PDA

View Full Version : Sources: Top Bush Advisors Approved 'Enhanced Interrogation'


jAZ
04-09-2008, 11:18 PM
Who's not even remotely suprised that it goes to the top?

http://abcnews.go.com/print?id=4583256

Sources: Top Bush Advisors Approved 'Enhanced Interrogation'
Detailed Discussions Were Held About Techniques to Use on al Qaeda Suspects
By JAN CRAWFORD GREENBURG, HOWARD L. ROSENBERG and ARIANE de VOGUE
April 9, 2008—


In dozens of top-secret talks and meetings in the White House, the most senior Bush administration officials discussed and approved specific details of how high-value al Qaeda suspects would be interrogated by the Central Intelligence Agency, sources tell ABC News.

The so-called Principals who participated in the meetings also approved the use of "combined" interrogation techniques -- using different techniques during interrogations, instead of using one method at a time -- on terrorist suspects who proved difficult to break, sources said.

Highly placed sources said a handful of top advisers signed off on how the CIA would interrogate top al Qaeda suspects -- whether they would be slapped, pushed, deprived of sleep or subjected to simulated drowning, called waterboarding.

The high-level discussions about these "enhanced interrogation techniques" were so detailed, these sources said, some of the interrogation sessions were almost choreographed -- down to the number of times CIA agents could use a specific tactic.

The advisers were members of the National Security Council's Principals Committee, a select group of senior officials who met frequently to advise President Bush on issues of national security policy.

At the time, the Principals Committee included Vice President Cheney, former National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Secretary of State Colin Powell, as well as CIA Director George Tenet and Attorney General John Ashcroft.

As the national security adviser, Rice chaired the meetings, which took place in the White House Situation Room and were typically attended by most of the principals or their deputies.

Contacted by ABC News today, spokesmen for Tenet, Rumsfeld and Powell declined to comment about the interrogation program or their private discussions in Principals Meetings. Powell said through an assistant there were "hundreds of [Principals] meetings" on a wide variety of topics and that he was "not at liberty to discuss private meetings."

The White House also declined comment on behalf of Rice and Cheney. Ashcroft could not be reached for comment today.

Critics at home and abroad have harshly criticized the interrogation program, which pushed the limits of international law and, they say, condoned torture. Bush and his top aides have consistently defended the program. They say it is legal and did not constitute torture.

"I can say that questioning the detainees in this program has given us the information that has saved innocent lives by helping us stop new attacks here in the United States and across the world," Bush said in a speech in September 2006.

In interview with ABC's Charles Gibson last year, Tenet said: "It was authorized. It was legal, according to the Attorney General of the United States."

But this is the first time sources have disclosed that a handful of the most senior advisers in the White House explicitly approved the details of the program. According to multiple sources, it was members of the Principals Committee that not only discussed specific plans and specific interrogation methods, but approved them.

The discussions and meetings occurred in an atmosphere of great concern that another terror attack on the nation was imminent. Sources said the extraordinary involvement of the senior advisers in the grim details of exactly how individual interrogations would be conducted showed how seriously officials took the al Qaeda threat.

It started after the CIA captured top al Qaeda operative Abu Zubaydah in spring 2002 in Faisalabad, Pakistan. When his safe house was raided by Pakistani security forces along with FBI and CIA agents, Zubaydah was shot three times during the gun battle.

At a time when virtually all counterterrorist professionals viewed another attack as imminent -- and with information on al Qaeda scarce -- the detention of Zubaydah was seen as a potentially critical breakthrough.

Zubaydah was taken to the local hospital, where CIA agent John Kiriakou, who helped coordinate Zubaydah's capture, was ordered to remain at the wounded captive's side at all times. "I ripped up a sheet and tied him to the bed," Kiriakou said.

But after Zubaydah recovered from his wounds at a secret CIA prison in Thailand, he was uncooperative.

"I told him I had heard he was being a jerk," Kiriakou recalled. "I said, 'These guys can make it easy on you or they can make it hard.' It was after that he became defiant."

The CIA wanted to use more aggressive -- and physical -- methods to get information.

The agency briefed high-level officials in the National Security Council's Principals Committee, led by then-National Security Advisor Rice and including then-Attorney General Ashcroft, which then signed off on the plan, sources said. It is unclear whether anyone on the committee objected to the CIA's plans for Zubaydah.

The CIA has confirmed Zubaydah was one of three al Qaeda suspects subjected to waterboarding.

After he was waterboarded, officials say Zubaydah gave up valuable information that led to the capture of 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheik Mohammad and fellow 9/11 plotter Ramzi bin al-Shibh.

Mohammad was also subjected to waterboarding by the CIA. At a hearing before a military tribunal at Guantanamo Bay on March 10, 2007, KSM, as he is known, said he broke under the harsh interrogation.

COURT: Were any statements you made as the result of any of the treatment that you received during that time frame from 2003 to 2006? Did you make those statements because of the treatment you receive from these people?

KSM: Statement for whom?

COURT: To any of these interrogators.

KSM: CIA peoples. Yes. At the beginning, when they transferred me...

Lawyers in the Justice Department had written a classified memo, which was extensively reviewed, that gave formal legal authority to government interrogators to use the "enhanced" questioning tactics on suspected terrorist prisoners. The August 2002 memo, signed by then head of the Office of Legal Counsel Jay Bybee, was referred to as the so-called "Golden Shield" for CIA agents, who worried they would be held liable if the harsh interrogations became public.

Old hands in the intelligence community remembered vividly how past covert operations, from the Vietnam War-era "Phoenix Program" of assassinations of Viet Cong to the Iran-Contra arms sales of the 1980s were painted as the work of a "rogue agency" out of control.

But even after the "Golden Shield" was in place, briefings and meetings in the White House to discuss individual interrogations continued, sources said. Tenet, seeking to protect his agents, regularly sought confirmation from the NSC principals that specific interrogation plans were legal.

According to a former CIA official involved in the process, CIA headquarters would receive cables from operatives in the field asking for authorization for specific techniques. Agents, worried about overstepping their boundaries, would await guidance in particularly complicated cases dealing with high-value detainees, two CIA sources said.

Highly placed sources said CIA directors Tenet and later Porter Goss along with agency lawyers briefed senior advisers, including Cheney, Rice, Rumsfeld and Powell, about detainees in CIA custody overseas.

"It kept coming up. CIA wanted us to sign off on each one every time," said one high-ranking official who asked not to be identified. "They'd say, 'We've got so and so. This is the plan.'"

Sources said that at each discussion, all the Principals present approved.

"These discussions weren't adding value," a source said. "Once you make a policy decision to go beyond what you used to do and conclude it's legal, (you should) just tell them to implement it."

Then-Attorney General Ashcroft was troubled by the discussions. He agreed with the general policy decision to allow aggressive tactics and had repeatedly advised that they were legal. But he argued that senior White House advisers should not be involved in the grim details of interrogations, sources said.

According to a top official, Ashcroft asked aloud after one meeting: "Why are we talking about this in the White House? History will not judge this kindly."

The Principals also approved interrogations that combined different methods, pushing the limits of international law and even the Justice Department's own legal approval in the 2002 memo, sources told ABC News.

At one meeting in the summer of 2003 -- attended by Vice President Cheney, among others -- Tenet made an elaborate presentation for approval to combine several different techniques during interrogations, instead of using one method at a time, according to a highly placed administration source.

A year later, amidst the outcry over unrelated abuses of Iraqi prisoners at Abu Ghraib, the controversial 2002 legal memo, which gave formal legal authorization for the CIA interrogation program of the top al Qaeda suspects, leaked to the press. A new senior official in the Justice Department, Jack Goldsmith, withdrew the legal memo -- the Golden Shield -- that authorized the program.

But the CIA had captured a new al Qaeda suspect in Asia. Sources said CIA officials that summer returned to the Principals Committee for approval to continue using certain "enhanced interrogation techniques."

Then-National Security Advisor Rice, sources said, was decisive. Despite growing policy concerns -- shared by Powell -- that the program was harming the image of the United States abroad, sources say she did not back down, telling the CIA: "This is your baby. Go do it."


Copyright © 2008 ABC News Internet Ventures

Mr. Laz
04-09-2008, 11:23 PM
oopsy

SBK
04-09-2008, 11:56 PM
Who is Sources?

patteeu
04-09-2008, 11:58 PM
LMAO @ "goes to the top"

You're such a dope, jAZ. I can't believe that there was any question in anyone's mind about whether or not enhanced interrogation techniques were approved by the top levels of this administration. President Bush and Vice President Cheney have defended them repeatedly and we knew that the Attorney General had advised the administration on their legality. There has never been any suggestion that this was the work of some low level flunkie.

Logical
04-10-2008, 12:21 AM
Are Bush, Cheney and the Attorney General only considered advisers? Weird article

SBK
04-10-2008, 01:13 AM
Maybe this is the proof that Rove will be indicted in 2 weeks?

jAZ
04-10-2008, 01:13 AM
You're such a dope, jAZ. I can't believe that there was any question in anyone's mind about whether or not enhanced interrogation techniques were approved by the top levels of this administration. [...] There has never been any suggestion that this was the work of some low level flunkie.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/torture/themes/blame.html

… [T]here's a thoroughgoing attempt to essentially blame everything that's done, all of the abuse, on the lowest-level actors present, which is the military police, and to shield from any notion that [military intelligence] participated or even knew about these procedures. Now, why is that?

Well, when you start to say that military interrogators, military intelligence, are in the room when the abuse is taking place, you are connecting that kind of abuse to policy. When you connect it to policy, you're connecting it to policy-makers. When you connect it to policy-makers, you're connecting it to power. And what is critical in all of these reports is a concern to break that chain. …

http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/08/24/abughraib.report/index.html

Former Republican Rep. Tillie K. Fowler of Florida, a panel member who was once a senior member of the House Armed Services Committee, was more direct. [...]

"There was sadism on the night shift at Abu Ghraib, sadism that was certainly not authorized," Schlesinger said. "It was kind of 'Animal House' on the night shift.

The American film "National Lampoon's Animal House" is a 1978 comedy about an unruly fraternity whose wild antics run afoul of the campus establishment.

Schlesinger noted, however, that there was "no policy of abuse."

"Quite the contrary," Schlesinger said. "Senior officials repeatedly said that in Iraq, Geneva regulations would apply." [...]

The report cited the CIA for not giving it "full access to information involving CIA's role in detention operations." It said that area needs further investigation.

A Pentagon report by U.S. Maj. Gen. George Fay is expected to recommend up to 27 people once assigned to Abu Ghraib for referral to authorities for possible additional legal action, including as many as five private contractors, a senior Pentagon official familiar with the document said.

http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/L25726413.htm

Rumsfeld okayed abuses says former US army general
25 Nov 2006 15:58:24 GMT
Source: Reuters
Printable view | Email this article | RSS [-] Text [+]

Background
Iraq in turmoil
More MADRID, Nov 25 (Reuters) - Outgoing U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld authorised the mistreatment of detainees at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq, the prison's former U.S. commander said in an interview on Saturday.

Former U.S. Army Brigadier General Janis Karpinski told Spain's El Pais newspaper she had seen a letter apparently signed by Rumsfeld which allowed civilian contractors to use techniques such as sleep deprivation during interrogation.

Karpinski, who ran the prison until early 2004, said she saw a memorandum signed by Rumsfeld detailing the use of harsh interrogation methods.

"The handwritten signature was above his printed name and in the same handwriting in the margin was written: "Make sure this is accomplished"," she told Saturday's El Pais.

"The methods consisted of making prisoners stand for long periods, sleep deprivation ... playing music at full volume, having to sit in uncomfortably ... Rumsfeld authorised these specific techniques."

The Geneva Convention says prisoners of war should suffer "no physical or mental torture, nor any other form of coercion" to secure information.

"Prisoners of war who refuse to answer may not be threatened, insulted, or exposed to any unpleasant or disadvantageous treatment of any kind," the document states.

A spokesman for the Pentagon declined to comment on Karpinski's accusations, while U.S. army in Iraq could not immediately be reached for comment.

Karpinski was withdrawn from Iraq in early 2004, shortly after photographs showing American troops abusing detainees at the prison were flashed around the world. She was subsequently removed from active duty and then demoted to the rank of colonel on unrelated charges.

Karpinski insists she knew nothing about the abuse of prisoners until she saw the photos, as interrogation was carried out in a prison wing run by U.S. military intelligence.

Rumsfeld also authorised the army to break the Geneva Conventions by not registering all prisoners, Karpinski said, explaining how she raised the case of one unregistered inmate with an aide to former U.S. commander Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez.

"We received a message from the Pentagon, from the Defense Secretary, ordering us to hold the prisoner without registering him. I now know this happened on various occasions."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/13/AR2005071302380.html

Abu Ghraib Tactics Were First Used at Guantanamo

By Josh White
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, July 14, 2005; Page A01

Interrogators at the U.S. detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, forced a stubborn detainee to wear women's underwear on his head, confronted him with snarling military working dogs and attached a leash to his chains, according to a newly released military investigation that shows the tactics were employed there months before military police used them on detainees at the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq.
[...]
The report's findings are the strongest indication yet that the abusive practices seen in photographs at Abu Ghraib were not the invention of a small group of thrill-seeking military police officers. The report shows that they were used on Qahtani several months before the United States invaded Iraq.

The investigation also supports the idea that soldiers believed that placing hoods on detainees, forcing them to appear nude in front of women and sexually humiliating them were approved interrogation techniques for use on detainees.
[...]
The report's findings are the strongest indication yet that the abusive practices seen in photographs at Abu Ghraib were not the invention of a small group of thrill-seeking military police officers. The report shows that they were used on Qahtani several months before the United States invaded Iraq.

The investigation also supports the idea that soldiers believed that placing hoods on detainees, forcing them to appear nude in front of women and sexually humiliating them were approved interrogation techniques for use on detainees.

Ari Chi3fs
04-10-2008, 01:15 AM
I hate Big Bush. Trim that shit, ladies.

patteeu
04-10-2008, 01:41 AM
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/torture/themes/blame.html

[INDENT][I]… [T]here's a thoroughgoing attempt to essentially blame everything that's done, all of the abuse, on the lowest-level actors present, which is the military police, and to shield from any notion that [military intelligence] participated or even knew about these procedures. Now, why is

...

You are conflating Abu Ghraib and the CIA interrogations where harsh techniques were authorized. Make up your mind about what you want this thread to be about.

SBK
04-10-2008, 01:58 AM
You are conflating Abu Ghraib and the CIA interrogations where harsh techniques were authorized. Make up your mind about what you want this thread to be about.

This thread is about making sure Cheney is executed. Duh. :evil:

mikey23545
04-10-2008, 06:37 AM
<b>whether they would be slapped, pushed, deprived of sleep...</b>

Oh, the horrors!!!!!

HonestChieffan
04-10-2008, 07:35 AM
My heart breaks for the enemy.

Donger
04-10-2008, 07:46 AM
Until we start sawing off the heads of our enemies, I don't really care what techniques our boys use, honestly.

Chief Henry
04-10-2008, 08:38 AM
I hope we took that information and KILLED THOUSANDS of islamofacist PIGS.

jAZ
04-10-2008, 09:25 AM
You are conflating Abu Ghraib and the CIA interrogations where harsh techniques were authorized. Make up your mind about what you want this thread to be about.

At the highest levels, they are one. They are the same program envisioned and ordered by the same people at the highest levels and implemented by two groups ...

Karpinski, who ran the prison until early 2004, said she saw a memorandum signed by Rumsfeld detailing the use of harsh interrogation methods. [...]

Rumsfeld also authorised the army to break the Geneva Conventions by not registering all prisoners, Karpinski said, explaining how she raised the case of one unregistered inmate with an aide to former U.S. commander Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez.

"We received a message from the Pentagon, from the Defense Secretary, ordering us to hold the prisoner without registering him.

... although it appears they might even be one down all the way down the food chain as well...

"The report cited the CIA for not giving it 'full access to information involving CIA's role in detention operations.' It said that area needs further investigation."

Otter
04-10-2008, 09:48 AM
I'll worry about our guys abiding by the Geneva Convention as soon as they decide to comply themselves.

Until then, gloves should be off.

patteeu
04-10-2008, 10:03 AM
At the highest levels, they are one. They are the same program envisioned and ordered by the same people at the highest levels and implemented by two groups ...

Karpinski, who ran the prison until early 2004, said she saw a memorandum signed by Rumsfeld detailing the use of harsh interrogation methods. [...]

Rumsfeld also authorised the army to break the Geneva Conventions by not registering all prisoners, Karpinski said, explaining how she raised the case of one unregistered inmate with an aide to former U.S. commander Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez.

"We received a message from the Pentagon, from the Defense Secretary, ordering us to hold the prisoner without registering him.

... although it appears they might even be one down all the way down the food chain as well...

"The report cited the CIA for not giving it 'full access to information involving CIA's role in detention operations.' It said that area needs further investigation."

No they aren't. Your OP article has nothing to do with Abu Ghraib whatsoever. For someone so quick to play the "dishonesty" card, you have a very loose standard for yourself.

jAZ
04-10-2008, 12:05 PM
No they aren't. Your OP article has nothing to do with Abu Ghraib whatsoever. For someone so quick to play the "dishonesty" card, you have a very loose standard for yourself.
I'll say it again, because you can't make this claim...
Your OP article has nothing to do with Abu Ghraib whatsoever.
...without knowing what role the CIA played in Abu Gharib, the investigation into which per the article I posted was obstructed.
"The report cited the CIA for not giving it 'full access to information involving CIA's role in detention operations.' It said that area needs further investigation."
...it's dishonest to make such an unqualified statement as you have, in the face of a potential link so intriguing that the CIA was cited for obstructing the investigation into their role.

But beyond that obvious potential direct connection... for you to suggest that there was not a single movement at the highest levels of the WH to rewrite the role of the Geneva conventions and to authorize both intelligence channels (the CIA and DOD, which had it's own seperate intelligence aperatus) to utilize torture or new "enhanced interrogation" techniques... is dramatically dishonest. You know better.

patteeu
04-10-2008, 12:10 PM
I'll say it again, because you can't make this claim...

...without knowing what role the CIA played in Abu Gharib, which per the article I posted was obstructed.
"The report cited the CIA for not giving it 'full access to information involving CIA's role in detention operations.' It said that area needs further investigation."
...it's dishonest to make such an unqualified statement as you have, in the face of a potential link so intriguing that the CIA was cited for obstructing the investigation into their role.

But beyond that obvious potential direct connection... for you to suggest that there was not a single movement at the highest levels of the WH to rewrite the role of the Geneva conventions and to authorize both intelligence channels (the CIA and DOD, which had it's own seperate intelligence aperatus) to utilize torture or new "enhanced interrogation" techniques... is dramatically dishonest. You know better.

Nope, wrong again. The scandal at Abu Ghraib had nothing to do with the CIA. Even if the CIA was involved in some interrogations at Abu Ghraib, the fact that we don't know anything about their activities there means that their activities aren't a part of the scandal, by definition.

Your OP article has nothing to do with Abu Ghraib whatsoever. Your desperate attempts to conflate the two are amusing though. Keep it up. :thumb:

jAZ
04-10-2008, 12:18 PM
...the fact that we don't know anything about their activities there means that their activities aren't a part of the scandal, by definition.
ROFL

Where do you come up with "the scandal" (ie, the reaction to the actions) as the lynch pin to linkage?

If I thought you believed your own non-sense, I'd be amazed. But instead I'll just laugh again.

ROFL

patteeu
04-10-2008, 12:39 PM
ROFL

Where do you come up with "the scandal" (ie, the reaction to the actions) as the lynch pin to linkage?

If I thought you believed your own non-sense, I'd be amazed. But instead I'll just laugh again.

ROFL

I'm not sure I even understand what you're talking about here but here are a couple of thoughts.

1. Abu Ghraib was a public relations problem for the US. To the extent that the CIA might have been involved at Abu Ghraib and to the extent this involvement were to become public, it too would be a public relations problem for the US. Because we don't know anything about CIA activities at Abu Ghraib, any such activities are not a part of the PR aspect of this scandal, by definition.

2. There was a legal aspect to the scandal at Abu Ghraib as well. Military personnell committed crimes at Abu Ghraib. To the extent that the CIA might have been involved in Abu Ghraib performing authorized interrogations using enhanced techniques, those activities would have been distinguishable from the criminal activities that involved military personnel and would not have been criminal themselves. Therefore, any such activities, by definition, would not have been a part of the legal aspect of this scandal even if they'd become public.

3. There is absolutely no evidence that the CIA was using ehanced interrogation techniques at Abu Ghraib.

Q.E.D. Your OP article has nothing to do with Abu Ghraib whatsoever.

Chiefmanwillcatch
04-10-2008, 01:14 PM
Al queda approved of lethal interrogation.

mikey23545
04-10-2008, 11:53 PM
If we really need information from one of these dirtbags, we should make them read jiZ posts until they experience a break from reality as severe as his.

jAZ
04-11-2008, 01:06 AM
...the PR aspect of this scandal, by definition...
This discussion has nothing to do with your narrowly defined subject of "Abu Gharib was merely a PR scandal" topic. I have no idea why you are trying to change the subject away from the real discussion - who created a program of abuse and torture to be implemented by the CIA and DOD. Oh wait, yes I do.

patteeu
04-11-2008, 07:40 AM
This discussion has nothing to do with your narrowly defined subject of "Abu Gharib was merely a PR scandal" topic. I have no idea why you are trying to change the subject away from the real discussion - who created a program of abuse and torture to be implemented by the CIA and DOD. Oh wait, yes I do.

Hmmm. I thought I followed you through the change of subject to Abu Ghraib.

The bottom line as far as the thread topic goes is that the program of harsh interrogations for the CIA was authorized at the top as it should have been, it was legal, and there was no reason whatsoever for you to try to link it to Abu Ghraib.

Mr. Kotter
04-11-2008, 08:27 AM
Unless someone proves that "enhanced interrogation" is the same, legally speaking, as "torture"....this is, once again, simply wishful thinking. And then you must prove who knew what, and when.

Otherwise, this "story" has no legs. Good luck with that. :rolleyes:

go bowe
04-11-2008, 12:10 PM
LMAO @ "goes to the top"

You're such a dope, jAZ. I can't believe that there was any question in anyone's mind about whether or not enhanced interrogation techniques were approved by the top levels of this administration. President Bush and Vice President Cheney have defended them repeatedly and we knew that the Attorney General had advised the administration on their legality. There has never been any suggestion that this was the work of some low level flunkie.low level flunky?

and just what have you got against low level flunkies anyway?

without low level flunkies how could we recognize the high level flunkies?

i say just go ahead and drown all the flunkies...

er, i mean waterboard them using something other than water...

urine perhaps? chilled before serving? with a side of warm shit...

or make them listen to sanjaya 24/7?

hmmm... urine or sanjaya?

i think i'd take the urine option, thank you...

go bowe
04-11-2008, 12:14 PM
No they aren't. Your OP article has nothing to do with Abu Ghraib whatsoever. For someone so quick to play the "dishonesty" card, you have a very loose standard for yourself.did you say very loose bowels?

i have that trouble sometimes...

codeine helps a lot, but sometimes you just have to tough it out...

go bowe
04-11-2008, 12:24 PM
I'll say it again, because you can't make this claim...

...without knowing what role the CIA played in Abu Gharib, the investigation into which per the article I posted was obstructed."The report cited the CIA for not giving it 'full access to information involving CIA's role in detention operations.' It said that area needs further investigation." ...it's dishonest to make such an unqualified statement as you have, in the face of a potential link so intriguing that the CIA was cited for obstructing the investigation into their role.

But beyond that obvious potential direct connection... for you to suggest that there was not a single movement at the highest levels of the WH to rewrite the role of the Geneva conventions and to authorize both intelligence channels (the CIA and DOD, which had it's own seperate intelligence aperatus) to utilize torture or new "enhanced interrogation" techniques... is dramatically dishonest. You know better.i'm sorry, i'm new around here and i don't quite understand what you mean by using the word dishonest in the context of making an "unqualified statement"...

i make lots and lots of unqualified statements, but nobody ever calls me dishonest...

*sniffling* what am i doing wrong? *sobbing*

go bowe
04-11-2008, 02:47 PM
Unless someone proves that "enhanced interrogation" is the same, legally speaking, as "torture"....this is, once again, simply wishful thinking. And then you must prove who knew what, and when.

Otherwise, this "story" has no legs. Good luck with that. :rolleyes:eh, legs are overrated...

jAZ
04-11-2008, 02:54 PM
Hmmm. I thought I followed you through the change of subject to Abu Ghraib.
You crack me up.
The bottom line as far as the thread topic goes is that the program of harsh interrogations for the CIA was authorized at the top as it should have been, it was legal, and there was no reason whatsoever for you to try to link it to Abu Ghraib.

The other bottom line that you want to steer away from...

... and that you can't escape...

... is that the entire program of "harsh interrogations" including activities by the CIA at Gitmo, those by the DOD at Abu Gharib (as well as those that may have been conducted jointly) "goes to the top".

jAZ
04-11-2008, 02:54 PM
Unless someone proves that "enhanced interrogation" is the same, legally speaking, as "torture"....this is, once again, simply wishful thinking. And then you must prove who knew what, and when.

Otherwise, this "story" has no legs. Good luck with that. :rolleyes:

What's "wishful thinking" exactly? I don't get this.

patteeu
04-11-2008, 03:05 PM
You crack me up.


The other bottom line that you want to steer away from...

... and that you can't escape...

... is that the entire program of "harsh interrogations" including activities by the CIA at Gitmo, those by the DOD at Abu Gharib (as well as those that may have been conducted jointly) "goes to the top".

That particular "bottom line" is nothing more than a fever dream at this point. Let me know when you find your first shred of evidence.

patteeu
04-11-2008, 03:07 PM
Here's Ed Morrissey's reaction (http://hotair.com/archives/2008/04/11/high-level-meetings-on-interrogations-in-the-white-house-whos-surprised/) to the actual thread topic (minus the Abu Ghraib diversion):

No one seriously argued that these interrogation techniques sprang out of thin air, did they? Of course they got approved by high-level officials in the administration. They also got reviewed in dozens of briefings afterward involving Congressional leadership in both parties, including the waterboarding that the critics claim as torture. Not for two years afterwards did any member of Congress raise a single objection, well after the CIA stopped waterboarding terror suspects.

In fact, these meetings showed that the administration, the Pentagon, and the CIA took care to find legal grounds for every technique applied by its personnel. As the AP reports far down in the story, the CIA especially did not want to go cowboy in its interrogations. The intel community did not want to risk exposing its personnel to prosecution afterwards, when the nation lost its nerve, by working without a legal net underneath them.

If anything, this story should emphasize the fact that the administration tried to find and outline the most aggressive boundaries for interrogations without crossing into actual torture. As Mark Impomeni puts it at AOL’s Political Machine, it clearly shows that the administration did not “run amok”, but tried to make a considered and sober determination of their limitations after 9/11. Were these the correct decisions? Members of both parties thought so at the time. If that has changed, we have to ask whether a less aggressive policy would have been hailed as enlightened if we had suffered another terrorist attack on our homeland after 9/11, or if the current administration would have been castigated for not doing everything in its power to gather the intel that would have prevented it.

jAZ
04-11-2008, 03:10 PM
Let me know when you find your first shred of evidence.
It's as if you tried not to read post #7.

http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showpost.php?p=4676786&postcount=7

jAZ
04-11-2008, 04:17 PM
Bush's authorization for a torture loophole...

http://i245.photobucket.com/albums/gg53/lauraderrick/020207p1.jpg

http://i245.photobucket.com/albums/gg53/lauraderrick/020207.jpg

patteeu
04-11-2008, 06:37 PM
It's as if you tried not to read post #7.

http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showpost.php?p=4676786&postcount=7

When I said "shred of evidence" I was talking about something a little more substantial than a disgraced general testifying that Don Rumsfeld authorized a little bit of loud music. Even if it's true, it's nothing close to the kind of revelation that you made it out to be with your "goes to the top" outrage. :rolleyes:

jAZ
04-11-2008, 06:56 PM
When I said "shred of evidence" I was talking about something a little more substantial than a disgraced general testifying that Don Rumsfeld authorized a little bit of loud music. Even if it's true, it's nothing close to the kind of revelation that you made it out to be with your "goes to the top" outrage. :rolleyes:

It's as if you didn't read all of post #7.

Logical
04-12-2008, 01:22 AM
Unless someone proves that "enhanced interrogation" is the same, legally speaking, as "torture"....this is, once again, simply wishful thinking. And then you must prove who knew what, and when.

Otherwise, this "story" has no legs. Good luck with that. :rolleyes:I agree the story has no legs, but come on Rob you must admit that enhanced interrogation is just 1984 Orwellian speak for torture.

'Hamas' Jenkins
04-12-2008, 01:36 AM
We're torturing them over there so we don't have to torture them over here.

patteeu
04-12-2008, 08:40 AM
I agree the story has no legs, but come on Rob you must admit that enhanced interrogation is just 1984 Orwellian speak for torture.

If the Bush administration was willing to pull out all stops and use torture, they would have come up with something quite a bit more creative than waterboarding and sleep deprivation. "Enhanced interrogation" is clearly a term used to describe techniques that go beyond what had normally been allowed, but that the decision-makers in the Bush administration didn't believe rose to the level of "torture".

patteeu
04-12-2008, 08:42 AM
It's as if you didn't read all of post #7.

It's as if you think post #7 contains content that it doesn't contain.

Logical
04-12-2008, 12:05 PM
If the Bush administration was willing to pull out all stops and use torture, they would have come up with something quite a bit more creative than waterboarding and sleep deprivation. "Enhanced interrogation" is clearly a term used to describe techniques that go beyond what had normally been allowed, but that the decision-makers in the Bush administration didn't believe rose to the level of "torture".You willing to allow the police to use waterboarding on you if they suspect you of aid a breaking and entering ring patteeu? Since it is not torture?

jAZ
04-12-2008, 01:05 PM
It's as if you think post #7 contains content that it doesn't contain.

It's as if you are demanding "proof" under the guise of demanding merely any "shred of evidence".

patteeu
04-13-2008, 10:18 AM
You willing to allow the police to use waterboarding on you if they suspect you of aid a breaking and entering ring patteeu? Since it is not torture?

I don't want to be handcuffed or held in a jail cell, even though neither of those are torture. Why would I want to be waterboarded?

But lets be clear here. No American citizen or resident alien has been subjected to waterboarding nor has any foreigner who was an innocent civilian or a so-called "lawful" combatant. Waterboarding has only been used in the rare case where we have abundant evidence that the subject is a high level member of a violently anti-American, radical islamist terrorist organization.

patteeu
04-13-2008, 10:20 AM
It's as if you are demanding "proof" under the guise of demanding merely any "shred of evidence".

OK, so you're claiming to have a "shred" of evidence and I'm saying it's de minimus. And in any event, your attempt to relate the Abu Ghraib situation with the OP article remains completely baseless.

jAZ
04-13-2008, 10:40 AM
OK, so you're claiming to have a "shred" of evidence and I'm saying it's de minimus. And in any event, your attempt to relate the Abu Ghraib situation with the OP article remains completely baseless.

Let's clear this up... are you trying to say that there is is not an overall detainee questioning program that connects the OP article to the DOD's Abu Gharib program though the use of similar "enhanced interrogation techniques" in both Gitmo (CIA) and Iraq (DOD and maybe CIA)?

Mr. Kotter
04-13-2008, 01:00 PM
I agree the story has no legs, but come on Rob you must admit that enhanced interrogation is just 1984 Orwellian speak for torture.

Eh, I don't think so. Patty sums up my view pretty well...

If the Bush administration was willing to pull out all stops and use torture, they would have come up with something quite a bit more creative than waterboarding and sleep deprivation. "Enhanced interrogation" is clearly a term used to describe techniques that go beyond what had normally been allowed, but that the decision-makers in the Bush administration didn't believe rose to the level of "torture".

Interesting to note, no one has challenged my point by providing any convincing evidence to the contrary either..... ;)

patteeu
04-13-2008, 05:01 PM
Let's clear this up... are you trying to say that there is is not an overall detainee questioning program that connects the OP article to the DOD's Abu Gharib program though the use of similar "enhanced interrogation techniques" in both Gitmo (CIA) and Iraq (DOD and maybe CIA)?

I'm saying that the OP article describes a discussion of the rules for CIA treatment of top al Qaeda suspects. It is not applicable to most dententions.

I'm saying that the people implicated in Abu Ghraib wrong-doing were members of the military, not the CIA.

I'm saying that we didn't waterboard anyone at Abu Ghraib.

I'm saying we don't know if there is any connection at all between the authorized uses of "enhanced techniques" by the CIA and what happened at Abu Ghraib.

I'm saying that you're trying to conflate Abu Ghraib/waterboarding/CIA/military/authorized/unauthorized into one big propaganda stew to give the impression that the most harsh of the "enhanced interrogation" techniques were used broadly, at the drop of a hat.

Logical
04-13-2008, 09:42 PM
Eh, I don't think so. Patty sums up my view pretty well...



Interesting to note, no one has challenged my point by providing any convincing evidence to the contrary either..... ;)


I see the smiley but for the life of me don't get your point. I do not feel that monkey boy or his handler (Cheney) are neccessarily creative, hell on my worst day I am a 100 times more creative than monkey boy, if they want a truly fine set of enhanced interrogation I will happily come to their aid and provide some truly creative torture (oopsie... I mean enhanced interrogation) to use.