CIA 'Torture'

[Maggie]

Sad but thats the response I expected

Yes. And you, yet again, ignore any substantive discussion of the issue and instead rely on someone who refers to himself as Mancow…. :roll:

Whats there to discuss? The video says it all. ??Your either pro torture or not 8)

Since you seem utterly incapable of making any moral distinctions or setting forth the rational for your position I will keep this question very simple:

How many of our citizens, both in the military and in civilian life, are you willing to forfeit (by that I mean, of course, are you willing to let die) in order to save a terrorist some pain or discomfort?

[Maggie]

This is interesting:

Republicans ignited a firestorm of controversy on Thursday by revealing some of what they had been told at a closed-door Intelligence Committee hearing on the interrogation of terrorism suspects.

Democrats immediately blasted the GOP lawmakers for publicly discussing classified information, while Republicans said Democrats are trying to hide the truth that enhanced interrogation of detainees is effective.

Okay, it looks like we have a Congressional food fight. I was not aware of this hearing…were you? How did they come about…?

Despite the weeks-long furor over how the Central Intelligence Agency came to use enhanced interrogation techniques, and what members of Congress were told about their development and implementation, the committee’s first hearing on the issue during the 111th Congress almost came and went without notice. The hearing was announced publicly but was not open to the public.

The hearing was publicly described only as a subcommittee hearing on “Interrogations.” A committee spokeswoman would not comment on whether the development and use of controversial interrogation tactics were discussed.

Huh… But what about this disclosure of classified information…

Rep. Pete Hoekstra (R -Mich.)… did not attend the hearing, but said he later spoke with Republicans on the subcommittee who did. He said he came away with even more proof that the enhanced interrogation techniques employed by the CIA proved effective.

“I think the people who were at the hearing, in my opinion, clearly indicated that the enhanced interrogation techniques worked,” Hoekstra said.

Rep. John Kline (R-Minn.), a member of the subcommittee who attended the hearing, concurred with Hoekstra.

“The hearing did address the enhanced interrogation techniques that have been much in the news lately,” Kline said, noting that he was intentionally choosing his words carefully in observance of the committee rules and the nature of the information presented.

“Based on what I heard and the documents I have seen, I came away with a very clear impression that we did gather information that did disrupt terrorist plots,” Kline said.

Neither Hoekstra nor Kline revealed details about the specifics of what they were told Thursday or the identity of the briefers.

Democrats lambasted their Republican counterparts for discussing the information that was provided behind locked doors.

That is the “classified information” some of our Congressional representatives are so upset was disclosed? Explain to me how those statements/opinions are classified? Also, am I now to understand that the American public is not allowed to see evidence that might undermine certain politician’s very public positions on the use and effectiveness of EITs? Just putting it out there...

http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/intel-firestorm-gop-reveals-briefing-info-2009-06-04.html

[SubGod22]

I'd seen that earlier Maggie. Funny how the declassify things they think can help them politically and keep the stuff that would help their opponents classified. The results are far less problematic to national security than the EITs themselves.

More proof that this was political from the start.



And Pelosi's silence is deafening.

[Maggie]

I'd seen that earlier Maggie. Funny how the declassify things they think can help them politically and keep the stuff that would help their opponents classified. The results are far less problematic to national security than the EITs themselves.

More proof that this was political from the start.



And Pelosi's silence is deafening.

Of course it was political and what the Republican’s are doing is also political – to an extent. There should be a way to have an open and honest debate about this issue without further damaging the intelligence community.

Notice that those Democrats who objected to what the Republican’s revealed were not quoted in that story as contending the statements were inaccurate.

As for Speaker Pelosi, she is often better served when she keeps her mouth shut.

[notmyeye]

If America's worth defending, it's worth defending the right way.

[Maggie]

If America's worth defending, it's worth defending the right way.

I don't believe anyone would disagree with your general point, such as it is.

[Quick Pitch]

The bottom line is this: If Clinton was president when we were waterboarding, the libs would not have a problem with it. Instead, you have all of the bedwetting Bush haters out there trying to play "gotcha" because they are still bitter about him beating Algore in the first election.

[notmyeye]

The bottom line is this: If Clinton was president when we were waterboarding, the libs would not have a problem with it. Instead, you have all of the bedwetting Bush haters out there trying to play "gotcha" because they are still bitter about him beating Algore in the first election.

I don't suppose you've seen some of the photographs concerning the treatment of POWs/enemy combatants at the hands of the US, have you? I would post links, but they're very much NSFW.

[Maggie]

The bottom line is this: If Clinton was president when we were waterboarding, the libs would not have a problem with it. Instead, you have all of the bedwetting Bush haters out there trying to play "gotcha" because they are still bitter about him beating Algore in the first election.

I don't suppose you've seen some of the photographs concerning the treatment of POWs/enemy combatants at the hands of the US, have you? I would post links, but they're very much NSFW.

Am I to understand that you believe the Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse scandal is the moral equivalent of the CIA waterboarding three terrorists, for example?

Putting aside the moral question, what exactly does what happened at Abu Ghraib have to with the EITs employed by the CIA, which is the actual subject of this thread?

This sounds like a typical non sequitur argument to me. :ohno:

[notmyeye]

The bottom line is this: If Clinton was president when we were waterboarding, the libs would not have a problem with it. Instead, you have all of the bedwetting Bush haters out there trying to play "gotcha" because they are still bitter about him beating Algore in the first election.

I don't suppose you've seen some of the photographs concerning the treatment of POWs/enemy combatants at the hands of the US, have you? I would post links, but they're very much NSFW.

Am I to understand that you believe the Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse scandal is the moral equivalent of the CIA waterboarding three terrorists, for example?

Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying.

[SubGod22]

The bottom line is this: If Clinton was president when we were waterboarding, the libs would not have a problem with it. Instead, you have all of the bedwetting Bush haters out there trying to play "gotcha" because they are still bitter about him beating Algore in the first election.

I don't suppose you've seen some of the photographs concerning the treatment of POWs/enemy combatants at the hands of the US, have you? I would post links, but they're very much NSFW.

Am I to understand that you believe the Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse scandal is the moral equivalent of the CIA waterboarding three terrorists, for example?

Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying.

:banghead:

[notmyeye]

It's like that picture expresses in so many ways how I'm wrong.

My rebuttal:

:cowbell:

[Maggie]

The bottom line is this: If Clinton was president when we were waterboarding, the libs would not have a problem with it. Instead, you have all of the bedwetting Bush haters out there trying to play "gotcha" because they are still bitter about him beating Algore in the first election.

I don't suppose you've seen some of the photographs concerning the treatment of POWs/enemy combatants at the hands of the US, have you? I would post links, but they're very much NSFW.

Am I to understand that you believe the Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse scandal is the moral equivalent of the CIA waterboarding three terrorists, for example?

Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying.

Explain...please.

[notmyeye]

http://www.baltimorechronicle.com/2009/042109Parry.shtml

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2009/05/cheneys-core-contradiction.html

From the Senate Armed Services Committee Report:

The abuse of detainees at Abu Ghraib in late 2003 was not simply the result of a few soldiers acting on their own. Interrogation techniques such as stripping detainees of their clothes, placing them in stress positions, and using military working dogs to intimidate them appeared in Iraq only after they had been approved for use in Afghanistan and at GTMO. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld’s December 2, 2002 authorization of aggressive interrogation techniques and subsequent interrogation policies and plans approved by senior military and civilian officials conveyed the message that physical pressures and degradation were appropriate treatment for detainees in U.S. military custody. What followed was an erosion in standards dictating that detainees be treated humanely.

The supposed 'EITs' sanctioned by the administration were much more than just allowing for waterboarding. My contention is that this approval justified a lot of conduct similar to what happend at Abu Ghraib, the difference was that they got caught at Abu Ghraib.

I'm not saying that the administration provided explicit instructions that lead to the Abu Ghraib incident(s), just that they laid the foundation for such actions to take place.

[Maggie]

http://www.baltimorechronicle.com/20...109Parry.shtml

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2009/05/cheneys-core-contradiction.html

From the Senate Armed Services Committee Report:

The abuse of detainees at Abu Ghraib in late 2003 was not simply the result of a few soldiers acting on their own. Interrogation techniques such as stripping detainees of their clothes, placing them in stress positions, and using military working dogs to intimidate them appeared in Iraq only after they had been approved for use in Afghanistan and at GTMO. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld’s December 2, 2002 authorization of aggressive interrogation techniques and subsequent interrogation policies and plans approved by senior military and civilian officials conveyed the message that physical pressures and degradation were appropriate treatment for detainees in U.S. military custody. What followed was an erosion in standards dictating that detainees be treated humanely.

The supposed 'EITs' sanctioned by the administration were much more than just allowing for waterboarding. My contention is that this approval justified a lot of conduct similar to what happend at Abu Ghraib, the difference was that they got caught at Abu Ghraib.

I'm not saying that the administration provided explicit instructions that lead to the Abu Ghraib incident(s), just that they laid the foundation for such actions to take place.

You didn’t really answer my question but that is ok, I suppose. I will; however, address your position. As “tortured” (pun intended) as the articles you cite in support of your hypothesis are I am familiar with this story:

The story begins when the Bush administration reacted to 9/11 by “redefining” the law to permit aggressive interrogation tactics. Thus, the fable goes, in early 2002 the president determined that neither al-Qaeda nor Taliban fighters were entitled to prisoner-of-war treatment, in effect blocking application of Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions and the well established military doctrine of legal compliance with the Geneva Conventions. The administration then covertly set about having its Justice Department alter the legal definition of torture while its interrogators were schooled in illegal tactics by experts at the Defense Department. These techniques were employed by the CIA on important captives and became elements of a new warfare culture that spread to military interrogators at Gitmo and led, eventually, to the Abu Ghraib scandal.

Is that a fair take?

In my judgment, that narrative is flawed in its fundamental assumptions and fictional in its sweeping conclusions. The Bush administration did not “redefine” detainee treatment law; it undertook to determine what the law says and whom it covers. The intent of the Geneva Conventions, the principal law on the subject, is to civilize warfare by affording benefits, including an absolute bar against abusive treatment, to eligible prisoners of war — i.e., to captured soldiers who adhere to the laws of armed conflict, meaning, among other things, that they forgo intentionally endangering civilians. By definition, al-Qaeda is not qualified for Geneva protections because it is a terrorist organization: It is not one of the sovereign nations that signed the 1949 pacts, and it specifically targets civilians. Though the Taliban was the de facto government of Afghanistan, its fighters also target civilians and hide among them, and consequently they do not qualify for Geneva protections. This position, by way, is one our current President and the Attorney General agree with.

Torture, which has become loaded and misunderstood word, is illegal. And because torture is such a serious concern, our law has always defined it in such a way as to cover only truly heinous practices. In this we (the United States) are not alone; foreign tribunals have also concluded that such tactics as the use of stress positions, hooding, diet manipulation, sleep deprivation, loud noises, and forceful shaking may be abusive but do not amount to torture. Those practices would, however, violate Geneva, under which those POWs eligible for protection may not be subjected to any penalties or inconveniences whatsoever for refusing to disclose more than name, rank, and serial number. You may believe we should be similarly constrained in questioning terrorists, but Geneva does not require it. Nor does any other law.

As I have pointed out on numerous occasions, Congress has declined to criminalize waterboarding despite many opportunities to do so, and international law leaves a great deal of flexibility in interrogations. Waterboarding, the most extreme tactic employed by the CIA, was limited to three top al-Qaeda captives and hasn’t been used since 2003. The use of EITs was to be limited in scope, period.

Those guidelines, and similar ones, were in effect long before Abu Ghraib. When the abuse scandal surfaced, it was the military that reported and investigated it, aggressively prosecuting the offending soldiers. Multiple investigations have rejected the outlandish claim that President Bush installed a program of systematic prisoner abuse, much less a torture regime. Which you may agree with but Andrew Sullivan does not.

Prisoner abuse should not be taken lightly. But these episodes are endemic to warfare, not peculiar to the Bush era or a result of the president’s policies. Abuse is not to be tolerated — and it isn’t: dozens of U.S. military personnel have been disciplined and a number tried in courts-martial. There is a world of difference between relatively rare wrongdoing at the hands of a miniscule number of soldiers and a government program of torture.

The torture narrative is at odds with the facts. Correlation is not causation. The U.S. does not have a policy of torturing captives, nor does it fail to abide by its obligations under the Geneva Conventions. When abuse has occurred, steps have been taken to punish the wrongdoers and rectify military practices.