PDA

View Full Version : Coming Soon: Declassified Bush-Era Torture Memos



DenButsu
03-23-2009, 05:39 AM
Coming Soon: Declassified Bush-Era Torture Memos

Over objections from the U.S. intelligence community, the White House is moving to declassify—and publicly release—three internal memos that will lay out, for the first time, details of the "enhanced" interrogation techniques approved by the Bush administration for use against "high value" Qaeda detainees. The memos, written by Justice Department lawyers in May 2005, provide the legal rationale for waterboarding, head slapping and other rough tactics used by the CIA. One senior Obama official, who like others interviewed for this story requested anonymity because of the issue's sensitivity, said the memos were "ugly" and could embarrass the CIA. Other officials predicted they would fuel demands for a "truth commission" on torture.

Because of an executive order signed by President Obama on Jan. 22 banning such aggressive tactics, deputies to Attorney General Eric Holder Jr. concluded there was no longer any reason to keep the interrogation memos classified. But current and former intel officials pushed back, arguing that any public release might still compromise "sources and methods." According to the administration official, ex-CIA director Michael Hayden was "furious" about the prospect of disclosure and tried to intervene directly with Obama officials. But the White House has sided with Holder. Faced with a court deadline in a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit regarding the memos filed by the ACLU, Justice lawyers asked for a two-week extension "because the memoranda are being reviewed for possible release." (White House, Justice and CIA spokesmen all declined to comment.)

The debate about torture ramped up again last week with an account in the New York Review of Books about a secret International Red Cross report that was delivered to the CIA in February 2007. The report, according to journalist Mark Danner, quotes detainees describing, often in gruesome detail, how they were locked in coffin-size boxes; swung by towels around their necks into plywood walls; and forced to stand naked for days while their arms were shackled above their heads.

"I now know we were not fully and completely briefed on the CIA program," Senate Intelligence Committee chairwoman Dianne Feinstein told NEWSWEEK. A U.S. official disputed the charge, claiming that members of Congress received more than 30 briefings over the life of the CIA program and that Congressional intel panels had seen the Red Cross report. But the CIA insisted that the report be treated as if it had higher than top-secret classification, precluding any public discussion of its contents. That's why declassification of the memos is significant, administration officials say: it would remove, at long last, the veil of secrecy about how detainees in the war on terror were actually treated.Newsweek (http://www.newsweek.com/id/190362?from=rss)

DodgersFan28
03-23-2009, 07:51 AM
None of you are interested in the truth, except if that truth confirms that the U.S. did indeed "torture" according to the 9,754 different definitions that have been applied to the word. Yay unproductive talking points. :rolleyes:

DenButsu
03-23-2009, 10:14 AM
Actually, the truth is exactly what I'm interested in.

And yes, ...

"they were locked in coffin-size boxes"

check

"swung by towels around their necks into plywood walls"

check

"and forced to stand naked for days while their arms were shackled above their heads"

check


Yep, all of those most definitely fit the definition of torture.

gcoll
03-23-2009, 12:38 PM
quotes detainees describing

Not the most reliable source, but we'll see where it goes.

SmthBluCitrus
03-23-2009, 12:46 PM
I forget if this has been posted before. If it has, apologies. (caution: graphic)

Andrew Sullivan: How Bush And Cheney Tortured II: Verschaerfte Vernehmung (http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2009/03/how-bush-and--1.html)


More leaked Red Cross testimony, this time from one of the first "enhanced interrogation" victims on whom Bush and Cheney experimented. Remember: these guards and torturers are Americans, under orders from an American president, against US law, in violation of UN treaties, in total contravention of the Geneva Conventions, and far from any hypothetical "ticking time bomb" scenario:

US Torture: Voices from the Black Sites (http://www.nybooks.com/articles/22530)

PHX-SOXFAN
03-23-2009, 01:09 PM
Not the most reliable source, but we'll see where it goes.

so is what they say reliable when they are being tortured, I mean interrogated? double standard.

Irregardless, these memos should shut cheney up on this issue and destroy any credibility he has left. I'm glad the facts and truth are coming out. no need for talking points when you can have the words from the pen of the previous administration.

DenButsu
03-23-2009, 01:24 PM
so is what they say reliable when they are being tortured, I mean interrogated?

That is the best point I've ever seen you make in this forum, hands down. :cheers:

gcoll
03-23-2009, 03:21 PM
so is what they say reliable when they are being tortured, I mean interrogated?
I would assume no, but I've never interrogated anyone.

Not sure what point you are trying to make. I'm not in favor of "enhanced interrogation techniques" so I'm not sure why you are directing this question at me, unless it's rhetorical.

PHX-SOXFAN
03-23-2009, 03:31 PM
I would assume no, but I've never interrogated anyone.

Not sure what point you are trying to make. I'm not in favor of "enhanced interrogation techniques" so I'm not sure why you are directing this question at me, unless it's rhetorical.

db understood who this was directed to. it's towards those who advocate torture, but want to be a hypocrit by disputing the statements of detainees regarding torture. it's the epitome of a hypocrit. if that's not you fine, it still serves a purpose for those who post on here on both sides of this issue

yankeesmindset
03-23-2009, 03:58 PM
But, beheading innocent individuals on film is OK???? Let's go waterboarding!

SmthBluCitrus
03-23-2009, 04:03 PM
But, beheading innocent individuals on film is OK???? Let's go waterboarding!

So, you want to lower yourself to their standards? Good for you. We're the United States, we're better than that.

yankeesmindset
03-23-2009, 04:04 PM
So, you want to lower yourself to their standards? Good for you. We're the United States, we're better than that.

And we should have closed the coffins and buried them!

SmthBluCitrus
03-23-2009, 04:09 PM
And we should have closed the coffins and buried them!

So, if and when it happens to you you're not going to ***** and moan, right? You'll just stand up (or lay down) and take it like a man. Hooah!

yankeesmindset
03-23-2009, 04:14 PM
So, if and when it happens to you you're not going to ***** and moan, right? You'll just stand up (or lay down) and take it like a man. Hooah!

Trust me. They would never take me alive! From the way you talk I guess you are expecting them to invade here? Cause I would never go to the hell hole they created and call home.

SmthBluCitrus
03-23-2009, 04:15 PM
Trust me. They would never take me alive! From the way you talk I guess you are expecting them to invade here? Cause I would never go to the hell hole they created and call home.

Chicken hawk ... :pity:

yankeesmindset
03-23-2009, 04:16 PM
So, if and when it happens to you you're not going to ***** and moan, right? You'll just stand up (or lay down) and take it like a man. Hooah!

Proud card carrying member of the NRA. :smoking:

SmthBluCitrus
03-23-2009, 04:18 PM
Proud card carrying member of the NRA. :smoking:

:laugh2:

I didn't know you had to get one of those for Super Soakers.

yankeesmindset
03-23-2009, 04:19 PM
Chicken hawk ... :pity:

Just a proud Hawk patriot! :guns::guns:

dbroncos78087
03-23-2009, 04:21 PM
So, you want to lower yourself to their standards? Good for you. We're the United States, we should be better than that.

Corrected.

SmthBluCitrus
03-23-2009, 04:27 PM
Just a proud Hawk patriot! :guns::guns:

That wants others to go off and fight his battles for him. Chicken Hawk.

SmthBluCitrus
03-23-2009, 04:27 PM
Corrected.

Fair enough.

yankeesmindset
03-23-2009, 04:30 PM
That wants others to go off and fight his battles for him. Chicken Hawk.

Never a Mod around when micros do their baiting! :rolleyes:

SmthBluCitrus
03-23-2009, 04:39 PM
Never a Mod around when micros do their baiting! :rolleyes:

I didn't realize that "chicken hawk" was a bait. I thought it was more of an "I support war but don't want to go" ideology. One which you apparently subscribe to.

behindmydesk
03-23-2009, 04:50 PM
I didn't realize that "chicken hawk" was a bait. I thought it was more of an "I support war but don't want to go" ideology. One which you apparently subscribe to.

Yes, but every war has different parts. We should get back into Victory Bonds.

SmthBluCitrus
03-23-2009, 04:52 PM
Yes, but every war has different parts. We should get back into Victory Bonds.

True. But, to say that "you'll never catch me there" while overtly advocating unethical actions and promoting a war-like/mongering disposition is certainly chicken hawkery.

yankeesmindset
03-23-2009, 04:55 PM
True. But, to say that "you'll never catch me there" while overtly advocating unethical actions and promoting a war-like/mongering disposition is certainly chicken hawkery.

You sure make alot of assumptions.

SmthBluCitrus
03-23-2009, 04:59 PM
You sure make alot of assumptions.

Assumptions? Where?

Was it this one?


But, beheading innocent individuals on film is OK???? Let's go waterboarding!

This one?


And we should have closed the coffins and buried them!

This one?


Trust me. They would never take me alive! From the way you talk I guess you are expecting them to invade here? Cause I would never go to the hell hole they created and call home.

Or this one?


Just a proud Hawk patriot! :guns::guns:

yankeesmindset
03-23-2009, 05:05 PM
Or take over their country, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity!

SmthBluCitrus
03-23-2009, 05:07 PM
Or take over their country, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity!

And, this constitutes the end of my conversation (and future conversations) with you.

dbroncos78087
03-23-2009, 05:18 PM
Or take over their country, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity!

So we fight fire with fire? Hate with hate?

yankeesmindset
03-23-2009, 05:53 PM
So we fight fire with fire? Hate with hate?

That's what they understand. You do not appease. Obama is in for a rude awakening by reaching out to Iran.

lakersrock
03-23-2009, 06:38 PM
I love how people want to bring up Geneva when they are terrorists and not a foreign country's army. If they agree to join the people wanting to kill us, too flipping bad if they get treated roughly. Don't try killing Americans and we won't have a problem. You do and there's not a bad enough way to die imo.

Also, I hope Obama has fun trying to make Bush look as bad as possible. In 2012 when there is a Republican President, Senate and House, his dirty laundry will be flying in the wind.

For all the liberals in here. Say someone comes in your house and rapes your wife and ties you up to watch. Now are you thinking about how you can convince them through words what they're doing is wrong and why they should stop or are you gonna try getting out of the ties and beat the ever living out of them? How's it any different with terrorists trying to kill fellow Americans? I just don't get how some people can care how we treat people who want to kill Americans. If I saw someone trying to kill any of you I disagree with, they would have a problem on their hands. It wouldn't be my words, it'd be me kicking the you know what out of them. It makes me feel good to know you guys would just ask them to stop since it's not nice.

SmthBluCitrus
03-23-2009, 06:51 PM
I love people and their hypothetical situations ... they're always so well thought out and on point.

lakersrock
03-23-2009, 06:55 PM
I love people and their hypothetical situations ... they're always so well thought out and on point.

Thanks for side-stepping the question. Instead of admitting you care about treating American murderers fairly, you just bring it back to what I did.

....because someone drives a getaway car for a murderer and they're just as guilty. It's the same thing with joining terrorists who committed the worst act on American soil.

Cubsrule
03-23-2009, 06:58 PM
Thanks for side-stepping the question. Instead of admitting you care about treating American murderers fairly, you just bring it back to what I did.

Me and SBC were going back and forth about this, I feel like you and could care less what happens to those ******s. Then again torture should be a last resort, she thinks its unamerican, so technically we're at a standstill.

lakersrock
03-23-2009, 07:00 PM
Me and SBC were going back and forth about this, I feel like you and could care less what happens to those ******s. Then again torture should be a last resort, she thinks its unamerican, so technically we're at a standstill.

Torturing terrorists is more American than not doing everything possible to protect other Americans. How is that so hard to grasp?

I'm not advocating the free use of torture. In a perfect world, we wouldn't even know such a word.....thing is, we're not in a perfect world. We're in a world where a LOT of people want to kill every American they can. If torture leads us to the head of the snake, then use it. For any other reason is what is un-American. Torture for the sake of torture is pathetic, torture for the sake of destroying our enemy from the top is something completely different.

Cubsrule
03-23-2009, 07:01 PM
Torturing terrorists is more American than not doing everything possible to protect other Americans. How is that so hard to grasp?

Thank the ACLU

SmthBluCitrus
03-23-2009, 07:03 PM
Because you're using an inane hypothetical situation. It's absurd.

First, I don't have a wife. I'm not a lesbian. So, your little situation doesn't apply to me. But, it's also a completely different circumstance. Any action that would be taken in your little "story" would be reactionary. That is, unless you completely disarm, disable, and immobilize the rapist. And, in that case, I would hope you would have called the proper authorities.

Secondly, you're falling victim to the same situation as Cubsrule was earlier. You're acting as though there's a limited choice between the rights and lives of Americans and the rights of terrorists.

Germans, Japanese, North Koreans, Vietnamese, Iraqis, etc ... all wanted to "kill us," too. But, that still doesn't mean that they didn't require the humanitarian respect that is warranted for a prisoner. Terrorists are no different, even if they aren't members of a nation-state.

Nor is it "just words" that are being used. That's another area in which you fail.

As for Republicans holding the White House and the entire legislative branch -- yea, good luck with that.

yankeesmindset
03-23-2009, 07:05 PM
Thank the ACLU

Established as an off shoot of the Communist Party.

ari1013
03-23-2009, 07:09 PM
Or take over their country, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity!
Who was it that was wondering why I hate Christianists? There's some evidence right here.^^^^

ari1013
03-23-2009, 07:10 PM
That's what they understand. You do not appease. Obama is in for a rude awakening by reaching out to Iran.
Opening up dialogue is not the same thing as appeasement. Appeasement would be the US telling Iran that they can have Iraqi territory if they'll just leave the rest of the world alone.

lakersrock
03-23-2009, 07:11 PM
Because you're using an inane hypothetical situation. It's absurd.

You've never heard of home invasion rape and murders? I guess you live in never-never land if you think that's an insane hypothetical situation.


First, I don't have a wife. I'm not a lesbian. So, your little situation doesn't apply to me. But, it's also a completely different circumstance. Any action that would be taken in your little "story" would be reactionary. That is, unless you completely disarm, disable, and immobilize the rapist. And, in that case, I would hope you would have called the proper authorities.

First off, pretend someone comes in and wants to kill your husband. Same difference. I was hoping the people in here used enough smarts to swap roles if that was necessary.

How is there a differece? They are hurting someone you care about. Same thing with 9-11. I'm an American, they hurt Americans, they did it to me too.


Secondly, you're falling victim to the same situation as Cubsrule was earlier. You're acting as though there's a limited choice between the rights and lives of Americans and the rights of terrorists.

Victim? This is a discussion. Victims are those who have died at the hands of terrorists.

Terrorists want to kill Americans. They have no rights. Period.


Germans, Japanese, North Koreans, Vietnamese, Iraqis, etc ... all wanted to "kill us," too. But, that still doesn't mean that they didn't require the humanitarian respect that is warranted for a prisoner. Terrorists are no different, even if they aren't members of a nation-state.

You can't be included in the Geneva Convention if you arn't from a country. Those are applied to country's soldiers and it says as much. Just because you apparently want to treat people who would love nothing more than to kill YOU...literally, YOU...with compassion doesn't qualify them.


Nor is it "just words" that are being used. That's another area in which you fail.

As for Republicans holding the White House and the entire legislative branch -- yea, good luck with that.

Yeah, we can ask them until we turn blue where to find their leaders and they won't peep. On the other hand, you start applying pressure and those lips will pop open.

Yeah, all it's gonna take is Obama still having us 1 Trillion in debt and a lot of jobs still being lost. Spending 700B when you're in a 2T hole isn't the best way to get out. When it doesn't work, every Republican will run on and win by saying I didn't vote for it.

Cubsrule
03-23-2009, 07:13 PM
Because you're using an inane hypothetical situation. It's absurd.

First, I don't have a wife. I'm not a lesbian. So, your little situation doesn't apply to me. But, it's also a completely different circumstance. Any action that would be taken in your little "story" would be reactionary. That is, unless you completely disarm, disable, and immobilize the rapist. And, in that case, I would hope you would have called the proper authorities.

Secondly, you're falling victim to the same situation as Cubsrule was earlier. You're acting as though there's a limited choice between the rights and lives of Americans and the rights of terrorists.
Germans, Japanese, North Koreans, Vietnamese, Iraqis, etc ... all wanted to "kill us," too. But, that still doesn't mean that they didn't require the humanitarian respect that is warranted for a prisoner. Terrorists are no different, even if they aren't members of a nation-state.

Nor is it "just words" that are being used. That's another area in which you fail.

As for Republicans holding the White House and the entire legislative branch -- yea, good luck with that.

As far as I know SBC, those were the only options when it came to torture or not torture.

ari1013
03-23-2009, 07:16 PM
If you kill someone who attempts to rape and/or murder you, that's self-defense. If you kill a guy who's trying to blow himself up or kill a bunch of civilians in a different fashion, that's also a defensive measure.

If you take a prisoner of war, that person no longer poses a threat to you while he or she is in your custody. Therefore, you are obliged to follow the Geneva Convention. Let's suppose that we really did say **** you to the GC. What's to stop our enemies from doing the same thing to our soldiers? We have to set the right example because we're the good guys. We don't need to blur the line and vindicate the crazies (like Democracy Now! and Alex Jones) who hate the US and would prefer to see the nation collapse.

ari1013
03-23-2009, 07:18 PM
As far as I know SBC, those were the only options when it came to torture or not torture.
So we're torturing just for the hell of it?

We torture to gather intelligence. But there are other methods to interrogate a prisoner without torture. This isn't 24.

Cubsrule
03-23-2009, 07:21 PM
So we're torturing just for the hell of it?

We torture to gather intelligence. But there are other methods to interrogate a prisoner without torture. This isn't 24.

We had this discussion earlier, and no it's not for the hell of it. Which technique do you think is more accurate or more trustworthy?

SmthBluCitrus
03-23-2009, 07:22 PM
You've never heard of home invasion rape and murders? I guess you live in never-never land if you think that's an insane hypothetical situation.

Yep, because that's why I said. I distinctly remember claiming that home invasion never happened. :rolleyes:

But hey, resort to petty biting remarks. That will certainly get your point across.

No, of course home invasion and rape exist. But, since you obviously failed to recognize the differences in your (inane) hypothetical scenario and detained and imprisoned suspects of terror, I can't help you.


First off, pretend someone comes in and wants to kill your husband. Same difference. I was hoping the people in here used enough smarts to swap roles if that was necessary.

Again, completely different idea altogether. It would be a case of reaction to a over-stressed situation based on adrenaline, not premeditated.


How is there a differece? They are hurting someone you care about. Same thing with 9-11. I'm an American, they hurt Americans, they did it to me too.

Again, there's a difference between premeditation and reaction.


Victim? This is a discussion. Victims are those who have died at the hands of terrorists.

No, you're falling victim to an illogical choice. It's not always a choice between A and B -- and this is one of those circumstances.


Terrorists want to kill Americans. They have no rights. Period.

:laugh2:

Okay ...



You can't be included in the Geneva Convention if you arn't from a country. Those are applied to country's soldiers and it says as much. Just because you apparently want to treat people who would love nothing more than to kill YOU...literally, YOU...with compassion doesn't qualify them.

It depends on what your definition of "enemy combatants" is as to how the Geneva Conventions apply.

But, the fact that it requires all member nations to participate in humane and humanitarian treatment of detainees, prisoners, etc ... I would suggest that directly correlates with any enemy combatants, regardless of national affiliation.


Yeah, we can ask them until we turn blue where to find their leaders and they won't peep. On the other hand, you start applying pressure and those lips will pop open.

Debatable.


Yeah, all it's gonna take is Obama still having us 1 Trillion in debt and a lot of jobs still being lost. Spending 700B when you're in a 2T hole isn't the best way to get out. When it doesn't work, every Republican will run on and win by saying I didn't vote for it.

Good joke! Seriously.

SmthBluCitrus
03-23-2009, 07:24 PM
As far as I know SBC, those were the only options when it came to torture or not torture.

:laugh2:

When you put it that way, yes. But, that's not the argument. The argument is about the rights and lives of Americans vs the rights of terrorists and whether they have any. It's not an either-or thing.

ari1013
03-23-2009, 07:27 PM
We had this discussion earlier, and no it's not for the hell of it. Which technique do you think is more accurate or more trustworthy?
How the heck should I know? I'm an economist, not an interrogator. But the point is that we don't need to sink down to the level of an evil despotic dictator.

The only evidence I've ever seen that suggested that torture was successful was with Khalid Sheikh Mohammad -- and it turned out that everything he said was complete ********. He just didn't want to be hurt any more.

How did that help us? We spent millions of dollars chasing false leads.

Cubsrule
03-23-2009, 07:28 PM
:laugh2:

When you put it that way, yes. But, that's not the argument. The argument is about the rights and lives of Americans vs the rights of terrorists and whether they have any. It's not an either-or thing.

To put it simply, if I had a guy like Mohammed in my custody and he refused to talk, you bet your *** I would do whatever necassary to get it out of him, torture or no torture. The guy confessed and gave descriptions to like 101 terrorist acts. But then again you might take a different appraoch.

Cubsrule
03-23-2009, 07:31 PM
How the heck should I know? I'm an economist, not an interrogator. But the point is that we don't need to sink down to the level of an evil despotic dictator.

They were isolated incidents to gain valuable information when all other options had been exhausted.


The only evidence I've ever seen that suggested that torture was successful was with Khalid Sheikh Mohammad -- and it turned out that everything he said was complete ********. He just didn't want to be hurt any more.

From the National Review


KSM “didn’t resist,” one CIA veteran said in the August 13 issue of The New Yorker. “He sang right away. He cracked real quick.” Another CIA official told ABC News: “KSM lasted the longest under water-boarding, about a minute and a half, but once he broke, it never had to be used again.”

KSM’s revelations helped authorities identify and incarcerate at least six major terrorists:

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZjNkYmU2NWVlOWE4MTU5MjhiOGNmMWUwMjdjZjU2ZjA=


How did that help us? We spent millions of dollars chasing false leads.

Source?

ari1013
03-23-2009, 07:37 PM
They were isolated incidents to gain valuable information when all other options had been exhausted.



From the National Review



http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZjNkYmU2NWVlOWE4MTU5MjhiOGNmMWUwMjdjZjU2ZjA=



Source?
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/22530
http://thechronicleherald.ca/World/1111741.html



I gave a lot of false information in order to satisfy what I believed the interrogators wished to hear in order to make the ill-treatment stop.... I'm sure that the false information I was forced to invent...wasted a lot of their time and led to several false red-alerts being placed in the US.

Yup, he opened right up :rolleyes:

Cubsrule
03-23-2009, 07:39 PM
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/22530
http://thechronicleherald.ca/World/1111741.html




Yup, he opened right up :rolleyes:

You honestly believe what a terrorist says. I know you're smarter than that ari.

ari1013
03-23-2009, 07:41 PM
You honestly believe what a terrorist says. I know you're smarter than that ari.
No! That's the whole freaking point. I don't believe a single word that comes out of his mouth. We can torture him all we want and I still wouldn't believe anything he says. He hates us. He planned on killing tens of thousands of Americans in total. Why the hell would he help us out at all?

I'm glad you have confidence in my intelligence. Now show me you can understand the above paragraph as well.

Cubsrule
03-23-2009, 07:44 PM
No! That's the whole freaking point. I don't believe a single word that comes out of his mouth. We can torture him all we want and I still wouldn't believe anything he says. He hates us. He planned on killing tens of thousands of Americans in total. Why the hell would he help us out at all?

I'm glad you have confidence in my intelligence. Now show me you can understand the above paragraph as well.

The problem is ari I don't know what he said to interrogators, all I know is it led to arrests. I never listened to him at all, I just saw the results.

SmthBluCitrus
03-23-2009, 07:48 PM
The problem is ari I don't know what he said to interrogators, all I know is it led to arrests. I never listened to him at all, I just saw the results.

So did McCarthyism.

Cubsrule
03-23-2009, 07:49 PM
So did McCarthyism.

Lol, I imagine the evidence was a little more substantial, we do live in a new age SBC.

SmthBluCitrus
03-23-2009, 07:51 PM
Lol, I imagine the evidence was a little more substantial, we do live in a new age SBC.

That doesn't make the point any less relevant.

ari1013
03-23-2009, 07:54 PM
The problem is ari I don't know what he said to interrogators, all I know is it led to arrests. I never listened to him at all, I just saw the results.
You have a guy who pleaded guilty to giving out sleeping bags and is believed to have conspired to destroy the Brooklyn Bridge -- but never charged for that.

You have a guy who was convicted for paying money to hotel bombers.

You have a guy who is suspected for being behind the Bali attacks (but not yet convicted).

You have a guy who is suspected of being in al-Qaeda but again, nothing proven.

And finally you have Jose Padilla. (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/p/jose_padilla/index.html) But wait a sec, it says Padilla was captured in June 2002. KSM was captured in March 2003. I wonder if any of the other 5 guys are as much ******** as this. Then again, this is a National Review article.

In any case, I'm not sure how much KSM's testimony helped out in these court cases. We have massive lists of people who fund and supply terrorists. It's just a matter of finding them.

Cubsrule
03-23-2009, 07:58 PM
That doesn't make the point any less relevant.

In your eyes maybe, but ok

PHX-SOXFAN
03-23-2009, 08:04 PM
I don't really understand why this is being discussed as an option anymore. It's over, the US doesn't tortue. The issue is dead, just like many others that will be rolling through legislation in the coming years like immigration reform, healthcare, and other policies that the heritage foundation disagrees with. Why don't we discuss those instead of issues that are already decided and done?

what's next? having to justify minorities and women voting? civil rights? let's move on with what is still up for decisions and discussion.

gcoll
03-23-2009, 11:28 PM
db understood who this was directed to. it's towards those who advocate torture, but want to be a hypocrit by disputing the statements of detainees regarding torture. it's the epitome of a hypocrit. if that's not you fine, it still serves a purpose for those who post on here on both sides of this issue

It's not the epitome of a hypocrite at all. I'm not doing this to try and start an argument, but logically....you are wrong.

The two ideas that: 1) Terrorists will lie about their treatment, and 2) Harsh interrogations are more effective means of gathering information.

Those two things don't contradict each other.

PHX-SOXFAN
03-24-2009, 02:10 PM
It's not the epitome of a hypocrite at all. I'm not doing this to try and start an argument, but logically....you are wrong.

The two ideas that: 1) Terrorists will lie about their treatment, and 2) Harsh interrogations are more effective means of gathering information.

Those two things don't contradict each other.

you said you didn't agree with the "torture" apoligists, now you do? You're contradicting yourself on this issue, and that's before we even get to whether anything out of a detainee's mouth is believable under any circumstance.

those two things do contradict each other. you are saying we can believe this, but we can't believe that. It's called selectively accepting and dismissing pieces of information from the same source to suit your argument. that's called hypocrisy.

ari1013
03-24-2009, 02:13 PM
That's exactly the point. I think everyone on here acknowledges that the terrorists are likely to lie to us in some form or another. In that case, how do we know what to believe when we get their testimonies?

PHX-SOXFAN
03-24-2009, 02:16 PM
That's exactly the point. I think everyone on here acknowledges that the terrorists are likely to lie to us in some form or another. In that case, how do we know what to believe when we get their testimonies?

that's the point exactly. It's not a little of this, but not that. It's either all or nothing, especially when the information is proved. The decalssified info on torture isn't going to come from detainee's. It's going to come from the justice department, but I'm sure it will be dismissed by rightists as "irrelevant" or from a "disgruntled employee".

b1e9a8r5s
03-24-2009, 04:55 PM
If you take a prisoner of war, that person no longer poses a threat to you while he or she is in your custody. Therefore, you are obliged to follow the Geneva Convention. Let's suppose that we really did say **** you to the GC. What's to stop our enemies from doing the same thing to our soldiers?

This is the main point of the problem in my opinion, and I'm kind of one the middle on this one. As we have established, we aren't fighting a country, we are fighting an organization. So weather that falls under the GC technically can be argued, but the bigger issue is should we do it. As you mention, if we do it, what's to stop our enemies from doing it. The thing is nothing is stopping them right now, with regards to terrorism. Our soldiers have been beheaded on camera or tortured after they have been captured and used for recruiting videos. So, with regards to this particular case (terrorists) I really don't have a moral objection to doing anything to them. **** em. However, to the bigger point, it is very much a slippery slope. If we allow our military to cross or blur the lines between interrogations and torture that could have very serious consequences. So, for me, if somehow we would only torture terrorists, but any future wars against actual countries would be treated in a humane way, I would be fine with that. I guess intellectually, I know why we shouldn't torture, but emotionally, I don't have a problem with it (as it applies to terrorists) and I certainly don't lose any sleep over some ******* that got water boarded in Gitmo.

ari1013
03-24-2009, 05:12 PM
The GC does cover non-uniformed hostile types like spies and partisan fighters. There's no reason we can't follow it.

And yes, I'm very aware of how barbaric those fundamentalists are, but again that doesn't mean we have to sink to their level. We're the good guys.

Seppuku
03-24-2009, 05:30 PM
Another problem here is that you are talking about torturing "terrorists" and someone even alluded to the Iraqis and 9-11. This implies that some people still want to believe that Iraq was behind 9-11 and that everyone that was in Gitmo was a terrorist. If somehow you could only identify terrorists and torture only those guys. Maybe if we could get all terrorists to get a special identifying chip implant so we make sure that we don't torture any innocent people. That being said, I think that there are some terrorists who have infiltratied this forum and are posting things here to confuse us. Some of you terrorists were even here posting subversive posts before the last election. Let's round them all up and torture them into a confession.

gcoll
03-24-2009, 08:30 PM
you said you didn't agree with the "torture" apoligists, now you do?
No. Re-read. Point me to the passage where I agreed with harsh interrogations.

You're contradicting yourself on this issue, and that's before we even get to whether anything out of a detainee's mouth is believable under any circumstance.
How did I contradict myself?

those two things do contradict each other.

#1) Terrorists sometimes will lie about their treatment.

#2) Harsh interrogations are a more effective way to get information.

Those two things do not contradict each other.

You are taking #1 to mean "terrorists always lie" which is not what it says. And you are taking #2 to mean "harsh interrogations get nothing but facts" which is not what it says.

In that case, how do we know what to believe when we get their testimonies?
You don't. I doubt anything is taken at face value.

yankeesmindset
03-25-2009, 06:51 AM
The problem since Korea is we do not fight to win a war. The rules of engagement are ridiculous. War is hell, that is a fact. If this country goes to war, we need to fight to win said war. Especially if the enemy is not wearing a uniform.

PHX-SOXFAN
03-25-2009, 03:11 PM
You don't. I doubt anything is taken at face value.

exactly.

SmthBluCitrus
03-29-2009, 10:08 AM
Not Even One

The Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/print/) leads with government officials saying not a single major terrorist plot was thwarted using information obtained by water-boarding suspected terrorist mastermind Abu Zubaida. [...]

CIA officials initially believed Zubaida was an al-Qaida ringleader and that information he divulged after being water-boarded would prove crucial to preventing terrorist attacks. Both assumptions were wrong. Zubaida wasn't even an official member of al-Qaida. While he did possess some very useful information about al-Qaida's membership, most of it was obtained before he was water-boarded. The leads he provided later were almost all dead ends that wasted agents' valuable time and resources. The paper says that Zubaida might now prove to be a thorny legal issue for the White House. If he's brought to trial in the U.S. after being water-boarded, he could very well be set free and establish a dangerous precedent for other Guantanamo detainees.

Slate (http://www.slate.com/id/2214929/?from=rss)

Detainee's Harsh Treatment Foiled No Plot -- WaPo (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/print/)

PHX-SOXFAN
03-30-2009, 01:11 PM
Slate (http://www.slate.com/id/2214929/?from=rss)

Detainee's Harsh Treatment Foiled No Plot -- WaPo (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/print/)

that should put an end to that talking point argument. thanks for the link.

this is the equivalent of not finding any wmd's.

gcoll
03-30-2009, 05:30 PM
Was Abu Zubaida the person they claimed they got information from?

ari1013
03-30-2009, 06:22 PM
Was Abu Zubaida the person they claimed they got information from?
He was one of the big names they thought they had cracked.

Here's the original story from then: http://www.newsweek.com/id/63975

DenButsu
03-30-2009, 11:52 PM
Ari, what does your sig mean?

Zep
03-31-2009, 08:45 AM
Ari, what does your sig mean?

A cursory glance at the properties reveal that it is entitled "golan.gif" so...something to do with golan heights would be my guess? :shrug:

ari1013
03-31-2009, 09:56 AM
Ari, what does your sig mean?
It reads "Ha'Am Eem Ha'Golan."

Basically, "The people with the Golan."