CIA 'Torture'

[ShockerPrez]

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.

And therefore, every single action or method needs to be written and documented to the T, and decided on as to whether or not it can be performed. Those present to decide need to be the current president and appropriate cabinet members, AG, Sec of State, NSA, etc., Military, CIA, members of congress' committees that are relevant to this disucssion.

And for God's sake, these documents should be kept secret at all times, with the highest classification. And the people leaking them should be tried for treason. Anyone leaking them for political purposes should be shot!

But the new techniquest have to be developed first. This would be irrelevant now, as the techniques are now required reading material in Osama Bin Laden's cave.

[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.

And therefore, every single action or method needs to be written and documented to the T, and decided on as to whether or not it can be performed. Those present to decide need to be the current president and appropriate cabinet members, AG, Sec of State, NSA, etc., Military, CIA, members of congress' committees that are relevant to this disucssion.

I don't know the history of it but I suspect this was already done well before the 1994 ratification/signing of the UN Torture convention. I don't agree that we should list all of the possible techniques and check yes or no, as that would imply approval for techniques not listed that violate the spirit of the law as it exists. Violations of the law should be interpreted by the courts on a case-by-case basis. If necessary, proceedings can be kept confidential, as in the FISA court.

[kcshocker11]

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.

http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/11/01/4952

In a further embarrassment for Mr Bush yesterday, Malcolm Nance, an advisor on terrorism to the US departments of Homeland Security, Special Operations and Intelligence, publicly denounced the practice. He revealed that waterboarding is used in training at the US Navy's Survival, Evasion, Resistance and Escape School in San Diego, and claimed to have witnessed and supervised "hundreds" of waterboarding exercises. Although these last only a few minutes and take place under medical supervision, he concluded that [color=#]"waterboarding is a torture technique - period".

The practice involves strapping the person being interrogated on to a board as pints of water are forced into his lungs through a cloth covering his face while the victim's mouth is forced open. Its effect, according to Mr Nance, is a process of slow-motion suffocation.

Typically, a victim goes into hysterics on the board as water fills his lungs. "How much the victim is to drown," Mr Nance wrote in an article for the Small Wars Journal, "depends on the desired result and the obstinacy of the subject.

"A team doctor watches the quantity of water that is ingested and for the physiological signs which show when the drowning effect goes from painful psychological experience to horrific, suffocating punishment, to the final death spiral. For the uninitiated, it is horrifying to watch."

While US media reports typically state that waterboarding involves "simulated drowning", Mr Nance explained that "since the lungs are actually filling with water", [color=#]there is nothing simulated about it. "Waterboarding," he said, "is slow-motion suffocation with enough time to contemplate the inevitability of blackout and expiration. When done right, it is controlled death."

Looks like our own top expert disagree with ya Doc!
8)

[shoxlax]

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.

http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/11/01/4952

In a further embarrassment for Mr Bush yesterday, Malcolm Nance, an advisor on terrorism to the US departments of Homeland Security, Special Operations and Intelligence, publicly denounced the practice. He revealed that waterboarding is used in training at the US Navy's Survival, Evasion, Resistance and Escape School in San Diego, and claimed to have witnessed and supervised "hundreds" of waterboarding exercises. Although these last only a few minutes and take place under medical supervision, he concluded that [color=#]"waterboarding is a torture technique - period".

The practice involves strapping the person being interrogated on to a board as pints of water are forced into his lungs through a cloth covering his face while the victim's mouth is forced open. Its effect, according to Mr Nance, is a process of slow-motion suffocation.

Typically, a victim goes into hysterics on the board as water fills his lungs. "How much the victim is to drown," Mr Nance wrote in an article for the Small Wars Journal, "depends on the desired result and the obstinacy of the subject.

"A team doctor watches the quantity of water that is ingested and for the physiological signs which show when the drowning effect goes from painful psychological experience to horrific, suffocating punishment, to the final death spiral. For the uninitiated, it is horrifying to watch."

While US media reports typically state that waterboarding involves "simulated drowning", Mr Nance explained that "since the lungs are actually filling with water", [color=#]there is nothing simulated about it. "Waterboarding," he said, "is slow-motion suffocation with enough time to contemplate the inevitability of blackout and expiration. When done right, it is controlled death."

Looks like our own top expert disagree with ya Doc!
8)

There are hundreds of others just like Mr. Nance, experts in the field, that disagree with him.

[WuDrWu]

blahblahblahblahblah

There's the one expert. You don't get, you won't get it, you aren't smart enough to get it.


Those of us capable of common sense get it. Stick to your lefty strengths, we've gone over them before.

Slaughter the unborn, tax the producers, defend NAMBLA, smoke dope, flag burning....what oldies but goodies am I forgetting?


Tell me....why didn't your clown faced genius of a leader complain when she was presented with this years ago?

I am still waiting for an answer to my earlier question. Any lefty egg head elitist genius is welcome to chime in.

[kcshocker11]

There are hundreds of others just like Mr. Nance, experts in the field, that disagree with him

Lets have some links, 8) Must be experts in the field

[kcshocker11]

Heres a nice link

http://www.pegc.us/archive/Articles/wallach_drop_by_drop_draft_20061016.pdf

Talks about war crimes in which waterbording was used.
Hmmm lets see Japanese, Nazi's, Khamar Rhouge, North Koreans etc 8)

Oh Doc I do get it!

[WuDrWu]

Answer the questions please.

Hyperlinking to other idiots does nothing. The ability to use google, again, does nothing. Lots of idiots out there.


Answer the questions. Why didn't your boys and girls object earlier and what is a good outcome?

[SB Shock]

Answer the questions please.

They are not going to answer. They have no answers except they are the blind followers of the "The Messiah".

'I have a gift, Harry.'

[Maggie]

Triticum,

I don’t have time to read all of the links you posted; however, I don’t think you understood or ignored what I meant by these techniques were effective – which the released memorandum clearly indicate that they were. Simply contending in a dismissive and highhanded manner that these techniques are ineffective, and therefore should not be used, is not a valid argument.

You should distinguish between the use of certain techniques to gain a confession and the use of these techniques to obtain actionable intelligence quickly. The point of the interrogations at issue, for example, was not to get "false confessions" (such as the Soviets, North Vietnamese, et als - routinely did) or confessions of any kind. It was get intelligence you can check against other intelligence. I think it is reasonable to assert that those interrogated say many false things, but they say true things too, which can be verified. This is a point which almost always gets ignored.

Furthermore, in this case I think it is important to note that these particular subjects believe, as a religious matter, that is permissible to provide information when they individually have reached a point where they can no longer resist the psychological and physical hardships of their interrogation. Obviously, it then becomes an interrogator’s job to push the subject to his limits so that cooperation is no longer betrayal but permitted according to his religious beliefs. Can that be achieved short of torture? Sure. Can it be achieved without coercive interrogation techniques? Probably not, considering the belief system of the subjects our interrogators dealt with and will deal with in the future.

Again, I have no objection to the moral argument against torture — if you honestly believe something amounts to torture. But the "ineffective" line is a convenient cop out, no matter how confidently you bluster otherwise. It is a canard that only distracts from the relevant moral question and burnishes the already high gloss of sanctimony coming from certain quarters.

[SubGod22]

Triticum,

I don’t have time to read all of the links you posted; however, I don’t think you understood or ignored what I meant by these techniques were effective – which the released memorandum clearly indicate that they were. Simply contending in a dismissive and highhanded manner that these techniques are ineffective, and therefore should not be used, is not a valid argument.

You should distinguish between the use of certain techniques to gain a confession and the use of these techniques to obtain actionable intelligence quickly. The point of the interrogations at issue, for example, was not to get "false confessions" (such as the Soviets, North Vietnamese, et als - routinely did) or confessions of any kind. It was get intelligence you can check against other intelligence. I think it is reasonable to assert that those interrogated say many false things, but they say true things too, which can be verified. This is a point which almost always gets ignored.

Furthermore, in this case I think it is important to note that these particular subjects believe, as a religious matter, that is permissible to provide information when they individually have reached a point where they can no longer resist the psychological and physical hardships of their interrogation. Obviously, it then becomes an interrogator’s job to push the subject to his limits so that cooperation is no longer betrayal but permitted according to his religious beliefs. Can that be achieved short of torture? Sure. Can it be achieved without coercive interrogation techniques? Probably not, considering the belief system of the subjects our interrogators dealt with and will deal with in the future.

Again, I have no objection to the moral argument against torture — if you honestly believe something amounts to torture. But the "ineffective" line is a convenient cop out, no matter how confidently you bluster otherwise. It is a canard that only distracts from the relevant moral question and burnishes the already high gloss of sanctimony coming from certain quarters.

:good:

[SubGod22]

Majority of Americans oppose further investigations. They also believe the release of these memos have endangered our national security.

[Maggie]

Regarding the politics of this issue:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124087403668161211.html

[SubGod22]

Regarding the politics of this issue:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124087403668161211.html

Thanks for posting that.

[Maggie]

Some additional, and interesting, reading on this subject:

One side:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/24/AR2009042403459.html

And now the other:

http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/viewarticle.php?selectedarticle=2009.04.28.001.pdart