, POWs, spies, terrorist, after the determination the POWs have rights, but not the right to be released until the war is over, and it is determined that they are no longer a threat.

The process was being carried out, until the lawyers got involved, and it went to the Supreme Court, where they made the Lawful decision that the Congress needed to Make the process at Gitmo, a Regularly Constituted Court or Tribunal, which the Congress did in the Military Commissions Act of 2006 (MCA), meeting the requirement of the of the Geneva Convention.

Congress established the creation of military commissions, affirming quite satisfactorily that the MCA is consistent with the requirements of Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions – the military commissions so established constitute a “regularly constituted court,” affording all the necessary “judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.”

Not only does the MCA provide crystal clear guidance in the context of the establishment and operation of military commissions to try “any alien unlawful enemy combatant” (al-Qa’eda and al-Qa’eda-styled Islamic terrorists) it provides concrete statutory definitions concerning a wide variety of terms that have been previously hotly debated. The MCA also clearly places a large legal “seal of approval” on many of the initiatives taken by the Bush Administration in the War on Terror. For instance, the MCA defines “unlawful enemy combatants” in precise language while recognizing in the same breath the lawful functioning of the Combatant Status Review Tribunal for enemy combatant determination set up by the Department of Defense in response to the 2004 Hamdi v. Rumsfeld ruling:


(i) a person who has engaged in hostilities or who has purposefully and materially supported hostilities against the United States or its co-belligerents who is not a lawful enemy combatant (including a person who is part of the Taliban, al Qaeda, or associated forces); or

(ii) a person who, before, on, or after the date of the enactment of the Military Commissions Act of 2006, has been determined to be an unlawful enemy combatant by a Combatant Status Review Tribunal or another competent tribunal established under the authority of the President or the Secretary of Defense.

The MCA also lists in detail the criminal offenses that fall within the jurisdiction of the military commission. Apart from the traditional list of war crimes the MCA appropriately includes “conspiracy” and “providing material support for terrorism,” drawing definitional language from the Material Support provisions at Section 2339A for the later offense. In addition, reaffirming the fact that the United States is in a state of hostilities, the MCA addresses the matter of streamlining the process for dealing with the large number of petitions filed by lawyers on behalf enemy combatants in the federal court system. Again, if one recognizes the government’s premise that the nation is at war and the laws of war apply, then the MCA properly deals with restricting habeas corpus and providing for other limitations on the jurisdiction of civilian courts.

You're not understanding the way this stuff works very well. Even if the subject is a "demonic muslim terrorist" it has no bearing on what techniques should and should not be allowed. The objective of an interrogation is intelligence gathering, not punishment. Anybody who acts otherwise is a really shitty interrogator, and their ass is going to get thrown in the brig when somebody up the chain catches wind of gratuitous abuse to sate some weird sadist bent.

Thanks, but I understand it perfectly well. I have no use for terrorists. 3 of them got waterboarded?

Boo freakin hoo. :bawl: :rolleyes:

Wow, all the people here supporting waterboarding. Would any of you wish it on an innocent person, a family member? Remember none of these people have been charged with anything, and after the illusory WMDs, don't you all care that innocent people (with parents and family members who don't even know where they are) are being subjected to this by your government?

:(

Al-Masri sentenced to seven years' imprisonment in Britain for fomenting racial hatred and urging his followers to kill non-Muslims.

U.K.: Muslim Extremist Preacher Gets Seven Years In Jail - RADIO ...
Feb 8, 2006 ... Abu Hamza al-Masri, Britain’s most notorious Muslim extremist preacher, has been sentenced to jail for seven years. ...
http://www.rferl.org/featuresarticle/2006/02/585e69f9-0847-4e76-9750-14d31a46bd81.html

Wow, all the people here supporting waterboarding. Would any of you wish it on an innocent person, a family member? Remember none of these people have been charged with anything, and after the illusory WMDs, don't you all care that innocent people (with parents and family members who don't even know where they are) are being subjected to this by your government?

:(

You support Suicide Bombings, in the end who is still breathing, and has supper at the end of the day? The guy who was waterboarded? or the Victim of those you support and excuse in their Suicide Bombings?

There seems to be a little difference in the out come of the actions.

When the US convicted a Japanese commander of waterboarding American captives in WWII, during a brutal war with survival on the line, the US hanged him by the neck with a rope until he was dead.
You have never been tortured by waterboarding.

When you had your mom pull a hangnail, that was not the same as being tortured by having your fingernails pulled out either.


I was so waterboarded, i was even subjected to a form of it at around 10 years old and i can describe it in detail. If all terrorists did was waterboard the innocent people they terrorize then i would no longer call them terrorists.

I was so waterboarded, i was even subjected to a form of it at around 10 years old and i can describe it in detail. If all terrorists did was waterboard the innocent people they terrorize then i would no longer call them terrorists.

There's the problem. Who said that all waterboarded "suspects" ended up being proven as "terrorists"?

There's the problem. Who said that all waterboarded "suspects" ended up being proven as "terrorists"?

Who said they were all waterboarded?

Who said they were all waterboarded?

Nobody did. Duh!

We're talking about the people that were. We're talking about things like, you know, destroyed CIA videos of waterboarding.

Nobody did. Duh!

We're talking about the people that were. We're talking about things like, you know, destroyed CIA videos of waterboarding.

And exactly who are they?

And exactly who are they?

Probably the same people in the (destroyed) CIA videos.

Probably the same people in the (destroyed) CIA videos.

Well if you can't name anyone how do you know that they were waterboarded?

There were according to Human Rights Watch only 11 High Value Detainee's in custody.

The U.S. gives the number at 15, so where are all those who you claim to have been waterboarded by the U.S.?

I can name the Three detainee's that the U.S. waterboarded, of course I used something other than shit house gossip.

The people being waterboarded in Gitmo are not under US Military jurisdiction?

The Nazis thought it was legal to kill Jews and Poles. The international community obviously did not agree.

You're comparing waterboarding to genocide now.

Wow, all the people here supporting waterboarding. Would any of you wish it on an innocent person, a family member?

Obviously not. Are we now assuming that the Americans are just going out and rounding up people ad libitum for a little surf and snurf? Doubtful. I recall you didn't seem to have much problem with a little across-the-board enforcement of some other pointless laws earlier.

When the CIA starts beheading folks I'll start caring about America's image around the world, and on the Left.

When the CIA starts beheading folks I'll start caring about America's image around the world, and on the Left.

Amen! :bravo:

Sandy you coming VERY close to advocating vilonce, watch it

When the CIA starts beheading folks I'll start caring about America's image around the world, and on the Left.

so you don't care if the states do something illegal

Sandy you coming VERY close to advocating vilonce, watch it
She was advocating subscription to a similar opinion.

It is you who have injected violence into the conversation without necessity.

Moderators don't seem to have a standard to live up to that requires both eyes.

so you don't care if the states do something illegal
States?

You mean: The U.S. of A.

You don't hold any other "state" to the same standard as you presume to hold the U.S.A., do you?

What other states can you care to showcase that haven't done something illegal that can judge the USA from a morally superior point of reference?

States?

You mean: The U.S. of A.

You don't hold any other "state" to the same standard as you presume to hold the U.S.A., do you?

What other states can you care to showcase that haven't done something illegal?

i am not a citezen of other countries i am a citezen of the states as i presume you are. and what i think of what my own damn country does is an important point

i am not a citezen of other countries i am a citezen of the states as i presume you are. and what i think of what my own damn country does is an important point
To you, certainly.

I'm not feeling the same imperative.

To you, certainly.

I'm not feeling the same imperative.

what i was impling that what an american thinks of america is important

what i was impling that what an american thinks of america is important
So, me being an American, you think what I think about America is as important to you as what you think about America?

So, me being an American, you think what I think about America is as important to you as what you think about America?

for the most part

Clinton lies about oral sex and gets impeached, yet Bush lies about torture and repeatedly violates the U.S. Constitution and is still in office.

The United States is bound to the Geneva Conventions of 1949.

Waterboarding is a form of torture.

...

Article 17 of the Geneva Conventions of 1949 discusses in part the captivity and treatment of prisoners of war. No physical or mental torture, nor any other form of coercion, may be inflicted on prisoners of war to secure from them information of any kind whatever. Prisoners of war who refuse to answer may not be threatened, insulted, or exposed to unpleasant or disadvantageous treatment of any kind. [1]

In November 2005, President Bush was quoted as saying, "We are gathering information about where the terrorists may be hiding. We are trying to disrupt their plots and plans. Anything we do to that effort, to that end, in this effort, any activity we conduct, is within the law. We do not torture." [2]

Thanks to research of many credible sources online (related links posted at the end) I have affirmed that the United States Supreme Court case Hamdan v. Rumsfeld (2006) [3] ruled that the Geneva Conventions of 1949 applied to those detained at Guantanamo Bay and in other CIA-established prisons. [4]

A few months after this U.S. Supreme Court decision, President Bush requested and signed a bill called the Military Commissions Act of 2006, during which time he also restates that "the United States does not torture." [5]

An Executive Order signed by President Bush in July 2007 claims that the Supreme Court decision does not apply. "The Military Commissions Act defines certain prohibitions of Common Article 3 for United States law, and it reaffirms and reinforces the authority of the President to interpret the meaning and application of the Geneva Conventions." [6]

...

President Bush is overriding the U.S. Constitution's separation of powers. The Patriot Act endangers the Fourth Amendment. His interpretation of the Geneva Conventions is absurd, more so after declaring the decision by the Supreme Court practically void, while also endangering the idea of habeas corpus. Not to mention that most of his supposed authority seems to rely on laws passed while he was in office. Oh, and what about perjury? He's not being tried in a court of law but he's bound under oath to uphold the U.S. Constitution. He claims that we do not employ methods of torture. There is overwhelming evidence that we do. By we, I mean they, not I.



---

1. International Committee of the Red Cross. "Geneva Conventions of 1949". August 12, 1949. International Humanitarian Law - Treaties & Documents (http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/WebList?ReadForm&id=375&t=art).

2. Office of the Press Secretary. November 7, 2005. President Bush Meets with President Torrijos of Panama (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/11/20051107.html).

3. Supreme Court of the United States of America. Hamdan v. Rumsfeld. 2006. No. 05-184: Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense, et al. (http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/05pdf/05-184.pdf)

4. Council on Foreign Relations. "The United States and the Geneva Conventions." September 20, 2006. The United States and the Geneva Conventions (http://www.cfr.org/publication/11485/).

5. Office of the Press Secretary. October 17, 2006. President Bush Signs Military Commissions Act of 2006 (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/10/20061017-1.html).

6. Office of the Press Secretary. July 20, 2007. Executive Order: Interpretation of the Geneva Conventions Common Article 3 as Applied to a Program of Detention and Interrogation Operated by the Central Intelligence Agency (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/07/20070720-4.html).

Other links of interest:

PDF. Public Law 109-366: Military Commissions Act of 2006 (http://www.loc.gov/rr/frd/Military_Law/pdf/PL-109-366.pdf).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_Commissions_Act_of_2006

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamdan_v._Rumsfeld

http://www.slate.com/id/2145592

When the CIA starts beheading folks I'll start caring about America's image around the world, and on the Left.

Famous last words.:)

What if they were innocent before being tortured? I know that if I'm an innocent guy who's captured and tortured for NO good reason, and released, I'm going to get angry and do something violent in return.


no one else sees that. look at who's running for president.. and no one thinks about it.

Originally Posted by Mr. G
When the CIA starts beheading folks I'll start caring about America's image around the world, and on the Left.


Famous last words.:)

Already been spoken, and your are most eloquent in your lack of care about it.

Three terrorists were waterboarded. They were not innocent. We don't round up innocent people. We get them in the act, with video, eye-witnesses, etc...

These are not innocent people in the wrong place at the wrong time. These are vile monsters who kill innocent people. :(

Were they charged? tried? What was the result of the trial?

Were they charged? tried? What was the result of the trial?

We've already been through this in this very thread.

We've already been through this in this very thread.

I haven't heard a response yet. When were they tried?

Three terrorists were waterboarded. They were not innocent. We don't round up innocent people. We get them in the act, with video, eye-witnesses, etc...

These are not innocent people in the wrong place at the wrong time. These are vile monsters who kill innocent people. :(

You are incorrect as usual. These three may have been known to us, but there were many others who were simply caught up in a capturing spree.

When the CIA starts beheading folks I'll start caring about America's image around the world, and on the Left.

Does beating them to death count too?

You are incorrect as usual. These three may have been known to us, but there were many others who were simply caught up in a capturing spree.

No. They said they were innocent. They all do. :rolleyes:

I don't think even one was innocent. They all had some kind of connection to terrorism. We wouldn't bother with them if they didn't.

Please, I'M SICK of this S***. These are people whom got pissed on in their beds. For running their mouths/mouts/ for god(dess)es sakes.

That's like saying if the police arrest you, you must be guilty. You have such an uncritical view of government power, I wonder if that will remain when it's under new management. It's frankly un-American and fascist in nature.

The Japanese in question was convicted of inflicting the, Water Treatment or Water cure is a form of water torture in which the victim is forced to drink large quantities of water in a short time, resulting in gastric distension, water intoxication, and possibly death. The method used involved pumping large amounts of water in to the victim's stomach by a water hose being forced down his throat, and pumping him up with water, them strapping him on the floor and beating or jumping on the victims stomach, the victim being a POW, and this was done as punishment, or just because the Jap's though it was funny to watch. A "torture relativist" are you? It's not torture if something worse can be found ?

Unfortunately for the legalistic defense, that is not the only water torture technique used by the Japanese, nor the only one that resulted in severe punishment after conviction by a US Court.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_cure
The tribunal also reported the case of a prisoner being tortured in the Japanese-occupied Dutch East Indies:

"A towel was fixed under the chin and down over the face. Then many buckets of water were poured into the towel so that the water gradually reached the mouth and rising further eventually also the nostrils, which resulted in his becoming unconscious and collapsing like a person drowned. This procedure was sometimes repeated 5-6 times in succession.[10]

Chase J. Nielson, who was captured in the Doolittle raid testified at the trial of his captors, "I was given several types of torture... I was given what they call the water cure." and it felt "more or less like I was drowning, just gasping between life and death."[10]
- - - -
In 1983 Texas sheriff James Parker and three of his deputies were convicted for conspiring to force confessions. The complaint said they "subject prisoners to a suffocating water torture ordeal in order to coerce confessions. This generally included the placement of a towel over the nose and mouth of the prisoner and the pouring of water in the towel until the prisoner began to move, jerk, or otherwise indicate that he was suffocating and/or drowning."[10] The sheriff was sentenced to ten years in prison, and the deputies to four years
- - - - -
Water cure was among the forms of torture used by American soldiers on Filipinos during the Philippine-American War.[12] President Theodore Roosevelt privately assured a friend that the water cure was "an old Filipino method of mild torture. Nobody was seriously damaged whereas the Filipinos had inflicted incredible tortures on our people." [13] However, a report at the time noted its lethality; "a soldier who was with General Funston had stated that he helped to administer the water cure to one hundred and sixty natives, all but twenty-six of whom died".[14] See the Lodge Committee for detailed testimony of the use of the water cure. We see that the "they do worse" excuse is more than a hundred years old. Nevertheless, some US military personnel were convicted and punished for particularly brutal incidents of water torture in that war.

The Philippine War era US legal opinion that waterboarding is torture, and a war crime, was reaffirmed in the aftermath of WWII:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/con...

"in 1947, the United States charged a Japanese officer, Yukio Asano, with war crimes for carrying out another form of waterboarding on a U.S. civilian. The subject was strapped on a stretcher that was tilted so that his feet were in the air and head near the floor, and small amounts of water were poured over his face, leaving him gasping for air until he agreed to talk.

"Asano was sentenced to 15 years of hard labor,"
http://lawofwar.org/Water_Torture_Article.htm
One compelling example is found in the Manilla trial54 of Sergeant-Major Chinsaku Yuki of the Kempentai for torture and murder55 of Philippine civilians. There, the Commission heard testimony from Ramon Lavarro, a Filipino lawyer who had been arrested by the Kempentai and questioned by the Defendant on suspicion that he knew of and supported guerilla activities.

His testimony was the only direct evidence received by the tribunal about SGM Yuki’s interrogation techniques:

Q: And then did he take you back to your room?
A: When Yuki could not get anything out of me he wanted the interpreter ti place me down below and I was told by Yuki to take off all my clothes so what I did was to take off my clothes as ordered. I was ordered to lay on a bench and Yuki tied my feet, hands and neck to that bench lying with my face upward. After I was tied to the bench Yuki placed some cloth on my face and then with water from the faucet they poured on me until I became unconscious. He repeated that four or five times.

COL KEELEY: You mean he brought water and poured water down your throat?
A: No sir, on my face, until I became unconscious. We were lying that way with some cloth on my face and then Yuki poured water on my face continuously.

COL KEELEY: And you couldn’t breath?
A: No, I could not and so I for a time lost consciousness
- - - -
In his summation, the Prosecutor discussed Lavarro’s testimony noting that “...it’s on his testimony that we have to determine whether there was any torture or not.” Apparently, that testimony was sufficient for the Commissioners. They convicted Yuki of the charges that he tortured and murdered a civilian non-combatant, and sentenced him to life imprisonement.
Id at 241.
So let's summarize: by one confirmed instance of performing "interrogation techniques" essentially identical to those used by the CIA and recently defended by US officials in public, on one person suspected of having terrorist connections in an occupied country during an actual war, a US court was convinced that torture was being employed by this commander.

We also note: A: Around four or five times from two o’clock up to four o’clock in the afternoon. When I was not able to endure his punishment which I received I told a lie to Yuki....I could not really show anything to Yuki because I was really lying just to stop the torture...
As we see so often: torture produces false confessions. That's what it's good for. That's normally why it's used. There are exceptions - incompetence, inexperience, panic, sadism or other psychosexual abnormalities, etc, but normally:

Whenever you see a government agent using torture, the first question to ask is what they gain from false confessions.

The most recent US legal opinion I could find on actions essentially identical with "waterboarding" as now performed by US government agencies is this, continuing from that link: - . In the compensatory damages phases of an action against the estate of former Philippine President Ferdinand Marcos, a United States District Court articulated what it described as both “...a human rights violation...” and “...a form of torture.”

The “water cure”, where a cloth was placed over a detainee’s mouth and nose and water poured over it producing a drowning sensation;

In Re Estate of Ferdinand E. Marcos, Human Rights Litigation, 910 F. Supp. 1460 at 1463 (D. Hawaii, 1995).
And of course there were apologists back then, as now, for any given technique: The water cure is very uncomfortable, but not serious. A surgeon attached to one of the regiments and called on for a report as to the water cure, reported to the regimental commander that it was “a crude sort of stomach pump.” That describes it perfectly.
- - -
I am not writing to defend torture, but to let you know what I
have not seen published this Winter–that is, that these vigorous measures were notused against combatants, but used against outlaws only. That's a description of the type of water torture Buffalo, above, pretends is in a whole different category from the merely uncomfortable and civilized stuff we do now. We see that the kinds of people who justify this sort of thing have always had all the same phrases ready to hand.

Ah, again, President Bush writes that "U.S. law and policy already prohibit torture. Our policy has also been not to use cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment, at home or abroad. This legislation now makes that a matter of statute for practices abroad." [1]


From Public Law 109-366, The Military Commissions Act of 2006:

(Sec. 6) Authorizes the President to interpret the meaning and application of the Geneva Conventions and to promulgate standards and regulations for violations of treaty obligations which are not grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions. Directs the President to issue such interpretations through Executive Orders.

Amends the federal criminal code to include the following as violations of the War Crimes Act: (1) torture; (2) cruel or inhuman treatment; (3) performing biological experiments; (4) murder; (5) mutilation or maiming; (6) intentionally causing serious bodily injury; (7) rape; (8) sexual assault or abuse; and (9) taking hostages.

Prohibits any person in the custody or control of the United States, regardless of nationality or physical location, from being subject to cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment.
[2]



The same law that the President uses to interpret the Geneva Conventions also states that everyone in custody or control of the United States is not to be subject to cruel treatment or punishment. It's not the only law, or the first law, but it's still in effect, it's still valid, and it still applies. I'll try and post credible sources of the tribunal hearings and other related information. It would be easier if we knew the names of the people you want to look up.

---

1. Office of the Press Secretary. December 30, 2005. President's Statement on the Department of Defense, Emergency Supplemental Appropriations to Address Hurricanes in the Gulf of Mexico, and Pandemic Influenza Act, 2006 (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/12/20051230-9.html).

2. Library of Congress. October 17, 2006. Public Law No. 109-366 (http://www.congress.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:SN03930:@@@D&summ2=3&).

Nuthin' but a bunch of cry babies, wit' no Mmm'N'mmms leff' to gii'.

Just whinnin'

close this thread!!!

Please, I'M SICK of this S***. These are people whom got pissed on in their beds. For running their mouths/mouts/ for god(dess)es sakes.

Nuthin' but a bunch of cry babies, wit' no Mmm'N'mmms leff' to gii'.

Just whinnin'

close this thread!!!

not really sure what you're trying to say...

Pathetic whiners, on the whoose gow. It's symptomatic of someone who wants to feel BIG!!!...

Who is doing unnecessary whining, the ones for torture, or the ones against it?

Can you show me where they were charged and tried?

More...We are thisclose to filing charges against Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.

The New York Times broke the story ahead of time (Gee, what a surprise. Not...) so now it's public knowledge. Charges will be filed against as many as six detainees held at Club Gitmo (Guantanamo Bay.)

Mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, a former senior aid to Usama bin Laden, is expected to be among the six. Remember him?

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,330176,00.html

More...We are thisclose to filing charges against Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.

The New York Times broke the story ahead of time (Gee, what a surprise. Not...) so now it's public knowledge. Charges will be filed against as many as six detainees held at Club Gitmo (Guantanamo Bay.)

Mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, a former senior aid to Usama bin Laden, is expected to be among the six. Remember him?

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,330176,00.html

Since they were waterboarded, its all tainted evidence.

I would like to know if any of the ones who have been waterboarded were charged BEFORE being tortured.

Well, since I don't consider running water down the nose of a terrorist "torture", I don't consider it tainted. We knew about Khalid Sheikh Mohammed before he was interviewed. We have plenty of evidence against him.

So when were they charged?

I don't know if their coerced confessions will be admitted as evidence, especially if the Fifth Amendment is ignored. Then again, it might not apply anyway, as this involves the military and the possibility of public danger. The following is in reference to the link that sandy posted about Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and criminal charges.

War-crimes charges against the men would almost certainly place the prosecutors in a battle over the treatment of inmates because at least two detainees tied to the 2001 terror attacks were subject to aggressive interrogation techniques that critics say amounted to torture. [1]

---

1. Glaberson, William. The New York Times. 6 Guantanamo Detainees Are Said to Face Trial Over 9/11 (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/09/us/09gitmo.html?_r=2&hp=&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&adxnnlx=1202558621-HPIpA15/Lc4dnPM5hjW8mw&oref=slogin)

The first detainees were charged more than three years ago, but repeated legal challenges have kept any from going to trial.:rolleyes:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,330181,00.html

I don't know if the following amounts to official criminal charges.

On March 1, 2003, counterterrorism forces in Pakistan captured Khalid Shaykh Mohammed, an al-Qa’ida operational commander and the man believed to have been the mastermind of the September 11, 2001, attack. Shaykh Mohammed is also believed to have played a role in a number of other attacks and planned attacks, including the 2002 bombings in Bali, Indonesia, the 2000 bombing of the USS Cole in Yemen, and a 1995 plot to blow up multiple U.S. commercial airliners.


The 9/11 Commission has a profile on the history of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed:

http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report_Ch5.htm

No mention of official criminal charges in that report, but other sources say that the U.S. Government indicted him for the failed 1995 Manila Air bombing operation.

---

1. U.S. Department of Justice and the Federal Bureau of Investigation. 2005. Terrorism: 2002/2005 (http://www.fbi.gov/publications/terror/terrorism2002_2005.htm)

I don't know if the following amounts to official criminal charges.

On March 1, 2003, counterterrorism forces in Pakistan captured Khalid Shaykh Mohammed, an al-Qa’ida operational commander and the man believed to have been the mastermind of the September 11, 2001, attack. Shaykh Mohammed is also believed to have played a role in a number of other attacks and planned attacks, including the 2002 bombings in Bali, Indonesia, the 2000 bombing of the USS Cole in Yemen, and a 1995 plot to blow up multiple U.S. commercial airliners.


The 9/11 Commission has a profile on the history of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed:

http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report_Ch5.htm

No mention of official criminal charges in that report, but other sources say that the U.S. Government indicted him for the failed 1995 Manila Air bombing operation.

---

1. U.S. Department of Justice and the Federal Bureau of Investigation. 2005. Terrorism: 2002/2005 (http://www.fbi.gov/publications/terror/terrorism2002_2005.htm)


Yes they do and he is set for trial.

Be interesting to see how the trial unfolds.

What a joke if they have to release everyone because of torture.

And what a failure of the US Justice system if they accept tainted evidence.

Either way, they are f*cked.

They can proceed without looking like failures if they try and/or convict the accused using evidence not obtained through torture. Witnesses, data, and other correlating incriminating facts. But yeah, the way you said it S.A.M., if it's one of those two, it's ultimately a failure. Personally I think there are war crimes on both sides, but only one side is being prosecuted.

Look at the only man (as far as i know) who was "convicted" under these stupid tribunals, David Hicks

Now he was in solatary confinment for 6YEARS (ignoring whatever else was done to him) and they came to him and said "if you plead guilty then you will be transfered to a jail in Australia (yatla prision, a REGULAR if high security prision), if you dont you will spend the rest of your life in solutary confinment here" So he pleaded guily. MOST of Australia dont think he should be subjected to the profiting from a crime legilation because we dont recognise that he was ever convicted under a FAIR system of justice. I hope he writes that book on gitmo and makes MILLIONS:D and shows the apaling abuses there. I would love nothing more than to see everyone involved right up to Bush HIMSELF changed and convited in front of the ICC

I would like to know if any of the ones who have been waterboarded were charged BEFORE being tortured. No.

And they have all been tortured, waterboarded or not. The confession rates are running almost as high as the confession rates of Israeli prisoners from the Palestinian conflict - somewhere around 97%.

KSM confessed to crimes that were physically impossible for him, and Zubaydah provided confirming evidence as well as his own confession(s).

It was only recently that anyone reached agreement about what kind of court they were to be tried in, let alone under what system of legal jurisdiction they were to be "charged". You can't file charges until the court has been chosen - or created, in this case.

There is little or no evidence against any of them that would be admissable in a regular US court.

If you look at cases like Padilla, probably there will be a last minute adjustiment of the charges to try to find something for which apparently solid, admissable evidence can be manufactured somehow.

One problem seems to be that the US officials involved believed their own propaganda BS - they treated this as a war, instead of a police matter, and now that it has come around to a legal trial their police work is being shown up for what it was.

Look at the only man (as far as i know) who was "convicted" under these stupid tribunals, David Hicks

Now he was in solatary confinment for 6YEARS (ignoring whatever else was done to him) and they came to him and said "if you plead guilty then you will be transfered to a jail in Australia (yatla prision, a REGULAR if high security prision), if you dont you will spend the rest of your life in solutary confinment here" So he pleaded guily. MOST of Australia dont think he should be subjected to the profiting from a crime legilation because we dont recognise that he was ever convicted under a FAIR system of justice. I hope he writes that book on gitmo and makes MILLIONS:D and shows the apaling abuses there. I would love nothing more than to see everyone involved right up to Bush HIMSELF changed and convited in front of the ICC

Think Asguard...THINK.

Wikipedia:


Using the name Muhammed Dawood, the latter being Arabic for "David", Hicks undertook military training in al Qaeda-linked camps and served with the ruling Taliban in Afghanistan in 2001. He was captured in December 2001 by the Afghan Northern Alliance, sold for a $1,000 bounty to the U.S. military,[3] transported to Guantanamo Bay where he was designated an enemy combatant[4] and held without recourse to normal processes of law, during which time he alleged he was tortured.

Using the name Muhammed Dawood, the latter being Arabic for "David", Hicks undertook military training in al Qaeda-linked camps and served with the ruling Taliban in Afghanistan in 2001. He was captured in December 2001 by the Afghan Northern Alliance, sold for a $1,000 bounty to the U.S. military So all of that adds up to what, exactly ?

I have my money in an "AQ linked" bank right now, I think. Dawood there seems to have avoided taking up arms against the US or performed any acts of terrorism, been captured by non-US forces in unknown circumstances involving a rival tribe, bought for 1000 dollars paid to someone living in an economy for which that represents a year's income or more, and systematically tortured and abused for years before finally confessing to something.

The guys he joined were, a lot of them, the guys that had fought the Russians. The US had given them weapons, help, etc. Pakistan, a US ally, supported them. Is merely having joined the Taliban - before 9/11, btw - a crime ?

And if he did join the Taliban as described, the same folks the US attacked with an army and made war against because they had set up as the government of Afghanistan, doesn't that make him a POW ?

Why wasn't he simply handed over to Australia in the first place ?

Because unlike Blair, Howard was so far up Bush's ass he couldnt SEE the views of those who elected him. I think at the end he thought he was actually APOINTED PM by Bush to lead his little slaves

Allegedly. The CIA has negative credibility in this matter - what they say is less likely because they say it.

As with a lot of things you profess to believe, numerous sources have to be ignored or discounted, or your theory falls apart. In this case, all the CIA officers who have gone public about this have to be lying. And the reports written by Bryan Ross and Seymour Hersh are all wrong.

Dozens - probably hundreds - of people were tortured at Abu Ghraib and Gitmo: at Gitmo, at least, the CIA was involved. "Select individuals" my ass.

The CIA, to my knowledge, was not involved at Abu Ghraib becuase the level of detainees there did not warrant it.

In fact, my understanding of the problems there, based on Hersh's book, which I would need to go back and check to be certain, stemmed from flawed military procedures, a glut of untrained military intelligence officers, private contractors and prison guards. Rumsfield's gung-ho memos probably drove part of the behavior there, too.

Gitmo I know less about. I wasn't aware of very many claims of torture there, and the ones I was aware of all seemed spurious, as if they were made to drum up news or provide the foundation for a law suit. On its face, it wouldn't make sense to "torture" high profile captives there. We have a rendition program for that, designed to keep them out of the West and away from American facilities, where the press and the Red Cross visits, etc...

Besides: How much info have they destroyed, and how much have they lost in prevented opportunity for info, and how much info gathering time and expertise have they wasted chasing the kinds of garbage they claim to have obtained as "info" ? A good accounting includes the costs, not just the benefits.

I don't know, and neither do you. Most of this is classified and presented only to the oversight committees. In the absence of real data, you're doing what you always do: Speculating and making wild accusations...

And after that, the effects on a society of setting up its government with a clandestine torture agency can be tossed unto the scales.

To my knowledge, the government has not set up a "cladestine torture agency"...

The CIA was never very good at interrogation, it was never their area of training or expertise, and torturing has not improved their batting average if the crap they've proudly released is representative.

You mean the crap the administration pressures them to release? The CIA wouldn't release a fucking memo, if the president didn't want to try to score cheap political points. You think the officers in the CTC don't know that half the garbage KSM said was just that? Garbage? They know that. But Bush et al want PR coups, so unfiltered after-ops reports get released as neat and tidy press releases...

The guys he joined were, a lot of them, the guys that had fought the Russians. The US had given them weapons, help, etc. Pakistan, a US ally, supported them. Is merely having joined the Taliban - before 9/11, btw - a crime ?

Again, you're showing your ignorance. The Taliban, by and large, were not the guys that "had fought the Russians". They were Talibs from Madrassas in Pakistan, Arabs and other extremists. Most of the militias the US armed in the Afghan-Russian war, the ones run by Dotsum, Massod and others, fought the Taliban from day one. [/QUOTE]

And if he did join the Taliban as described, the same folks the US attacked with an army and made war against because they had set up as the government of Afghanistan, doesn't that make him a POW ?

Only three countries, I think, officially recognized the Taliban: Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and UAE.

I don't know, and neither do you. Most of this is classified and presented only to the oversight committees. I know that such an accounting has not been admitted, and there is no sign that any such analysis has ever been made, or that the people doing this shit have the wisdom to make it.

Which was my point: we have no information of any benefit at all from torturing prisoners. You, for example, have no information on which to base your ignorant and poorly considered personal speculative opinion that torture has had any net benefit whatsoever - and you are deliberately ignoring plenty of circumstantial evidence that it has had large costs.

Which would be normal, historically, for torture-based information gathering. Info is not what the pros have traditionally used torture for. It doesn't work very well, for that.
Gitmo I know less about. I wasn't aware of very many claims of torture there, and the ones I was aware of all seemed spurious, as if they were made to drum up news or provide the foundation for a law suit. On its face, it wouldn't make sense to "torture" high profile captives there. You found the eyewitness FBI accounts unpersuasive, the various connections with Abu Ghraib and Bagram dismissable, the belated discoveries of ghost detainees hidden from observers (such as the Red Cross)unsymptomatic, the interrogation manuals (prior to recent rewriting) uninformative, Yoo's and Gonzalez's legal manueverings unindicative, the various testimonies of lawyers involved untrustworthy, the rate of confession and silence agreements in released captives unworthy of note, the newspaper photos of new arrivals held in painful stress positions blindfolded under the Cuban sun not at all revealing, Hersh's articles undependable, and so forth.

OK

But what would "make sense" for "high profile captives" is irrelevant. No one has ever accused these filthy clowns of restricting their little tricks and techniques to the important, the high profile, or even the informative. They've got people at Gitmo because of typos in their names. That isn't the point, with Gitmo type operations - it could be you, is the point.

You think the officers in the CTC don't know that half the garbage KSM said was just that? Garbage? They know that. Maybe. Do they know which half ? Apparently, they can't take five minutes to edit the obvious foolishness out of a major, headline, President-requested press release. OK. How did it get into the press release ?
The CIA, to my knowledge, was not involved at Abu Ghraib becuase the level of detainees there did not warrant it.

In fact, my understanding of the problems there, The important observation is that there weren't serious "problems" there during the months of abuse. The interrogators were not surprised or displeased with what they were seeing in their sessions, the guy in charge of Gitmo was advising them on techniques from his greater experience, the doctors were doing their jobs, the guards were clearly satisfactory, the whole operation was apparently working as designed for months.

Then some of the photos a couple of guards had been encouraged - Ms England said "ordered" - to take, got loose. Suddenly there were problems.

No photos ever got loose from the rooms the FBI agent observed at Gitmo. So no problems.

I notice you totally ignored two or three points of yours that I completely debunked. Am I to take it that you accept the foolishness of the statements and have tacitly chosen to agree with my ripostes?

Gee, I hope so...

I know that such an accounting has not been admitted, and there is no sign that any such analysis has ever been made, or that the people doing this shit have the wisdom to make it.

Bullshit. The CIA writes detailed reports on just about everything they do. The agency management, the president and the NSC sees sanitized versions (that remove no relevant information) of all these reports. The Senate and House committees see versions, too. They are also orally briefed about ongoing operations, lest those operations would not be funded. What you seem to be aching for is a PUBLIC accounting, which will never happen, no matter what administration is in charge.

To reiterate points I've made in other posts, it's amusing to me how the Democrats whine and moan about things when they are brief on them and many of the practices in place were executed by Bill Clinton. That's right. Rendition didn't start with a tyrannical George W. Bush...

You, for example, have no information on which to base your ignorant and poorly considered personal speculative opinion that torture has had any net benefit whatsoever

Bullshit again. I've reports from Bryan Ross and Seymour Hersh, I have the testimony of several former CIA officers who have gone public, so why do you insist on saying something as dishonest as what you have here. You know I've posted links bolstering everything I said. And you know this, because the links I posted were all in threads that you were participating in. So please, don't lob these stupid attacks at me, pretending that I'm just pulling shit out of my ass. "Personal speculative opinion" is your modus operandi, not mine. I base my conclusions on evidence and facts.

Remember this?

http://i.abcnews.com/Blotter/story?id=3978231&page=1

I've posted it before...

- and you are deliberately ignoring plenty of circumstantial evidence that it has had large costs.

I've acknowledged the problems the practice has created and questioned its overall morality several times on this site. You know this, because you participated in the discussions where I made such remarks. I've also said I haven't reach any conclusion about how I feel about the technique because the evidence is very contradictory, which makes reaching a final decision about it difficult. See, I base my conclusion on reality. I don't just respond to things based on an ideology, and as I said before, if you look at the evidence honestly, making up your mind about the practice should be a fairly complicated ordeal. But for you it isn't. I'd wager your ease of decision rests on the fact you rarely look at anything honestly and without bias.

You found the eyewitness FBI accounts unpersuasive, the various connections with Abu Ghraib and Bagram dismissable, the belated discoveries of ghost detainees hidden from observers (such as the Red Cross)unsymptomatic, the interrogation manuals (prior to recent rewriting) uninformative, Yoo's and Gonzalez's legal manueverings unindicative, the various testimonies of lawyers involved untrustworthy, the rate of confession and silence agreements in released captives unworthy of note, the newspaper photos of new arrivals held in painful stress positions blindfolded under the Cuban sun not at all revealing, Hersh's articles undependable, and so forth.

No, I said I didn't know much about it, and the few reports I'd seen weren't persuasive. Before reaching a rationale decision, I'd have to review all the material you referenced.

That isn't the point, with Gitmo type operations - it could be you, is the point.

And that's utter bullshit. The people at Gitmo are people captured on the battlefield in Iraq and Afghanistan, people found in terrorist training camps and people suspected of cooperating with terrorists. So please, spare me the "it could be you" crap, as if a black helicopter is going to swoop down on me in Suburbia and whisk me away from the Starbucks. Much as you would like to pretend otherwise, the USA is not some Orwellian nightmare...

Apparently, they can't take five minutes to edit the obvious foolishness out of a major, headline, President-requested press release. OK. How did it get into the press release ?

These are fairly easy questions to answer. I mean, on the one hand you accuse the president of manipulating pre-war intelligence, and now you play dumb and pretend like he can't order raw intelligence to be leaked to the Media. The KSM stuff reads like unprocessed intelligence. That means a lot of the garbage was still in there. It hadn't been scrutinized by analysts, corroborated by operators, etc.

No photos ever got loose from the rooms the FBI agent observed at Gitmo. So no problems.

I never said no problems, and I'm not defending what happened at Abu Ghraib. My only point is that the CIA was not involved there, to my knowledge. You seemed to claim they were. And, as usual, you have nothing to back that claim up, other than you hope they were, because it fits your template.

And that's utter bullshit. The people at Gitmo are people captured on the battlefield in Iraq and Afghanistan, people found in terrorist training camps and people suspected of cooperating with terrorists. So please, spare me the "it could be you" crap, as if a black helicopter is going to swoop down on me in Suburbia and whisk me away from the Starbucks. Much as you would like to pretend otherwise, the USA is not some Orwellian nightmare... um the us has grab random people and sent them to gitmo in fact a large percentage of the people who are there were detained in large sweeps

I notice you totally ignored two or three points of yours that I completely debunked. Haven't seen any debunkings. Lots of claims and brags and personal insults - - - life is short. I respond to those on a quota basis.
What you seem to be aching for is a PUBLIC accounting, which will never happen, no matter what administration is in charge. I have yet to see the slightest sign of awareness, from the CIA or the oversight committes or the administration, of the opportunity and side costs of torture as policy. Any analysis of torturing that took these into careful account would do.

I have heard the Abu Ghraib defendents described as the "six people who lost the war" - but only in the context of blaming them.

And I know the CIA doesn't have much experience in interrogations - that has never been one of the CIA's functions. What they have published, as intelligence gained by torture, is garbage. Am I supposed to just assume they know what they are doing, in the face of every piece of evidence available to me and their history of continual fuckup and blowback ?
so why do you insist on saying something as dishonest as what you have here. You know I've posted links bolstering everything I said. Your wild, speculative claims of net benefit are not supported by your links or your arguments. I can't even tell if you've recognized the problems. None of your links consider the matter at all, and you misrepresent every post of mine on the topic, so - - - .

You keep posting shit like this: Remember this?

http://i.abcnews.com/Blotter/story?id=3978231&page=1

I've posted it before... Which I responded to, trying to avoid sarcasm about the "intelligence" from Zubaydah and the bullshit sense of urgency he confesses, the first time you posted it. Apparently you regard that as some of the "contradictory evidence" that confuses you: I've also said I haven't reach any conclusion about how I feel about the technique because the evidence is very contradictory, which makes reaching a final decision about it difficult The short version is: there's no factual evidence bearing on anything I'm talking about, in that link. Some CIA guy thinks torture is occasionally necessary - so? Christ, I would hope there were at least a few CIA guys who think it's necessary - if they've just been doing it for entertainment it's time to break out the torches and pitchforks.
And that's utter bullshit. The people at Gitmo are people captured on the battlefield in Iraq and Afghanistan, people found in terrorist training camps and people suspected of cooperating with terrorists. People "suspected of cooperating with terrorists", is it? Like I said - it could be you. Most of the detainees at Gitmo appear to have been innocent, after all.

It's interesting that the one of the first guys tried was a white Australian on whom they had dubious evidence, mostly confession. Funny they didn't choose somebody they had dead to rights and who looked scary Islamic, to start the ball rolling and improve their image, eh?

My only point is that the CIA was not involved there, to my knowledge. You seemed to claim they were. No, I specifically and explicitly avoided claiming the CIA was involved with Abu Ghraib. I "seemed" to not.

The commander of Gitmo was involved with Abu Ghraib, though. He advised the interrogators there on techniques - based on his experience at Gitmo.

We're charging 6 terrorists held in Club Gitmo:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080211/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/us_sept_11_trial

The death penalty would be way too lenient for these vile scum.

um the us has grab random people and sent them to gitmo in fact a large percentage of the people who are there were detained in large sweeps

Sorry, that's just not true.

Haven't seen any debunkings. Lots of claims and brags and personal insults - - - life is short. I respond to those on a quota basis.

You spoke of the govt. setting up a "clandestine torture agency." This has not happened, and I pointed it out.

You talked about the Taliban being made up of people who fought as Mujihadeen in the Soviet/Afghan war. That's not an accurate statement, and I pointed it out.

You talked about POW status for Taliban fighters, etc. I pointed out the US never recognized the Taliban as the official govt. of Afghanistan, nor did the UN or the vast majority of nation states. My point, not voiced, is that this makes it difficult to claim POW status, given that the Talibs were never a part of any officially recognized army.

You challenged none of these assertions.

I have yet to see the slightest sign of awareness, from the CIA or the oversight committes or the administration, of the opportunity and side costs of torture as policy. Any analysis of torturing that took these into careful account would do.

It's true there has been no public analysis that deal with such costs, but as I already pointed out, or suggested, the fact this isn't happening publicly doesn't mean it isn't happening. Organizations such as the CIA routinely assess the effectiveness of their operations, because like anybody else, they don't want to continue to invest time and energy in something that isn't working or is creating more problems than it is solving.

I suspect you're looking for some sort of political theater or a moral court of public opinion, wherein this is all parsed over and reviewed and commented on by politicians and pundits alike. That's not going to happen. If this frustrates you, you need to consider why it is the oversight committees bitch about the OPS they continue to approve and reach the obvious conclusion: Their bitching is largely posturing for political purposes.

And I know the CIA doesn't have much experience in interrogations - that has never been one of the CIA's functions.

I suspect they know how to run an interrogation, though perhaps not one that involves force. You need to modify your remarks. These people interrogate their own employees every five years. I mean, for Christ's sake, are your really this daft?

What they have published, as intelligence gained by torture, is garbage.

Some of it is garbage. All of it is not. We have numerous sources that talk about plots that have been disrupted and foiled thanks to the intelligence the agency has gleamed from KSM and others. But yeah, I guess they're all just a bunch of fucking idiots up there in Langley, right?

Am I supposed to just assume they know what they are doing, in the face of every piece of evidence available to me and their history of continual fuckup and blowback ?

I reject the subjective premise embedded in your question — the whole "continual fuckup and blowback" part. Given how little you seem to know about the history of the organization and its successes and failures, based on our past discussions, I hardly think you're qualified to make this kind of claim. You should try reading about the CIA sometime. It would help.

Your wild, speculative claims of net benefit are not supported by your links or your arguments. I can't even tell if you've recognized the problems. None of your links consider the matter at all, and you misrepresent every post of mine on the topic, so - - - .

First of all, I never said "net benefit." Not once. Never. The only thing I have claimed, and I've been consistent in doing so, is that what you call torture has produced useful intelligence. I've provided numerous links to bolster this claim, which you insist on calling "wild" and "speculative," apparently, because like a child, you think that if you say something enough times, people will believe you. Grow up and deal with reality. You might not like what the CIA is doing, it might generally be ineffective, but it's not nearly the cut and dried issue you continually try to make it, and if you were honest, you would see this.

You keep posting shit like this:

Yes, it's shit. It's direct testimony from a CIA officer involved in the interrogations who is familiar with the results. What "shit" that is. Perhaps in the future I should avoid people with direct knowledge of what's going on in the world and just speculate and post my opinion. After all, that's what you do. No, wait. I have a better idea. From now on, I will ignore the principals and base all my arguments on WHAT ICE THINKS. After all, you KNOW, don't you?

Which I responded to, trying to avoid sarcasm about the "intelligence" from Zubaydah and the bullshit sense of urgency he confesses, the first time you posted it.

You've posted nothing that directly refutes this story. Nothing. All you've done is offer your opinion, which I'm not bound to accept as meaning all that much, when I compare to this report — and numerous others — that come from sources who actually know what the fuck is going on and aren't some biased, loudmouth poster on a web site.

Apparently you regard that as some of the "contradictory evidence" that confuses you:

Yes, I do. And it's compelling...

Some CIA guy thinks torture is occasionally necessary - so?

That CIA guy also said we got good information that broke up plots and saved lives. That's not compelling enough to penetrate your thick skull and force you to think outside your preordained bubble? It should be...

People "suspected of cooperating with terrorists", is it? Like I said - it could be you. Most of the detainees at Gitmo appear to have been innocent, after all.

Really? Why do you say that?

That CIA guy also said we got good information that broke up plots and saved lives. That's not compelling enough to penetrate your thick skull and force you to think outside your preordained bubble? A CIA guy complicit in torture credits info from torture with breaking up plots and saving lives

with no actual evidence of these benefits, no argument comparing the benefits of more reputable and professionally endorsed interrogation techniques to whatever benefits were actually obtained, no visible consideration of the various costs of the torture as policy, and no acknowledgment of the inexperience of the CIA in the whole area in the first place

and somehow you find that not only relevant, but "evidence" of something ?

The only evidence in that link is of the existence of at least one CIA agent who thinks torture is necessary at times, or at least is willing to make that claim in public.

No one needs convincing about that, Count. Everyone you are responding to here has been assuming that all along.

First of all, I never said "net benefit." Not once. Never. The only thing I have claimed, and I've been consistent in doing so, is that what you call torture has produced useful intelligence. Then why are you getting all heated up over my postings, which have never contradicted that claim ?

Sorry, that's just not true.



You spoke of the govt. setting up a "clandestine torture agency." This has not happened, and I pointed it out.

You talked about the Taliban being made up of people who fought as Mujihadeen in the Soviet/Afghan war. That's not an accurate statement, and I pointed it out.

You talked about POW status for Taliban fighters, etc. I pointed out the US never recognized the Taliban as the official govt. of Afghanistan, nor did the UN or the vast majority of nation states. My point, not voiced, is that this makes it difficult to claim POW status, given that the Talibs were never a part of any officially recognized army.

You challenged none of these assertions.



It's true there has been no public analysis that deal with such costs, but as I already pointed out, or suggested, the fact this isn't happening publicly doesn't mean it isn't happening. Organizations such as the CIA routinely assess the effectiveness of their operations, because like anybody else, they don't want to continue to invest time and energy in something that isn't working or is creating more problems than it is solving.

I suspect you're looking for some sort of political theater or a moral court of public opinion, wherein this is all parsed over and reviewed and commented on by politicians and pundits alike. That's not going to happen. If this frustrates you, you need to consider why it is the oversight committees bitch about the OPS they continue to approve and reach the obvious conclusion: Their bitching is largely posturing for political purposes.



I suspect they know how to run an interrogation, though perhaps not one that involves force. You need to modify your remarks. These people interrogate their own employees every five years. I mean, for Christ's sake, are your really this daft?



Some of it is garbage. All of it is not. We have numerous sources that talk about plots that have been disrupted and foiled thanks to the intelligence the agency has gleamed from KSM and others. But yeah, I guess they're all just a bunch of fucking idiots up there in Langley, right?



I reject the subjective premise embedded in your question — the whole "continual fuckup and blowback" part. Given how little you seem to know about the history of the organization and its successes and fa