CIA 'Torture'

[ShockerGorilla]

I don’t have time to read this entire thread but I think this article by Hanson should put some things in perspective with regard to this torture “issue”:

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZDdlNTdkMGIwZWVmMWM1NGIyODdiOWYzMDdmODlhNWE=&w=MA==

P.S. My building in NY, about one hour ago, was “buzzed” by a large commercial aircraft followed closely by a military jet. And when I write buzzed – I mean I felt I could reach out and touch the belly of the aircraft – which eventually turned South down the Hudson with its “escort”. I don’t know why this happened but it brought back some swell memories – memories that it appears some in this country would like to conveniently forget.

http://wcbstv.com/breakingnewsalerts....2.995375.html

What a great 9/11 re-enactment to get people excited on a Monday morning! Wonder whose bright idea that was?

[jdmee]

I don’t have time to read this entire thread but I think this article by Hanson should put some things in perspective with regard to this torture “issue”:

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZDdlNTdkMGIwZWVmMWM1NGIyODdiOWYzMDdmODlhNWE=&w=MA==

P.S. My building in NY, about one hour ago, was “buzzed” by a large commercial aircraft followed closely by a military jet. And when I write buzzed – I mean I felt I could reach out and touch the belly of the aircraft – which eventually turned South down the Hudson with its “escort”. I don’t know why this happened but it brought back some swell memories – memories that it appears some in this country would like to conveniently forget.

http://wcbstv.com/breakingnewsalerts....2.995375.html

What a great 9/11 re-enactment to get people excited on a Monday morning! Wonder whose bright idea that was?

Bush's. Everything else is his fault, why not this.

[Triticum]

Ron Paul shares his thoughts. And I agree with much of what he says.

It is precisely during times of relative crisis that we should adhere most closely to the Constitution, not abandon it. War does not justify the suspension of torture laws any more than it justifies the suspension of murder laws, the suspension of due process, or the suspension of the Second amendment.

[WuDrWu]

It is not torture. We do the exact same thing to our Seals. We are not torturing Seals. We are not and did not torture these murderers.

Stop calling it torture.

[Triticum]

It is not torture. We do the exact same thing to our Seals. We are not torturing Seals. We are not and did not torture these murderers.

Stop calling it torture.

This is a legal definition of torture:

Any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.

Actions which fall short of torture may still constitute cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment under Article 16.

It does not matter if you or I think this definition is accurate, the fact is that it was signed and ratified by the U.S. (in 1994), and is U.S. law (18 U.S.C. § 2340 et seq.), and to act in defiance of this definition is illegal. It also does not matter if we are talking about torture or 'torture' (aka degrading treatment); both are illegal according to these (and other) laws.

According to this definition, subjecting our Seals and other forces to torture is not illegal because it is voluntary. It is also useful and should still be done, because it has a protective effect against future incidents of torture (link posted earlier in the thread if you're interested).

To me, the real issue here is not whether or not these acts constitute torture, but whether presidents (that's presidents past, present, and future) should have the power to disregard the law at will. I side with Ron Paul and say no.

[Maggie]

The fact is these interrogation techniques saved lives. Which does present an interesting dilemma.

Those of you opposed to these methods may WISH that your country did not utilize such techniques and you have every right FEEL that way. What you cannot contend, with any semblance of rational thought, is that these interrogations were ineffective.

What if your WISH is granted? Who will you seek to blame? Whom will you hold accountable should a “man-made” catastrophe take place which might have been prevented? Of course, it won’t be your fault because your WISH, your intention, your FEELING was “honorable” (and it is, in fact, honorable).

Those of you opposed to the selective application of certain interrogation techniques – do you WISH that effective means of obtaining actionable intelligence be abandoned? Techniques that indisputably prevented additional loss of life, property, etc. And, if so, which techniques?

I am morally opposed to “torture” but every method that involves “stress and duress” utilized to elicit cooperation from a terrorist in possession of life-saving information are not torture.

Those of you that are opposed to the aforementioned please offer an alternative, i.e. methods of interrogation that are unpleasant (and effective) but fall short of torture.

[Denny Crane]

Sorry when you put waterboarding on the severe pain and suffering continuim with the rest of the world practices, it doesn't constitute torture. No it is not pleasant, neither is the stuff that any of our troops do in SERE training. But we leave with all of our appendages and our wits about us. Al Qaeda is laughing right now at the infight we are having over this.

Are you a lawyer, triticum?

[Denny Crane]

My ideas of torture:

1. Branding "God Bless the USA" with a hot iron on someones genitals;
2. Watching a loved one on close circuit television lose both ears and all ten fingers;
3. Giving someone a bath in hydrochloric acid starting with their feet until they decide to talk.

[shoxlax]

Do you think JFK, someone that our president and his supporters like to draw comparisons to, worried about how we treated commie spies?

[WuDrWu]

nm

[ShockerPrez]

It is not torture. We do the exact same thing to our Seals. We are not torturing Seals. We are not and did not torture these murderers.

Stop calling it torture.

This is a legal definition of torture:

Any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.

Actions which fall short of torture may still constitute cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment under Article 16.

It does not matter if you or I think this definition is accurate, the fact is that it was signed and ratified by the U.S. (in 1994), and is U.S. law (18 U.S.C. § 2340 et seq.), and to act in defiance of this definition is illegal. It also does not matter if we are talking about torture or 'torture' (aka degrading treatment); both are illegal according to these (and other) laws.

According to this definition, subjecting our Seals and other forces to torture is not illegal because it is voluntary. It is also useful and should still be done, because it has a protective effect against future incidents of torture (link posted earlier in the thread if you're interested).

To me, the real issue here is not whether or not these acts constitute torture, but whether presidents (that's presidents past, present, and future) should have the power to disregard the law at will. I side with Ron Paul and say no.

Again, this is so ambiguous to where anyone who wants to call it torture and progress their agenda can, anyone who doesn't can. It doesn't solve anything or prove anything.

The bottom line is that Obama just unzipped our fly as far as interrogations, and now every terrorist in the world knows exactly what we're packin'. And until we come up with new techniques, we are never going to get any good intelligence out of any more captives.

And you know what makes me proud and sick, is that good Americans will invent and come up with these new techniques, we will get approval to use them, they will work, and then the same people will then come out of the woodwork to decry the US as a torturing nation and poo poo on those techniques.

It's never going to end.

There are Americans that love our country and will do whatever it takes to work around the barriers put in place by the other people who claim they have our best interests at heart, while doing whatever they can to weaken our country.

[Triticum]

...What you cannot contend, with any semblance of rational thought, is that these interrogations were ineffective.

...

Those of you that are opposed to the aforementioned please offer an alternative, i.e. methods of interrogation that are unpleasant (and effective) but fall short of torture.

The US Army Field Manual (35-42 chapter 1)

http://www.globalsecurity.org/intell/library/policy/army/fm/fm34-52/chapter1.htm

The use of force, mental torture, threats, insults, or exposure to unpleasant and inhumane treatment of any kind is prohibited by law and is neither authorized nor condoned by the US Government. Experience indicates that the use of force is not necessary to gain the cooperation of sources for interrogation. Therefore, the use of force is a poor technique, as it yields unreliable results, may damage subsequent collection efforts, and can induce the source to say whatever he thinks the interrogator wants to hear. However, the use of force is not to be confused with psychological ploys, verbal trickery, or other nonviolent and noncoercive ruses used by the interrogator in questioning hesitant or uncooperative sources.

I bolded the last part to emphasize that there is a difference between the techniques discussed throughout this thread and the sorts of "psychological ploys" etc. that law enforcement personnel regularly and legitimately use.

Here are the written views of 15 intelligence professionals from the US military, FBI, and CIA that know quite a bit more about the subject than I (from earlier in this thread, page 3):

http://www.humanrightsfirst.org/media/etn/2008/alert/313/

We believe:
1. Non-coercive, traditional, rapport-based interviewing approaches provide the best possibility for obtaining accurate and complete intelligence.
2. Torture and other inhumane and abusive interview techniques are unlawful, ineffective and counterproductive. We reject them unconditionally.
3. The use of torture and other inhumane and abusive treatment results in false and misleading information, loss of critical intelligence, and has caused serious damage to the reputation and standing of the United States. The use of such techniques also facilitates enemy recruitment, misdirects or wastes scarce resources, and deprives the United States of the standing to demand humane treatment of captured Americans.
4. There must be a single well-defined standard of conduct across all U.S. agencies to govern the detention and interrogation of people anywhere in U.S. custody, consistent with our values as a nation.
5. There is no conflict between adhering to our nation’s essential values, including respect for inherent human dignity, and our ability to obtain the information we need to protect the nation.

Another worthwhile read from earlier in the thread (page 4):

(Commentary by) the guy who interrogated Abu Zubaydah:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/23/opinion/23soufan.html?_r=1&ref=opinion

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

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

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

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

[Triticum]

Are you a lawyer, triticum?

No. Just a Googler.

[Triticum]

Do you think JFK, someone that our president and his supporters like to draw comparisons to, worried about how we treated commie spies?

Probably not. He may have worried about getting caught. That's pure speculation on my part.

Great Presidents (Lincoln comes to mind) have done questionable and/or illegal things during dangerous times before, and have not faced punishment. That does not make it right, nor does it make for the kind of precedent we want to set if we aspire to be a nation of laws.

For what it's worth, I don't care if any guilty terrorists are left to rot in jail or executed. Some of the things that do trouble me are, in no particular order:
* that innocent people are treated as terrorists with no recourse
* that we rationalize these techniques to the point where we think it's acceptable to use them on American citizens...serial killer suspects for example
* that the executive branch can ignore the law. Do you really want Obama to have that power? Future presidents?
* that many intelligence professionals from around the world say that "enhanced interrogation" is not only ineffective, but actually counterproductive because we waste our time/resources chasing false leads when we could be getting actionable intelligence from the methods that have been developed and used for decades.

I'll repost this because it bears repeating for anybody that dismisses my concerns out of hand as liberal drivel:
Ron Paul shares his thoughts.

[Triticum]

Again, this is so ambiguous to where anyone who wants to call it torture and progress their agenda can, anyone who doesn't can. It doesn't solve anything or prove anything.

Agreed. There are Bush administration lawyers that would argue that. I think it was deliberately worded so because if it got too specific, then anybody could just do anything that's not on the list of no-nos. And that's why I think this should be an issue for the Judiciary: there is a written law, there probably was violation of said law, and if there is prosecution, it will be up to the courts to decide if this or any other laws were broken. I personally don't think that will happen. I think there will be an investigation ala 9-11 commission, and hopefully we learn some lessons as a country about what is and what is not proper protocol.