PDA

View Full Version : Int'l Issues Torture May Have Slowed Hunt For Bin Laden, Not Hastened It


orange
05-07-2011, 12:30 PM
*HuffingtonPost content - standard disclaimers apply*

Torture May Have Slowed Hunt For Bin Laden, Not Hastened It

Dan Froomkin
First Posted: 05/ 6/11 03:48 PM ET Updated: 05/ 6/11 04:55 PM ET

Torture apologists are reaching precisely the wrong conclusion from the back-story of the hunt for Osama bin Laden, say experienced interrogators and intelligence professionals.

Defenders of the Bush administration’s interrogation policies have claimed vindication from reports that bin Laden was tracked down in small part due to information received from brutalized detainees some six to eight years ago.

But that sequence of events -- even if true -- doesn’t demonstrate the effectiveness of torture, these experts say. Rather, it indicates bin Laden could have been caught much earlier had those detainees been interrogated properly.

"I think that without a doubt, torture and enhanced interrogation techniques slowed down the hunt for bin Laden," said an Air Force interrogator who goes by the pseudonym Matthew Alexander and located Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the leader of al Qaeda in Iraq, in 2006.

It now appears likely that several detainees had information about a key al Qaeda courier -- information that might have led authorities directly to bin Laden years ago. But subjected to physical and psychological brutality, "they gave us the bare minimum amount of information they could get away with to get the pain to stop, or to mislead us," Alexander told The Huffington Post.

"We know that they didn’t give us everything, because they didn’t provide the real name, or the location, or somebody else who would know that information," he said.

In a 2006 study by the National Defense Intelligence College, trained interrogators found that traditional, rapport-based interviewing approaches are extremely effective with even the most hardened detainees, whereas coercion consistently builds resistance and resentment.

"Had we handled some of these sources from the beginning, I would like to think that there’s a good chance that we would have gotten this information or other information," said Steven Kleinman, a longtime military intelligence officer who has extensively researched, practiced and taught interrogation techniques.

"By making a detainee less likely to provide information, and making the information he does provide harder to evaluate, they hindered what we needed to accomplish," said Glenn L. Carle, a retired CIA officer who oversaw the interrogation of a high-level detainee in 2002.

But the discovery and killing of bin Laden was enough for defenders of the Bush administration to declare that their policies had been vindicated.

Liz Cheney, daughter of the former vice president, quickly issued a statement declaring that she was "grateful to the men and women of America’s intelligence services who, through their interrogation of high-value detainees, developed the information that apparently led us to bin Laden."

John Yoo, the lead author of the "Torture Memos," wrote in the Wall Street Journal that bin Laden's death "vindicates the Bush administration, whose intelligence architecture marked the path to bin Laden's door."

Former Bush secretary of defense Donald Rumsfeld declared that "the information that came from those individuals was critically important."

The Obama White House pushed back against that conclusion this week.

"The bottom line is this: If we had some kind of smoking-gun intelligence from waterboarding in 2003, we would have taken out Osama bin Laden in 2003," Tommy Vietor, spokesman for the National Security Council, told The New York Times.

Chronological details of the hunt for bin Laden remain murky, but piecing together various statements from administration and intelligence officials, it appears the first step may have been the CIA learning the nickname of an al Qaeda courier -- Abu Ahmed al-Kuwaiti -- from several detainees picked up after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

Then, in 2003, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (KSM), the 9/11 mastermind, was captured, beaten, slammed into walls, shackled in stress positions and made to feel like he was drowning 183 times in a month. When asked about al-Kuwaiti, however, KSM denied that the he had anything to do with al Qaeda.

In 2004, officials detained a man named Hassan Ghul and brought him to one of the CIA’s black sites, where he identified al-Kuwaiti as a key courier.

A third detainee, Abu Faraj al-Libi, was arrested in 2005 and under CIA interrogation apparently denied knowing al-Kuwaiti at all.

Once the courier's real name was established -- about four years ago, and by other means -- intelligence analysts stayed on the lookout for him. After he was picked up on a monitored phone call last year, he ultimately led authorities to bin Laden.

The link between the Bush-era interrogation regime and bin Laden’s killing, then, appears tenuous -- especially since two of the three detainees in question apparently provided deceptive information about the courier even after being interrogated under durress.

"It simply strains credulity to suggest that a piece of information that may or may not have been gathered eight years ago somehow directly led to a successful mission on Sunday. That's just not the case," said White House Press Secretary Jay Carney.

But for Alexander, Kleinman and others, the key takeaway is not just that the torture didn't work, but that it was actually counterproductive.

"The question is: What else did KSM have?" Alexander asked. And he’s pretty sure he knows the answer: KSM knew the courier’s real name, "or he knew who else knew his real name, or he knew how to find him -- and he didn’t give any of that information," Alexander said.

Alexander’s book, "Kill or Capture," chronicles how the non-coercive interrogation of a dedicated al Qaeda member led to Zarqawi’s capture.

"I’m 100 percent confident that a good interrogator would have gotten additional leads" from KSM, Alexander said.

"Interrogation is all about getting access to someone’s uncorrupted memory," explained Kleinman, who as an Air Force reserve colonel in Iraq in 2003 famously tried, but failed, to stop the rampant, systemic abuse of detainees there. "And you can’t get access to someone’s uncorrupted memory by applying psychological, physical or emotional force."

Quite to the contrary, coercion is known to harden resistance. "It makes an individual hate you and find any way in their mind to fight back," and it inhibits their recall, Kleinman said. Far preferable, he said, is a "more thoughtful, culturally-enlightened, science-based approach."

"I never saw enhanced interrogation techniques work in Iraq; I never saw even harsh techniques work in Iraq," Alexander said. "In every case I saw them slow us down, and they were always counterproductive to trying to get people to cooperate."

Carle, who was not a trained interrogator, said he came to recognize that interrogation was a lot like something he did know how to do: manage intelligence assets in the field.

"Perverse and imbalanced as the relationship is between interrogator and detainee, it’s nonetheless a human relationship, and building upon that, manipulating the person, dealing straight with the person, simply coming to understand the person and vice versa, one can move forward," he told reporters on a conference call Thursday.

Carle’s upcoming book, "The Interrogator," chronicles his growing doubts about his orders from his superiors.

"The methods that I was urged to embrace, I found first-hand -- putting aside the moral and legal issues, which we really cannot put aside -- from a practical and a tactical and a strategic sense and a moral and legal one, the methods are counterproductive," he said.

"They do not work," he added. "They cause retrograde motion from what you’re seeking to accomplish. They increase resentment, not cooperation. They increase the difficulty in assessing what information you do hear is valid. They increase the likelihood that you will be given disinformation and have opposition from the person that you’re interrogating, across the board."

Carle said the detainee he worked with regressed when coerced. "All it did was increase resentment and misery," he said.

Larry Wilkerson, chief of staff under former secretary of state Colin Powell, said, "I’d be naive if I said it never worked," referring to enhanced interrogation techniques.

"Of course, occasionally it works, Wilkerson said. "But most of the time, what torture is useful for is confessions. It’s not good for getting actionable intelligence."

Experts agree that torture is particularly good at one thing: eliciting false confessions.

Bush-era interrogation techniques, were modeled after methods used by Chinese Communists to extract confessions from captured U.S. servicemen that they could then use for propaganda during the Korean War.

"Somehow our government decided that ... these were effective means of obtaining information," Carle said. "Nothing could be further from the truth."

At a hearing in Guantanamo, several years after being waterboarded, KSM described how he would lie -- specifically about bin Laden’s whereabouts -- just to make the torture stop. "I make up stories," Mohammed said. "Where is he? I don't know. Then, he torture me," KSM said of an interrogator. "Then I said, 'Yes, he is in this area.'"

There are many other reasons to be skeptical of the argument that torture can lead to actionable intelligence, and specifically that enhanced interrogation led investigators to bin Laden.

Many of the positive accomplishments once cited in defense of enhanced interrogation have since been debunked.

And though its defenders are now trying to talk up the significance of the earlier intelligence, around the time of al-Libi’s interrogation, the CIA was not stepping up the hunt for bin Laden. Instead, it was closing down the unit that had been dedicated to hunting bin Laden and his top lieutenants.

This new scenario hardly supports a defense of torture on the grounds that it’s appropriate in "ticking time bomb" scenarios, Alexander said. "Show me an interrogator who says that eight years is a good result."

The interrogation experts also noted the significant role Yoo, Rumsfeld and former Vice President Cheney each played in opening the door to controversial interrogation practices.

Wilkerson has long argued that there is ample evidence showing that "the Office of the Vice President bears responsibility for creating an environment conducive to the acts of torture and murder committed by U.S. forces in the war on terror."

Yoo wrote several memos that explicitly sanctioned measures that many have deemed constitute torture, and the memo from Rumsfeld authorizing the use of stress positions, hooding and dogs was widely seen as a sign to the troops that the "gloves could come off."

"These guys are trying to save their reputations, for one thing," Alexander said. "They have, from the beginning, been trying to prevent an investigation into war crimes."

"They don’t want to talk about the long term consequences that cost the lives of Americans," Alexander added. The way the U.S. treated its prisoners "was al-Qaeda’s number-one recruiting tool and brought in thousands of foreign fighters who killed American soldiers," Alexander said. "And who want to live with that on their conscience?"

From Bush himself on down, the defenders of his interrogation regime have long insisted that it never amounted to torture. But waterboarding, the single most controversial aspect of Bush's interrogation regime, has been an archetypal form of torture dating back to the Spanish Inquisition. It involves strapping someone to a board and simulating drowning them. The U.S. government has historically considered it a war crime.

One can quibble over the proper term for some of the other tactics employed with official sanction, including forced nudity, isolation, bombardment with noise and light, deprivation of food, forced standing, repeated beatings, applications of cold water, the use of dogs, slamming prisoners into walls, shackling them in stress positions and keeping them awake for as long as 180 hours. But they comprise violations of human dignity, as codified by the United Nations -- and championed by the U.S. government -- ever since World War II.

Many have argued that whether torture works or not is irrelevant -- that it is flatly illegal, immoral, and contrary to core American principles -- and that even if it were effective, it would still be anathema.

But that torture is unparalleled in its ability to obtain intelligence is the central argument of its defenders. To concede that torture doesn’t work -- as Alexander, Kleinman and Carle, among others, say -- would be to forfeit the whole game. It would be admitting that cruelty was both the means and the end.

And so the debate goes on.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/05/06/torture-may-have-slowed-h_n_858642.html

orange
05-07-2011, 12:32 PM
This article on the site is absolutely chock-full of hotlinks to outside materials, as well.

Iowanian
05-07-2011, 12:45 PM
That's just something pussies say.

notorious
05-07-2011, 12:52 PM
I can't help but think about the scene on "Casino" when Nicky tortures a guy to the point of putting his head in a vice and popping his eyeball out.


"You make me pop your fucking eyeball out to protect that piece of shit Charlie M....."

blaise
05-07-2011, 03:04 PM
Huff Post article.

Go Chiefs.

mikey23545
05-07-2011, 03:38 PM
Oh for ****s sake.

So we should ignore the fact that EIT led to the info, and instead we'll all pretend that if it hadn't been used it would have all magically happened sooner.

Notice how similar this is to the old liberal whine in which they ignore the fact that socialist economics (talking soothingly to our Al Quaida brothers) is a complete disaster, but it's just because we haven't completely quit using capitalism (EIT) which <i>does</i> work.

Give peace a chance, damn you!

ROYC75
05-07-2011, 04:47 PM
And with this the Liberal Loons are still claiming we could have done this quicker if we had been nice to them with 5 star accommodations.

Daddy always told me as a kid , " Son, Never mix Liberal Loons and politics together, most times you'll get somebody crazier than your In Laws".

patteeu
05-07-2011, 04:57 PM
The flaw with this theory is that every detainee who experienced EITs, including those who were waterboarded, were first interrogated using standard methods. The EITs were not authorized until interrogation experts determined that the standard methods had encountered an impasse. Had standard methods worked, the progression to EITs would never have happened.

Having said this, I'll acknowledge that there's a chance that you can extract additional information over a very long period of standard interrogation and I'll even accept the theory that harsh techniques might retard access to some of this additional information, but it's not as simple as that. There's a trade off to be made. The better approach will depend on the particular detainee (how will he react to harsh treatment), the type of information being sought and the urgency related to that information.

vailpass
05-07-2011, 05:12 PM
Good Lord Orange, stop.

HonestChieffan
05-07-2011, 05:14 PM
If Bush had negotiated and they had put a spa at Gitmo the deficit would not exist, unemployment would be zero and my freaking GD airconditionerheatdamnpump would not be on the fritz.

FU George and FU Dave Freakin Lennox.

Im badassed enough to have two heatpumps though so I can enjoy my Dark Truth in the part of the house with the TV.

Whats this have to do with the OP? Its bullshit my AC is out and the OP is Bullshit.

orange
05-07-2011, 06:38 PM
Good Lord Orange, stop.

GFY, daddy.

Royal Fanatic
05-07-2011, 07:37 PM
The bottom line is that the Bush administration had nearly 8 years to find and kill Osama bin Laden and they failed miserably.

The Obama administration succeeded.

That's really all there is to say.

P.S. I voted for McCain.

MagicHef
05-07-2011, 07:51 PM
The flaw with this theory is that every detainee who experienced EITs, including those who were waterboarded, were first interrogated using standard methods. The EITs were not authorized until interrogation experts determined that the standard methods had encountered an impasse. Had standard methods worked, the progression to EITs would never have happened.

Having said this, I'll acknowledge that there's a chance that you can extract additional information over a very long period of standard interrogation and I'll even accept the theory that harsh techniques might retard access to some of this additional information, but it's not as simple as that. There's a trade off to be made. The better approach will depend on the particular detainee (how will he react to harsh treatment), the type of information being sought and the urgency related to that information.

How long do you think it would take to get more/better information from the standard techniques than EITs? 8 years?

patteeu
05-07-2011, 08:02 PM
The bottom line is that the Bush administration had nearly 8 years to find and kill Osama bin Laden and they failed miserably.

The Obama administration succeeded.

That's really all there is to say.

P.S. I voted for McCain.

That's a pretty simplistic way to look at it. The Obama administration stands on the shoulders of the Bush administration when it comes to the GWoT.

patteeu
05-07-2011, 08:11 PM
How long do you think it would take to get more/better information from the standard techniques than EITs? 8 years?

I think it depends on all the variables I mentioned and maybe others as well. Could be an hour, could be a week, could be a decade, or it could never happen at all. :shrug:

Royal Fanatic
05-07-2011, 09:41 PM
That's a pretty simplistic way to look at it. The Obama administration stands on the shoulders of the Bush administration when it comes to the GWoT.
I would call it simple and straight to the point, not simplistic.

Another simple fact that is beyond dispute is that the Bush administration de-emphasized the search for Osama bin Laden and focused on other things in its war on terror.

Maybe the Bush administration's approach was 100% correct. Maybe it WAS more important to invade Iraq than to find and kill Obama. And maybe water boarding IS the way to go when you're interrogating a terrorist.

But the fact that Osama bin Laden was located and killed when Obama was Commander in Chief is major egg on the face of the Bush administration. This renders one of the major Republican talking points completely impotent: that the Democrats simply don't understand the war on terror and what needs to be done to keep America safe. Loyal Republicans will still believe it, but the swing voters who decide elections won't be buying it in 2012.

The Republicans would be much better off talking about taxes, spending, unemployment, and cap and trade during the next election cycle. The war on terror will be a losing argument for the Republican party.

go bowe
05-07-2011, 09:41 PM
[INDENT][INDENT]



* * *
In a 2006 study by the National Defense Intelligence College, trained interrogators found that traditional, rapport-based interviewing approaches are extremely effective with even the most hardened detainees, whereas coercion consistently builds resistance and resentment.

"Had we handled some of these sources from the beginning, I would like to think that there’s a good chance that we would have gotten this information or other information," said Steven Kleinman, a longtime military intelligence officer who has extensively researched, practiced and taught interrogation techniques.

"By making a detainee less likely to provide information, and making the information he does provide harder to evaluate, they hindered what we needed to accomplish," said Glenn L. Carle, a retired CIA officer who oversaw the interrogation of a high-level detainee in 2002.

* * *
huffpo might not be the most persuasive source, but sources cited in the article appear to be pretty familiar with interrogation techniques and their opinion should not be dismissed out of hand because huffpo referenced them...

in one of the torture threads, the point was made that the first-hand knowledge from people in the bush administration made them better and more reliable sources of information...

yet the National Defense Intelligence College would seem to be a very reputable source (wiki it) and the other guys quoted in the article seem to be relying on first-hand experience with interrogations of aq detainees...

i'd say there's some first-hand evidence that the eit approach is not as effective as some would like to think...

standard interrogation works quite well and produces much more accurate and useful information, according to people who are experts in interrogation...

MagicHef
05-07-2011, 09:44 PM
I think it depends on all the variables I mentioned and maybe others as well. Could be an hour, could be a week, could be a decade, or it could never happen at all. :shrug:

Do you think that the reaction of the detainees, type of information being sought, and urgency of the situation justified the use of such ethically questionable techniques?

go bowe
05-07-2011, 09:45 PM
That's a pretty simplistic way to look at it. The Obama administration stands on the shoulders of the Bush administration when it comes to the GWoT.it's nice to see you admit that the obama administration stands head and shoulders above the bush administration...
:p :p :p

SNR
05-07-2011, 10:46 PM
it's nice to see you admit that the obama administration stands head and shoulders above the bush administration...
:p :p :pI think he's trying to say that Bush is the guy who drafted all the offensive tackles, running backs, tight ends, corners, and defensive linemen, which allowed Obama to draft all the pass rushers, WRs, and QBs and then look like a total genius

dirk digler
05-07-2011, 10:58 PM
I think he's trying to say that Bush is the guy who drafted all the offensive tackles, running backs, tight ends, corners, and defensive linemen, which allowed Obama to draft all the pass rushers, WRs, and QBs and then look like a total genius

So Bush = Carl Peterson


:D

go bowe
05-07-2011, 11:00 PM
I think he's trying to say that Bush is the guy who drafted all the offensive tackles, running backs, tight ends, corners, and defensive linemen, which allowed Obama to draft all the pass rushers, WRs, and QBs and then look like a total genius

seriously?

of course i know what he was trying to say...

i was trying to poke a little fun at patteeu...

btw, it's not so much that he looks like a total genious as it is that he looks totally ballsy...

i'm proud of the man, good job hussein... :thumb:

patteeu
05-08-2011, 02:59 AM
I would call it simple and straight to the point, not simplistic.

Yeah, I know. That's exactly the kind of simplistic description you'd expect from someone with such a simplistic theory.

Another simple fact that is beyond dispute is that the Bush administration de-emphasized the search for Osama bin Laden and focused on other things in its war on terror.

Maybe the Bush administration's approach was 100% correct. Maybe it WAS more important to invade Iraq than to find and kill Obama. And maybe water boarding IS the way to go when you're interrogating a terrorist.

Yes, the Bush administration's policy was based on an idea that's bigger than one man.

But the fact that Osama bin Laden was located and killed when Obama was Commander in Chief is major egg on the face of the Bush administration. This renders one of the major Republican talking points completely impotent: that the Democrats simply don't understand the war on terror and what needs to be done to keep America safe. Loyal Republicans will still believe it, but the swing voters who decide elections won't be buying it in 2012.

The Republicans would be much better off talking about taxes, spending, unemployment, and cap and trade during the next election cycle. The war on terror will be a losing argument for the Republican party.

The only part of this that I agree with is that it becomes harder to use Obama's manifold failures in foreign policy against him politically because he's got one big success he can use to mesmerize simplistic voters.

patteeu
05-08-2011, 03:03 AM
huffpo might not be the most persuasive source, but sources cited in the article appear to be pretty familiar with interrogation techniques and their opinion should not be dismissed out of hand because huffpo referenced them...

in one of the torture threads, the point was made that the first-hand knowledge from people in the bush administration made them better and more reliable sources of information...

yet the National Defense Intelligence College would seem to be a very reputable source (wiki it) and the other guys quoted in the article seem to be relying on first-hand experience with interrogations of aq detainees...

i'd say there's some first-hand evidence that the eit approach is not as effective as some would like to think...

standard interrogation works quite well and produces much more accurate and useful information, according to people who are experts in interrogation...

Blanket statements like the one attributed to "experts in interrogation" in your last paragraph are usually wrong and this case isn't an exception.

patteeu
05-08-2011, 03:05 AM
Do you think that the reaction of the detainees, type of information being sought, and urgency of the situation justified the use of such ethically questionable techniques?

According to people who were fully aware of the program results, it was. I believe them, but I don't have any way to independently confirm their claims. Oh, and I don't believe there were any ethically questionable techniques involved.

go bowe
05-08-2011, 01:00 PM
Blanket statements like the one attributed to "experts in interrogation" in your last paragraph are usually wrong and this case isn't an exception.ok, change that to according to the experts quoted in this specific article...

according to them, experts with first-hand knowledge named in the article, standard interrogation techniques work just fine and eit's aren't as effective if not counterproductive...

MagicHef
05-08-2011, 02:10 PM
According to people who were fully aware of the program results, it was. I believe them, but I don't have any way to independently confirm their claims. Oh, and I don't believe there were any ethically questionable techniques involved.

Do you have any concerns that there is no way for anyone to independently confirm any of the claims made by those involved with waterboarding?

If there's nothing ethically questionable about it, do you think the US acted improperly when it executed Japanese soldiers as war criminals for waterboarding American prisoners?

Royal Fanatic
05-08-2011, 03:23 PM
Yeah, I know. That's exactly the kind of simplistic description you'd expect from someone with such a simplistic theory.



Yes, the Bush administration's policy was based on an idea that's bigger than one man.



The only part of this that I agree with is that it becomes harder to use Obama's manifold failures in foreign policy against him politically because he's got one big success he can use to mesmerize simplistic voters.
WTF Pat, is simplistic your word for the day?

I'll tell you what simplistic is. Simplistic is arguing over and over that everything the Bush administration did was absolutely perfect and that everything Obama does is absolutely wrong. That's what you do, and your posts are very predictable. If a Democrat had abandoned the hunt for Osama bin Laden and instead unilaterally invaded Iraq in search of those elusive WMDs that did not exist, you would have been screaming from the rooftops that the Democrat was an idiot. But when a Republican does it, you're not only just fine with it, you defend it with your dying breath.

I vote Republican more often than not, but condescending assholes like you make me embarrassed to admit it.

mlyonsd
05-08-2011, 03:53 PM
If there's nothing ethically questionable about it, do you think the US acted improperly when it executed Japanese soldiers as war criminals for waterboarding American prisoners?

Did we beat these guys during the waterboarding like the Japanese did?

But to your direct question waterboarding sub-human terrorists is not the same as soldiers fighting under a flag.

Direckshun
05-08-2011, 03:57 PM
The flaw with this theory is that every detainee who experienced EITs, including those who were waterboarded, were first interrogated using standard methods. The EITs were not authorized until interrogation experts determined that the standard methods had encountered an impasse. Had standard methods worked, the progression to EITs would never have happened.

Who is establishing the arbitrary time window of "success" and "failure" to retrieve information that you're citing here?

Having said this, I'll acknowledge that there's a chance that you can extract additional information over a very long period of standard interrogation and I'll even accept the theory that harsh techniques might retard access to some of this additional information, but it's not as simple as that. There's a trade off to be made. The better approach will depend on the particular detainee (how will he react to harsh treatment), the type of information being sought and the urgency related to that information.

What you're arguing (that torture will generally lead to results quicker than standard interrogation) is unsupported by evidence.

Direckshun
05-08-2011, 03:58 PM
I think he's trying to say that Bush is the guy who drafted all the offensive tackles, running backs, tight ends, corners, and defensive linemen, which allowed Obama to draft all the pass rushers, WRs, and QBs and then look like a total genius

DAMMIT PIOLI

Direckshun
05-08-2011, 04:01 PM
According to people who were fully aware of the program results, it was. I believe them, but I don't have any way to independently confirm their claims.

Exactly.

You can't confirm their claims (because they destroyed all the evidence -- that would have theoretically vindicated them, you no doubt believe), which run counter to the vast majority of objective interrogation experts.

The problem is, those experts we so often cite are dispassionate. The sources you defend have legal and political skin in the game. They are ambassadors for their cause, not dispassionate evaluators.

patteeu
05-08-2011, 04:57 PM
ok, change that to according to the experts quoted in this specific article...

according to them, experts with first-hand knowledge named in the article, standard interrogation techniques work just fine and eit's aren't as effective if not counterproductive...

I wasn't quibbling with which experts said what. I was saying that the experts from the article are saying something so sweeping that it's impossible to take it seriously.

patteeu
05-08-2011, 05:11 PM
Do you have any concerns that there is no way for anyone to independently confirm any of the claims made by those involved with waterboarding?

No because there's no way to independently confirm any of the claims of the critics either. We'll probably never have any thorough scientific study of the alternative claims in this subject area. That leaves us with competing claims and and our own understanding of human nature to go on. Most people want to deny their own knowledge of human nature in order to draw a more satisfying conclusion, IMO.

If there's nothing ethically questionable about it, do you think the US acted improperly when it executed Japanese soldiers as war criminals for waterboarding American prisoners?

The word "waterboarding" is being used to describe two different procedures here so even if it were true that we executed some Japanese for waterboarding it wouldn't have direct relevance to the EIT version of waterboarding. Even more importantly, we didn't execute any Japanese strictly for waterboarding. All of the Japanese war criminals that we executed were found guilty of more sweeping war crimes like prosecuting a so-called illegal war.

patteeu
05-08-2011, 05:16 PM
WTF Pat, is simplistic your word for the day?

I'll tell you what simplistic is. Simplistic is arguing over and over that everything the Bush administration did was absolutely perfect and that everything Obama does is absolutely wrong. That's what you do, and your posts are very predictable. If a Democrat had abandoned the hunt for Osama bin Laden and instead unilaterally invaded Iraq in search of those elusive WMDs that did not exist, you would have been screaming from the rooftops that the Democrat was an idiot. But when a Republican does it, you're not only just fine with it, you defend it with your dying breath.

I vote Republican more often than not, but condescending assholes like you make me embarrassed to admit it.

And simplistic morons who claim to vote Republican embarrass me so I guess we're even. :shrug:

patteeu
05-08-2011, 05:45 PM
Who is establishing the arbitrary time window of "success" and "failure" to retrieve information that you're citing here?

The CIA interrogators in charge of the interrogation program. People you might call experts if they said what you wanted them to say.

What you're arguing (that torture will generally lead to results quicker than standard interrogation) is unsupported by evidence.

1. I'm not talking about torture. I'm talking about enhanced interrogation techniques.

2. With the above caveat, I am certainly arguing that in some cases enhanced interrogation techniques will work more quickly than standard techniques, but that's only a subset of my argument.

3. It's false to say that it is unsupported by evidence. That's something you've heard that you want to believe, but it's not accurate. We had testimony from people who are aware of the results of the CIA's interrogation program who indicated that rapid breakthroughs were accomplished with waterboarding after standard interrogation had run into a dead end. Like it or not, that is evidence and it's just as credible as the opinions of the experts you prefer to believe who in most cases don't have any specific insight into the CIA program.

patteeu
05-08-2011, 05:49 PM
Exactly.

You can't confirm their claims (because they destroyed all the evidence -- that would have theoretically vindicated them, you no doubt believe), which run counter to the vast majority of objective interrogation experts.

The problem is, those experts we so often cite are dispassionate. The sources you defend have legal and political skin in the game. They are ambassadors for their cause, not dispassionate evaluators.

We've been through this before. That doesn't make the opinions of people who don't know what they're talking about superior.

Direckshun
05-08-2011, 05:49 PM
1. I'm not talking about torture. I'm talking about enhanced interrogation techniques.

I say potato, you say "enhanced spud."

It's false to say that it is unsupported by evidence. That's something you've heard that you want to believe, but it's not accurate. We had testimony from people who are aware of the results of the CIA's interrogation program who indicated that rapid breakthroughs were accomplished with waterboarding after standard interrogation had run into a dead end. Like it or not, that is evidence and it's just as credible as the opinions of the experts you prefer to believe who in most cases don't have any specific insight into the CIA program.

Please.

The only people who will say the things you want them to are people who could theoretically be convicted of war crimes should it be legally regarded that they tortured prisoners.

What else are they going to say other than everything went swimmingly?

Direckshun
05-08-2011, 05:50 PM
We've been through this before. That doesn't make the opinions of people who don't know what they're talking about superior.

Actually it does. It actually, legally does.

It actually makes their opinions de facto superior.

patteeu
05-08-2011, 05:51 PM
I say potato, you say "enhanced spud."



Please.

The only people who will say the things you want them to are people who could theoretically be convicted of war crimes should it be legally regarded that they tortured prisoners.

What else are they going to say other than everything went swimmingly?

Effectiveness isn't a shield against war crimes charges. There's no such thing as an effectiveness defense.

patteeu
05-08-2011, 05:53 PM
Actually it does. It actually, legally does.

It actually makes their opinions de facto superior.

Untrue.

Direckshun
05-08-2011, 05:53 PM
Effectiveness isn't a shield against war crimes charges. There's no such thing as an effectiveness defense.

In the arena of public opinion, there is. You better believe it.

Direckshun
05-08-2011, 05:54 PM
Untrue.

Who's pat going to trust, the vast majority of interrogation experts or the Bush administration?

MagicHef
05-08-2011, 05:56 PM
No because there's no way to independently confirm any of the claims of the critics either. We'll probably never have any thorough scientific study of the alternative claims in this subject area. That leaves us with competing claims and and our own understanding of human nature to go on. Most people want to deny their own knowledge of human nature in order to draw a more satisfying conclusion, IMO.



The word "waterboarding" is being used to describe two different procedures here so even if it were true that we executed some Japanese for waterboarding it wouldn't have direct relevance to the EIT version of waterboarding. Even more importantly, we didn't execute any Japanese strictly for waterboarding. All of the Japanese war criminals that we executed were found guilty of more sweeping war crimes like prosecuting a so-called illegal war.

Can you expand on the differences between the waterboarding used by the Japanese that were at least part of the determination of war crimes having been committed, and the waterboarding that was carried out as EITs?

Ugly Duck
05-08-2011, 06:11 PM
KSM knew the courier’s real name, "or he knew who else knew his real name, or he knew how to find him -- and he didn’t give any of that information"

"It simply strains credulity to suggest that a piece of information that may or may not have been gathered eight years ago somehow directly led to a successful mission on Sunday. That's just not the case," said White House Press Secretary Jay Carney.


Strains credulity? STRAINS CREDULITY?? We're talking about Republicans here - they don't need no stinkin' credulity! They think Faux News is fair & balanced. They think George Bush is smart... and Obama is stupid. They think invading Iraq is a worthwhile endeavor. They think Obama was born in Kenya. They think its the Democratic party that has racked up most of the Debt. No one should be surprised that Republicans think that it was George Bush who killed bin Laden.

Royal Fanatic
05-08-2011, 06:22 PM
Strains credulity? STRAINS CREDULITY?? We're talking about Republicans here - they don't need no stinkin' credulity! They think Faux News is fair & balanced. They think George Bush is smart... and Obama is stupid. They think invading Iraq is a worthwhile endeavor. They think Obama was born in Kenya. They think its the Democratic party that has racked up most of the Debt. No one should be surprised that Republicans think that it was George Bush who killed bin Laden.
Don't forget that they think we are directly descended from Adam and Eve and THAT'S what they insist should be taught in science class, not this new-fangled theory of evolution. It's just fine to force religion on people, as long as it's their religion.

Royal Fanatic
05-08-2011, 06:28 PM
Can you expand on the differences between the waterboarding used by the Japanese that were at least part of the determination of war crimes having been committed, and the waterboarding that was carried out as EITs?
Don't expect consistency out of Pat. Ain't gonna happen.

Direckshun
05-08-2011, 06:32 PM
Pat's a lot of things, but he's not inconsistent.

Just trying to be fair.

mlyonsd
05-08-2011, 06:35 PM
Untrue.Why do you waste your time?

The good news is with Obama sanctifying Gitmo the idea that terrorists hold the same rights as an American citizen is gone from the political forum.

The rest of this stuff, waterboarding, EIT's, etc is just liberals grasping at an attempt to not give Bush any credit.

As Obama keeps vindicating Bush this too shall pass and it will someday become normal routine for a president to use all necessary means in an extreme situation to protect the population.

The only ones being dishonest here are the Bush haters.

Royal Fanatic
05-08-2011, 06:39 PM
Pat's a lot of things, but he's not inconsistent.

Just trying to be fair.
Pat and I obviously rub each other the wrong way, but I shouldn't use that as an excuse to take shots at him.

I'll refrain from doing that.

Direckshun
05-08-2011, 06:44 PM
Why do you waste your time?

The good news is with Obama sanctifying Gitmo the idea that terrorists hold the same rights as an American citizen is gone from the political forum.

Alleged terrorists, I believe. Unless there was a conviction I missed somewhere.

The rest of this stuff, waterboarding, EIT's, etc is just liberals grasping at an attempt to not give Bush any credit.

You don't really have to grasp for anything to proclaim that EITs are unethical torture with no compelling evidentiary support.

As Obama keeps vindicating Bush this too shall pass and it will someday become normal routine for a president to use all necessary means in an extreme situation to protect the population.

EITs were effectively discontinued under the Bush administration (according to them, anyway), and have been more or less repealed by one of Obama's first executive orders as President.

I hate to butt in here, mlyonsd, because I know your post was basically meant to be an emotional high five to pat, but you're pretty much wrong.

No matter how desperately happy you'd be if you were right.

mlyonsd
05-08-2011, 06:53 PM
Can you expand on the differences between the waterboarding used by the Japanese that were at least part of the determination of war crimes having been committed, and the waterboarding that was carried out as EITs?Take this FWIW because it's from a journalist. But if the facts of who was charged with waterboarding and other crimes are true the other crimes is the real reason.

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/180923/sorry-paul-begala-youre-still-wrong/mark-hemingway

mikey23545
05-08-2011, 07:17 PM
Strains credulity? STRAINS CREDULITY?? We're talking about Republicans here - they don't need no stinkin' credulity! They think Faux News is fair & balanced.

It is. You've had an overwhelmingly liberal bias in the MSM for so long your snowblind.

They think George Bush is smart... and Obama is stupid.

We've seen George Bush's grades...Why have we never seen Obama's? (Hell, why have we never seen Obama speak without every word coming out of a teleprompter?)

They think invading Iraq is a worthwhile endeavor.

As Iraq settles more into stable democracy, and other middle eastern countries begin to cast off dictators like out of fashion clothes, we <i>certainly</i> can't say that, now can we?...Can you say domino effect?...



They think Obama was born in Kenya.

I don't really give a shit where the communist dictator wannabe was born.

They think its the Democratic party that has racked up most of the Debt.

It's absolutely incredible that liberals actually try to spread this incredibly bald-faced, fact-defying lie. Just unbelievable.

Ugly Fuck has simply lost all touch with reality out in LaLa Land...

mlyonsd
05-08-2011, 07:32 PM
Alleged terrorists, I believe. Unless there was a conviction I missed somewhere.

True. Alleged. I understand it's not just a nuance. If we waterboarded every detainee you might have an argument I would agree with. The difference is what was going on when it happened and who was waterboarded. I have no problem with that and don't care if you want to look down your nose at me. If we were fighting a civilized army other rules take precedent. We weren't so I don't care.



You don't really have to grasp for anything to proclaim that EITs are unethical torture with no compelling evidentiary support.
They aren't IMO when your enemy uses the freedoms you enjoy to attack your civilians.

EITs were effectively discontinued under the Bush administration (according to them, anyway), and have been more or less repealed by one of Obama's first executive orders as President. That's Obama's choice, hope it works out for him. If he uses EIT's against terrorists the only criticism you'll see from me is his hypocrisy, not that he used it when he deemed it in the nations best interest.

I hate to butt in here, mlyonsd, because I know your post was basically meant to be an emotional high five to pat, but you're pretty much wrong.

Feel free to butt in anytime. That's what this forum is about.

No matter how desperately happy you'd be if you were right.I understand you don't think that but you haven't given me any reason to think I'm wrong.

alnorth
05-08-2011, 07:44 PM
All I know about this issue I heard from my brother, who worked in military intelligence after 9/11 and was trained in interrogation. You should also know that this guy (my brother) is FAR FAR right-wing, his experience in the army seemed to harden his attitude towards the middle east and muslims in general, and I'd think he wouldn't blink or hesitate to sign off on torture in the midst of a war to get info he thought was necessary.

Despite all that, every time the subject came up, he was absolutely adamant that torture not only didn't work very well if ever, it is stupid and counter-productive to try. This issue was one of the few things he ever disagreed with the Bush administration on.

Direckshun
05-08-2011, 08:58 PM
If we were fighting a civilized army other rules take precedent. We weren't so I don't care.

They aren't IMO when your enemy uses the freedoms you enjoy to attack your civilians.

The nature of our enemy changes nothing with interrogation.

It changes what we do on the field, but it doesn't change what we do when they are removed from the field and detained.

Perhaps you can explain why that's foolhardy.

That's Obama's choice, hope it works out for him.

Uh, I'd say it is.

MagicHef
05-08-2011, 09:22 PM
Take this FWIW because it's from a journalist. But if the facts of who was charged with waterboarding and other crimes are true the other crimes is the real reason.

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/180923/sorry-paul-begala-youre-still-wrong/mark-hemingway

That really doesn't change my question, he admits that waterboarding is one of the things that was considered in their trials. Also, I don't think Pat would like that article, he calls waterboarding torture in it.

I'm not sure how educated the author is about waterboarding, since he claims that the cellophane placed over the mouth would prevent water from entering the mouth, when in reality, there is a hole in the cellophane to allow water in but not out.

Mr. Kotter
05-08-2011, 09:27 PM
Total....speculation. No proof, no real "evidence" of importance. Thus, S.T.F.U. until you know, and/or have "proof." Just sayin'...

ROYC75
05-09-2011, 07:38 AM
The nature of our enemy changes nothing with interrogation.

It changes what we do on the field, but it doesn't change what we do when they are removed from the field and detained.

Perhaps you can explain why that's foolhardy.



Uh, I'd say it is.

You Liberals could loose a war or even get more Americans killed by throwing cotton balls at our enemy during interrogations,of course all of this after giving them chocolate milk and cookies first, Oh, make that 2% milk too.

Donger
05-09-2011, 07:47 AM
I realize that the liberals feel all icky about Obama getting his "win" by benefiting from intel gained by "torture," but the hand-wringing really is priceless.

patteeu
05-09-2011, 08:20 AM
Can you expand on the differences between the waterboarding used by the Japanese that were at least part of the determination of war crimes having been committed, and the waterboarding that was carried out as EITs?

No, I can't, but given the painstaking effort the Bush administration took to approach the "abuse" line without crossing it, it seems like the specifics ought to be more relevant to the comparison you're making than the common name.

And again, the accusations of waterboarding were always eclipsed by accusations of larger-scope war crimes in cases where Japanese were ultimately executed.

And mlyonsd made a good point when he distinguished between treatment of legitimate POWs and that of illegal combatants who don't enjoy the same standards of treatment.

patteeu
05-09-2011, 08:26 AM
Don't forget that they think we are directly descended from Adam and Eve and THAT'S what they insist should be taught in science class, not this new-fangled theory of evolution. It's just fine to force religion on people, as long as it's their religion.

So now people who vote Republican are "they", huh? Big surprise.

patteeu
05-09-2011, 08:35 AM
All I know about this issue I heard from my brother, who worked in military intelligence after 9/11 and was trained in interrogation. You should also know that this guy (my brother) is FAR FAR right-wing, his experience in the army seemed to harden his attitude towards the middle east and muslims in general, and I'd think he wouldn't blink or hesitate to sign off on torture in the midst of a war to get info he thought was necessary.

Despite all that, every time the subject came up, he was absolutely adamant that torture not only didn't work very well if ever, it is stupid and counter-productive to try. This issue was one of the few things he ever disagreed with the Bush administration on.

Taking a page from Direckshun's recent book, the army has a strong incentive to convince it's personnel of this to minimize the occurrences of rogue torture sessions. If military interrogators were taught that harsh techniques up to and including torture worked better than Army Field Manual techniques in some situations, the frequency of interrogators going off-program or of commanders pressuring their interrogators to go off-program would skyrocket.

Has your brother ever tortured anyone or interrogated anyone with techniques not allowed by the Army Field Manual? If not, how can he be so confident that those techniques almost never work well?

patteeu
05-09-2011, 08:41 AM
That really doesn't change my question, he admits that waterboarding is one of the things that was considered in their trials. Also, I don't think Pat would like that article, he calls waterboarding torture in it.

I'm not sure how educated the author is about waterboarding, since he claims that the cellophane placed over the mouth would prevent water from entering the mouth, when in reality, there is a hole in the cellophane to allow water in but not out.

I do like that article, as it provides the details that support the main point of my response to you and now I don't have to look them up again.

He doesn't call Bush era waterboarding torture. The closest he comes is when he says he isn't arguing that it's not torture. He leaves his opinion on the subject unstated. I don't have a problem with people saying that it's arguably torture. Or those who say that it's torture in their opinion. I have a problem with people who say it's clearly torture or with people who use "torture" as a shorthand description in order to blur the distinctions between waterboarding and far more brutal and damaging techniques that have been described by that label in the past.

BigMeatballDave
05-09-2011, 08:46 AM
Orange should be waterboarded.

Cave Johnson
05-09-2011, 09:33 AM
<b>No, I can't, but given the painstaking effort the Bush administration took to approach the "abuse" line without crossing it, it seems like the specifics ought to be more relevant to the comparison you're making than the common name.</b>

And again, the accusations of waterboarding were always eclipsed by accusations of larger-scope war crimes in cases where Japanese were ultimately executed.

And mlyonsd made a good point when he distinguished between treatment of legitimate POWs and that of illegal combatants who don't enjoy the same standards of treatment.

Painstaking effort indeed. They had a couple legal flunkies/whores say the following: criminal law doesn't prohibit torture because it doesn't apply to the military. Treaties don't prohibit torture because they only apply to uniformed enemy soldiers. Ditto for the War Crimes Act. And federal statutes prohibiting torture don't prohibit torture because they don't apply to conduct on military bases.

Waterboarding was considered torture when the Japanese did it. It's depicted in the Cambodian Genocide Museum. Yet, when the Bush administration does it, it's not torture. And the mainstream media, especially the NYT, whitewashes the whole thing with Orwellian doublespeak (e.g., EITs).

Regardless of whether Yoo was correct on the legality of torturing terrorists, it was a really ineffective and counterproductive thing to do. So say the experts. But why should you defer to them, because, in your heart of hearts, you just KNOW it works.

patteeu
05-09-2011, 09:40 AM
Painstaking effort indeed. They had a couple legal flunkies/whores say the following: criminal law doesn't prohibit torture because it doesn't apply to the military. Treaties don't prohibit torture because they only apply to uniformed enemy soldiers. Ditto for the War Crimes Act. And federal statutes prohibiting torture don't prohibit torture because they don't apply to conduct on military bases.

Waterboarding was considered torture when the Japanese did it. It's depicted in the Cambodian Genocide Museum. Yet, when the Bush administration does it, it's not torture. And the mainstream media, especially the NYT, whitewashes the whole thing with Orwellian doublespeak (e.g., EITs).

Regardless of whether Yoo was correct on the legality of torturing terrorists, it was a really ineffective and counterproductive thing to do. So say the experts. But why should you defer to them, because, in your heart of hearts, you just KNOW it works.

This isn't true. You should read the so-called "torture" memos so you can develop an informed opinion.

MagicHef
05-09-2011, 09:50 AM
No, I can't, but given the painstaking effort the Bush administration took to approach the "abuse" line without crossing it, it seems like the specifics ought to be more relevant to the comparison you're making than the common name.

And again, the accusations of waterboarding were always eclipsed by accusations of larger-scope war crimes in cases where Japanese were ultimately executed.

And mlyonsd made a good point when he distinguished between treatment of legitimate POWs and that of illegal combatants who don't enjoy the same standards of treatment.

I do like that article, as it provides the details that support the main point of my response to you and now I don't have to look them up again.

He doesn't call Bush era waterboarding torture. The closest he comes is when he says he isn't arguing that it's not torture. He leaves his opinion on the subject unstated. I don't have a problem with people saying that it's arguably torture. Or those who say that it's torture in their opinion. I have a problem with people who say it's clearly torture or with people who use "torture" as a shorthand description in order to blur the distinctions between waterboarding and far more brutal and damaging techniques that have been described by that label in the past.

I agree that the details are what is important. Since you made the claim that they were two different things, I was really hoping that you could provide any sort of evidence for that claim.

Since they aren't legitimate POWs, does that make any treatment acceptable?

The sentence in the article I was referring to is: "...waterboarding was presented as just one of several types of torture..."

Again, the fact that waterboarding was only a small part of why they were convicted of war crimes does not change my question.

Cave Johnson
05-09-2011, 10:01 AM
This isn't true. You should read the so-called "torture" memos so you can develop an informed opinion.

Rather than waste my time reading their "tortured" legal conclusions, I'd rather read a summary. Here's what they said.

"At issue are three documents, including an Aug. 1, 2002, memorandum from Bybee to White House Counsel Alberto R. Gonzales that, understandably, has become known as the "torture memo." Drafted by Yoo, it defined the "severe" pain prohibited by an anti-torture law as that associated with "death, organ failure or serious impairment of body functions" -- meaning anything short of that was permissible.

That language was a paraphrase of a legal provision defining a medical emergency -- a context far removed from torture. But there was more: Even if waterboarding and other "enhanced interrogation" techniques were considered torture, the memo suggested, interrogators would be violating the law only if inflicting pain was their "precise objective." And even then, they might claim self-defense. For good measure, the memo suggested that the law's ban on torture might be unconstitutional if it interfered with the president's powers as commander in chief.

Investigators for the Justice Department's Office of Professional Responsibility concluded last year that Yoo, a professor at UC Berkeley, "knowingly failed to provide a thorough, objective and candid interpretation of the law" and that Bybee, now a federal judge, "acted in reckless disregard of his professional obligations."

http://articles.latimes.com/2010/feb/23/opinion/la-ed-yoo23-2010feb23

vailpass
05-09-2011, 10:06 AM
Rather than waste my time reading their "tortured" legal conclusions, I'd rather read a summary. Here's what they said.

"At issue are three documents, including an Aug. 1, 2002, memorandum from Bybee to White House Counsel Alberto R. Gonzales that, understandably, has become known as the "torture memo." Drafted by Yoo, it defined the "severe" pain prohibited by an anti-torture law as that associated with "death, organ failure or serious impairment of body functions" -- meaning anything short of that was permissible.

That language was a paraphrase of a legal provision defining a medical emergency -- a context far removed from torture. But there was more: Even if waterboarding and other "enhanced interrogation" techniques were considered torture, the memo suggested, interrogators would be violating the law only if inflicting pain was their "precise objective." And even then, they might claim self-defense. For good measure, the memo suggested that the law's ban on torture might be unconstitutional if it interfered with the president's powers as commander in chief.

Investigators for the Justice Department's Office of Professional Responsibility concluded last year that Yoo, a professor at UC Berkeley, "knowingly failed to provide a thorough, objective and candid interpretation of the law" and that Bybee, now a federal judge, "acted in reckless disregard of his professional obligations."

http://articles.latimes.com/2010/feb/23/opinion/la-ed-yoo23-2010feb23


If you lay down sideways does sand dribble out of your vagina?

Cave Johnson
05-09-2011, 10:14 AM
If you lay down sideways does sand dribble out of your vagina?

GFY.

ROYC75
05-09-2011, 10:35 AM
GFY.

Did that strike a nerve ?

vailpass
05-09-2011, 10:35 AM
GFY.

Keep rubbing your legs together, eventually you'll make a pearl.

patteeu
05-09-2011, 10:39 AM
I agree that the details are what is important. Since you made the claim that they were two different things, I was really hoping that you could provide any sort of evidence for that claim.

Well, to be honest, it's fairly obvious that there would be differences in the details and that comparisons like the one you made should be avoided unless you've got a grasp of these details. But I looked around a little bit for some details and found this from wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waterboarding) (based on 3 sources of unknown, to me, reliability):

...the method of binding or holding down the victim on his back, placing a cloth over his mouth and nose, and pouring water onto the cloth. In this version, interrogation continued during the torture, with the interrogators beating the victim if he did not reply and the victim swallowing water if he opened his mouth to answer or breathe. When the victim could ingest no more water, the interrogators would beat or jump on his distended stomach.

Since they aren't legitimate POWs, does that make any treatment acceptable?

That's not the argument I'm making. My argument is that since they were POWs, even non-torturous treatments of some kind might qualify as abuse worthy of being included in the charge list for alleged war criminals.

The sentence in the article I was referring to is: "...waterboarding was presented as just one of several types of torture..."

Again, the fact that waterboarding was only a small part of why they were convicted of war crimes does not change my question.

That sentence indicates that others alleged that it was torture. It doesn't necessarily tell us anything about the author's opinion. However, even if his opinion was that Japanese waterboarding was torture, there's still the matter of differences between that version and the America circa 2003 version. And furthermore, even if his opinion is that America's version is torture, that doesn't negate the details of the piece and their power to undermine your comparison.

Cave Johnson
05-09-2011, 10:40 AM
Did that strike a nerve ?

Keep rubbing your legs together, eventually you'll make a pearl.

Real men torture, is that your point?

Y'all are just sad.

patteeu
05-09-2011, 10:41 AM
Rather than waste my time reading their "tortured" legal conclusions, I'd rather read a summary. Here's what they said.

"At issue are three documents, including an Aug. 1, 2002, memorandum from Bybee to White House Counsel Alberto R. Gonzales that, understandably, has become known as the "torture memo." Drafted by Yoo, it defined the "severe" pain prohibited by an anti-torture law as that associated with "death, organ failure or serious impairment of body functions" -- meaning anything short of that was permissible.

That language was a paraphrase of a legal provision defining a medical emergency -- a context far removed from torture. But there was more: Even if waterboarding and other "enhanced interrogation" techniques were considered torture, the memo suggested, interrogators would be violating the law only if inflicting pain was their "precise objective." And even then, they might claim self-defense. For good measure, the memo suggested that the law's ban on torture might be unconstitutional if it interfered with the president's powers as commander in chief.

Investigators for the Justice Department's Office of Professional Responsibility concluded last year that Yoo, a professor at UC Berkeley, "knowingly failed to provide a thorough, objective and candid interpretation of the law" and that Bybee, now a federal judge, "acted in reckless disregard of his professional obligations."

http://articles.latimes.com/2010/feb/23/opinion/la-ed-yoo23-2010feb23

That's inferior to actually reading the memos as I have, but it's enough to show that your previous post was untrue just like I said it was.

vailpass
05-09-2011, 10:43 AM
Real men torture, is that your point?

Y'all are just sad.

Who said anything about torture? If you mention extertion again I'll have your legs broken.

Cave Johnson
05-09-2011, 10:47 AM
That sentence indicates that others alleged that it was torture. It doesn't necessarily tell us anything about the author's opinion. However, even if his opinion was that Japanese waterboarding was torture, there's still the matter of differences between that version and the America circa 2003 version. And furthermore, even if his opinion is that America's version is torture, that doesn't negate the details of the piece and their power to undermine your comparison.

Waterboarding is torture. It was used in the Spanish inquisition. And as recently as 2005, the State Dept. chastised Tunesia for subjecting prisoners to "submersion of the head in water" as torture.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waterboarding

Spin and equivocate all you want, it's still torture.

Cave Johnson
05-09-2011, 10:49 AM
That's inferior to actually reading the memos as I have, but it's enough to show that your previous post was untrue just like I said it was.

If the severe pain definition and pain as the objective are incorrect, by all means, back it up.

Donger
05-09-2011, 10:49 AM
Waterboarding is torture. It was used in the Spanish inquisition. And as recently as 2005, the State Dept. chastised Tunesia for subjecting prisoners to "submersion of the head in water" as torture.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waterboarding

Spin and equivocate all you want, it's still torture.

So, where do you draw the line? Physical pain?

Is sleep deprivation torture? Drugging?

Donger
05-09-2011, 10:50 AM
If the severe pain definition and pain as the objective are incorrect, by all means, back it up.

Inflicting pain wasn't the objective.

Cave Johnson
05-09-2011, 10:51 AM
Who said anything about torture? If you mention extertion again I'll have your legs broken.

So, do you masturbate to the torture scenes in 24, or just think about them when f'ing your fat wife?*

*Quality 5K post. ;)

patteeu
05-09-2011, 10:52 AM
Waterboarding is torture. It was used in the Spanish inquisition. And as recently as 2005, the State Dept. chastised Tunesia for subjecting prisoners to "submersion of the head in water" as torture.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waterboarding

Spin and equivocate all you want, it's still torture.

Waterboarding was used for executions at one time too. That doesn't mean that we executed KSM when we waterboarded him. The people who insist on calling the practices of the Bush administration "torture" are constantly trying to blur distinctions between those practices and far more brutal treatments. Can you explain to me why you guys do that?

Cave Johnson
05-09-2011, 10:52 AM
Inflicting pain wasn't the objective.

Clearly. The import of that legal argument is that U.S. interrogators can't engage in torture, since their motives are pure.

Cave Johnson
05-09-2011, 10:53 AM
Waterboarding was used for executions at one time too. That doesn't mean that we executed KSM when we waterboarded him. The people who insist on calling the practices of the Bush administration "torture" are constantly trying to blur distinctions between those practices and far more brutal treatments. Can you explain to me why you guys do that?

Explain "far more brutal" treatments.

vailpass
05-09-2011, 10:59 AM
So, do you masturbate to the torture scenes in 24, or just think about them when f'ing your fat wife?

Nice, way to try and put on your big boy pants. A little awkward but that is to be expected from someone not used to it.

Your use of a "f'ing your wife" take was standard but very acceptable. You stumbled on the obscure "24" reference (never seen the show) and flat out whiffed on using the word "masturbate". That is a term you use around women and children. When attempting to bust balls on another male you use the multiple vulgar alternatives i.e. jerk off, fap, etc. etc. etc.

I look forward to more posts like this from you and am happy to foster your entry to the man's club in any way I can.

patteeu
05-09-2011, 10:59 AM
If the severe pain definition and pain as the objective are incorrect, by all means, back it up.

Sure. In a piece apparently designed to support the contention that waterboarding is torture, NPR (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=15886834) recited some of the testimony from the trials of accused Japanese war criminals. In one such exchange between a US military prosecutor and a Filipino lawyer who had been subjected to the process we see this:

Was it painful?

Not so painful, but one becomes unconscious — like drowning in the water.

Now, I'll acknowledge that the Japanese version might have differed from the American version, but it's unlikely that the American version was designed to be more painful than the Japanese version. And I'd also suggest that it's likely that the Japanese version involved more variance than the American version because it was more widely used and the descriptions of the Japanese process seem to differ from case to case. Other accounts of the Japanese treatment that I've read involved simultaneous beatings as well as painfully distended stomachs.

Cave Johnson
05-09-2011, 11:08 AM
Nice, way to try and put on your big boy pants. A little awkward but that is to be expected from someone not used to it.

Your use of a "f'ing your wife" take was standard but very acceptable. You stumbled on the obscure "24" reference (never seen the show) and flat out whiffed on using the word "masturbate". That is a term you use around women and children. When attempting to bust balls on another male you use the multiple vulgar alternatives i.e. jerk off, fap, etc. etc. etc.

I look forward to more posts like this from you and am happy to foster your entry to the man's club in any way I can.

Yeah, 24 is obscure. ;)

Thanks for thinking of me, but your wife already ushered me into the man's club. As with most fat girls, she can suck a mean dick.

vailpass
05-09-2011, 11:14 AM
Yeah, 24 is obscure. ;)

Thanks for thinking of me, but your wife already ushered me into the man's club. As with most fat girls, she can suck a mean dick.

Good, good. You are sticking with the staples in "f'ed your wife" and "your wife is fat". Not much originality but you are starting to seem a little more comfortable. You have to walk before you can run.

From here you might branch out into specific spousal violations i.e. "if your wife pees green it is because I had asparagus last night".

Don't think of this as work, have fun with it.

Royal Fanatic
05-09-2011, 11:47 AM
So now people who vote Republican are "they", huh? Big surprise.
I figured you'd respond to this as soon as you saw it, since you think you know how I vote.

Not all Republicans are "they".

But the far Right element of the Republican party, the ones who insist that evolution is an unproven theory that should be censored from the public school curriculum (or at the very least, be given no more time than creationist theory), is a group that I do not identify with and never will.

Hence the use of the term "they".

orange
05-09-2011, 02:17 PM
Orange should be waterboarded.

Exactly what I expect from you gutless wingtard pricks.

vailpass
05-09-2011, 02:20 PM
I figured you'd respond to this as soon as you saw it, since you think you know how I vote.

Not all Republicans are "they".

But the far Right element of the Republican party, the ones who insist that evolution is an unproven theory that should be censored from the public school curriculum (or at the very least, be given no more time than creationist theory), is a group that I do not identify with and never will.

Hence the use of the term "they".

WTF?
What percentage of the people do you think favor eliminating evolution theory from text books? 1%? Less than 1%?

BTW Evolution isnot proven as the genesis of man. I am FIRMLY in favor of evaolution in the classroom but let's be accurate.

vailpass
05-09-2011, 02:21 PM
Exactly what I expect from you gutless wingtard pricks.

You seem tense. You should hang out with someone mellow and carefree who can calm you down. Have you met Comanche?

Cave Johnson
05-09-2011, 03:01 PM
http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2011/05/quote-2.html

“Listen, waterboarding and/or other coercive techniques did nothing to contribute to our attempts to track down OBL (Osama bin Laden). What did succeed was weeks, months and years of diligent, laborious, and dedicated work – all within the bounds of legal and ethical boundaries ... No torture, no waterboarding, no coercion – nothing inhumane – is considered a useful tool in our work...

I cannot even count the amount of times that I personally have come face to face with detainees, who told me they were primarily motivated to do what they did, because of hearing that we committed torture.

Even the rumor of torture is enough to convince an army of uneducated and illiterate, yet religiously motivated young boys to strap bombs to their chests and blow themselves up while killing whoever happens to be around – police, soldiers, civilians, women, or children. Torture committed by Americans in the past continues to kill Americans today," - a senior US interrogator in Afghanistan.

vailpass
05-09-2011, 03:10 PM
dailybeast.com and huffpo are the two most unbiased sources in all of journalism, could somebody please post more from them?

MagicHef
05-09-2011, 04:11 PM
Well, to be honest, it's fairly obvious that there would be differences in the details and that comparisons like the one you made should be avoided unless you've got a grasp of these details. But I looked around a little bit for some details and found this from wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waterboarding) (based on 3 sources of unknown, to me, reliability):





That's not the argument I'm making. My argument is that since they were POWs, even non-torturous treatments of some kind might qualify as abuse worthy of being included in the charge list for alleged war criminals.



That sentence indicates that others alleged that it was torture. It doesn't necessarily tell us anything about the author's opinion. However, even if his opinion was that Japanese waterboarding was torture, there's still the matter of differences between that version and the America circa 2003 version. And furthermore, even if his opinion is that America's version is torture, that doesn't negate the details of the piece and their power to undermine your comparison.

Waterboarding was used for executions at one time too. That doesn't mean that we executed KSM when we waterboarded him. The people who insist on calling the practices of the Bush administration "torture" are constantly trying to blur distinctions between those practices and far more brutal treatments. Can you explain to me why you guys do that?

Sure. In a piece apparently designed to support the contention that waterboarding is torture, NPR (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=15886834) recited some of the testimony from the trials of accused Japanese war criminals. In one such exchange between a US military prosecutor and a Filipino lawyer who had been subjected to the process we see this:



Now, I'll acknowledge that the Japanese version might have differed from the American version, but it's unlikely that the American version was designed to be more painful than the Japanese version. And I'd also suggest that it's likely that the Japanese version involved more variance than the American version because it was more widely used and the descriptions of the Japanese process seem to differ from case to case. Other accounts of the Japanese treatment that I've read involved simultaneous beatings as well as painfully distended stomachs.

Wow, you actually decided to show some evidence to back up your claims! So, beating the victim is the only difference between Japanese and American waterboarding? Sounds pretty similar to slamming someone into a wall.

Also, I have bolded some phrases of yours that seem to be based on blind faith in the Bush regime. While that is fine for you to feel, surely you understand that it does not make for a convincing argument.

The reason that we keep conflating Japanese and American waterboarding is that there's very little evidence that they are different. We don't even know all of the procedures used for the American version. Even if everything that could possibly be different about them was true, the two are about 90-95% alike.

patteeu
05-09-2011, 05:11 PM
http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2011/05/quote-2.html

“Listen, waterboarding and/or other coercive techniques did nothing to contribute to our attempts to track down OBL (Osama bin Laden). What did succeed was weeks, months and years of diligent, laborious, and dedicated work – all within the bounds of legal and ethical boundaries ... No torture, no waterboarding, no coercion – nothing inhumane – is considered a useful tool in our work...

I cannot even count the amount of times that I personally have come face to face with detainees, who told me they were primarily motivated to do what they did, because of hearing that we committed torture.

Even the rumor of torture is enough to convince an army of uneducated and illiterate, yet religiously motivated young boys to strap bombs to their chests and blow themselves up while killing whoever happens to be around – police, soldiers, civilians, women, or children. Torture committed by Americans in the past continues to kill Americans today," - a senior US interrogator in Afghanistan.

Which makes it even more reprehensible that so many Americans are willing to exaggerate our treatment of prisoners by calling it torture instead of by describing it specifically and leaving it for each individual to draw their own conclusions. In an admittedly indirect way, you've got blood on your tongue and your typing fingers. I hope you're happy. :)

patteeu
05-09-2011, 05:27 PM
Wow, you actually decided to show some evidence to back up your claims! So, beating the victim is the only difference between Japanese and American waterboarding? Sounds pretty similar to slamming someone into a wall.

Waterboarding and the wall slam were not used together. Nor is the wall slam painful in any severe way. In fact, the wall is a fake wall designed to absorb most of the force of the slam and generate a loud noise to psycologically make it seem worse than it really is. The head is even restrained so that whiplash won't occur. So no, I'd say it doesn't really sound particularly similar.

Also, I have bolded some phrases of yours that seem to be based on blind faith in the Bush regime. While that is fine for you to feel, surely you understand that it does not make for a convincing argument.

Fair enough. By the same token, your blind faith that the American version was every bit as painful if not moreso than the Japanese version, or possible exactly the same in every detail, doesn't make for a convincing argument. Your argument was based on the same word being used to describe both techniques. You haven't given any indication that you know much about either one of them.

The reason that we keep conflating Japanese and American waterboarding is that there's very little evidence that they are different. We don't even know all of the procedures used for the American version. Even if everything that could possibly be different about them was true, the two are about 90-95% alike.

I don't know where you come up with that number.

What we've discussed so far:

1. There's some question about how similar the Japanese waterboarding technique and the American waterboarding technique are, but we don't have a huge amount of information about either of them to know how different they are or whether or not we should give the Bush administration any benefit of doubt for the careful consideration they gave to the subject before devising extremely strict guidelines for it's use (far stricter guidelines than the Japanese if the numbers of subjects are any indication).

2. Every one of the executed Japanese war criminals who were involved in waterboarding was found guilty of far more serious crimes, and those more serious crimes are the basis for their death sentences.

3. Even if you insist that some cases of Japanese waterboarding were the same as that of our CIA, there is testimony from at least one victim of the Japanese version suggesting that it did not cause severe pain which is an element of the law covering torture in this country even if you take a significantly more expansive interpretation of that law than the Bush Justice Department did.

mlyonsd
05-09-2011, 05:53 PM
2. Every one of the executed Japanese war criminals who were involved in waterboarding was found guilty of far more serious crimes, and those more serious crimes are the basis for their death sentences.



Yeah but they waterboarded too.

go bowe
05-09-2011, 06:00 PM
Yeah but they waterboarded too.

i tried waterboarding once...

i couldn't ski so they figured they'd just tow me on a saucer thingy...

it was actually a lot of fun and not like torture at all...

mlyonsd
05-09-2011, 06:10 PM
i tried waterboarding once...

i couldn't ski so they figured they'd just tow me on a saucer thingy...

it was actually a lot of fun and not like torture at all...

I wish I had been driving the boat. I sent my daughter about 10 feet in the air once.:evil:

go bowe
05-09-2011, 06:46 PM
I wish I had been driving the boat. I sent my daughter about 10 feet in the air once.:evil:

remind me not to go waterboarding with you... :huh: :huh: :huh:

mlyonsd
05-09-2011, 06:50 PM
remind me not to go waterboarding with you... :huh: :huh: :huh:Just remember how to answer when I yell back to you on the board "How awesome was Bush?"

MagicHef
05-09-2011, 07:34 PM
Waterboarding and the wall slam were not used together. Nor is the wall slam painful in any severe way. In fact, the wall is a fake wall designed to absorb most of the force of the slam and generate a loud noise to psycologically make it seem worse than it really is. The head is even restrained so that whiplash won't occur. So no, I'd say it doesn't really sound particularly similar.



Fair enough. By the same token, your blind faith that the American version was every bit as painful if not moreso than the Japanese version, or possible exactly the same in every detail, doesn't make for a convincing argument. Your argument was based on the same word being used to describe both techniques. You haven't given any indication that you know much about either one of them.



I don't know where you come up with that number.

What we've discussed so far:

1. There's some question about how similar the Japanese waterboarding technique and the American waterboarding technique are, but we don't have a huge amount of information about either of them to know how different they are or whether or not we should give the Bush administration any benefit of doubt for the careful consideration they gave to the subject before devising extremely strict guidelines for it's use (far stricter guidelines than the Japanese if the numbers of subjects are any indication).

2. Every one of the executed Japanese war criminals who were involved in waterboarding was found guilty of far more serious crimes, and those more serious crimes are the basis for their death sentences.

3. Even if you insist that some cases of Japanese waterboarding were the same as that of our CIA, there is testimony from at least one victim of the Japanese version suggesting that it did not cause severe pain which is an element of the law covering torture in this country even if you take a significantly more expansive interpretation of that law than the Bush Justice Department did.

It's not faith, its skepticism. I don't think any benefit of the doubt is appropriate, especially in the light of the evidence being destroyed. No, I am not well versed in the intricacies of the American waterboarding techniques, in fact no one is that was not involved. It's intersting that you believe one testimony saying that there was no pain involved (which wasn't even regarding the American version of waterboarding, which you keep claiming is so different) voids multiple other testimonies claiming the opposite (check the wikipedia link you supplied).

patteeu
05-09-2011, 07:46 PM
It's not faith, its skepticism. I don't think any benefit of the doubt is appropriate, especially in the light of the evidence being destroyed. No, I am not well versed in the intricacies of the American waterboarding techniques, in fact no one is that was not involved. It's intersting that you believe one testimony saying that there was no pain involved (which wasn't even regarding the American version of waterboarding, which you keep claiming is so different) voids multiple other testimonies claiming the opposite (check the wikipedia link you supplied).

One testimony is one more than the number of targets of US waterboarding who are testifying to the opposite. If you accept the testimony of this particular victim of waterboarding, then you accept the fact that waterboarding can be performed without inflicting severe pain. Given the lengths the Bush administration went to avoid crossing the line into torture, it doesn't seem unreasonable that they developed a protocol that minimized the chances of inflicting severe pain (e.g. Using water with the right ph level to avoid the burning sensation you get when tap/pool water accidentally goes up your nose). If you insist on being "skeptical" of this effort then I think we've reached an impasse.

Your skepticism conveniently goes in only one direction which makes it indistinguishable from faith.

MagicHef
05-09-2011, 09:16 PM
One testimony is one more than the number of targets of US waterboarding who are testifying to the opposite. If you accept the testimony of this particular victim of waterboarding, then you accept the fact that waterboarding can be performed without inflicting severe pain. Given the lengths the Bush administration went to avoid crossing the line into torture, it doesn't seem unreasonable that they developed a protocol that minimized the chances of inflicting severe pain (e.g. Using water with the right ph level to avoid the burning sensation you get when tap/pool water accidentally goes up your nose). If you insist on being "skeptical" of this effort then I think we've reached an impasse.

Your skepticism conveniently goes in only one direction which makes it indistinguishable from faith.

Your testimony isn't from a target of US waterboarding either. Therefore, the testimonies are on equal ground, and when one testimony says one thing and a multitude of others say the opposite, relying on the one dissenter is not the intellectually honest route. How do you know what this one anonymous man's pain tolerance is? Are there any mitigating factors which may have influenced him to answer this way? When we have no idea about any of these things, we obviously must take his testimony as an outlier, not as the rule.

What am I supposed to be skeptical of that would make me feel comfortable with applying waterboarding to detainees?

patteeu
05-10-2011, 05:43 AM
Your testimony isn't from a target of US waterboarding either. Therefore, the testimonies are on equal ground, and when one testimony says one thing and a multitude of others say the opposite, relying on the one dissenter is not the intellectually honest route. How do you know what this one anonymous man's pain tolerance is? Are there any mitigating factors which may have influenced him to answer this way? When we have no idea about any of these things, we obviously must take his testimony as an outlier, not as the rule.

What am I supposed to be skeptical of that would make me feel comfortable with applying waterboarding to detainees?

First of all, the man wasn't anonymous. His name is found at the link I provided and his testimony was given under oath. He had no incentive to protect his interrogators. He was testifying against them at a war crimes trial.

Second, not that it makes any difference, but where are all these others who say the opposite? You haven't pointed any of them out and certainly none of them experienced the US version of this technique. But again, what matters isn't the number of people who have experienced a severely painful version of waterboarding versus the number who have experienced a less painful version. What matters is that a less painful version exists.

You should be skeptical of obviously nonsensical claims, even when made by so-called "experts" that standard interrogation is always more effective than harsh interrogation (particularly when there's an incentive for that belief to be fostered among the rank-and-file military and the public at large). You should be skeptical of conclusions that what the US does is torture when it comes from people who aren't fully aware of what the US was doing. You should be skeptical about the idea that the Japanese used equal or more humane techniques than the US did. You should be skeptical of criticisms of the Bush administration that come from people whose political agenda was to oppose the Bush administration.

stevieray
05-10-2011, 06:20 AM
Exactly what I expect from you gutless wingtard pricks.

....he types furiously, while hiding behind his computer screen.

MagicHef
05-10-2011, 03:03 PM
First of all, the man wasn't anonymous. His name is found at the link I provided and his testimony was given under oath. He had no incentive to protect his interrogators. He was testifying against them at a war crimes trial.

Second, not that it makes any difference, but where are all these others who say the opposite? You haven't pointed any of them out and certainly none of them experienced the US version of this technique. But again, what matters isn't the number of people who have experienced a severely painful version of waterboarding versus the number who have experienced a less painful version. What matters is that a less painful version exists.

You should be skeptical of obviously nonsensical claims, even when made by so-called "experts" that standard interrogation is always more effective than harsh interrogation (particularly when there's an incentive for that belief to be fostered among the rank-and-file military and the public at large). You should be skeptical of conclusions that what the US does is torture when it comes from people who aren't fully aware of what the US was doing. You should be skeptical about the idea that the Japanese used equal or more humane techniques than the US did. You should be skeptical of criticisms of the Bush administration that come from people whose political agenda was to oppose the Bush administration.

I want to know, did you actually think about what this man's testimony means? Is waterboarding until loss of consciousness common? Its pretty much impossible for oxygen to have been resupplied quickly enough to prevent brain damage, as well as damage to other tissue if he was deprived of oxygen long enough to cause unconsciousness. Therefore, you're saying that it appears to be possible that waterboarding can be performed without pain, but if that is the case, not without lifelong mental and physical damage also occurring.

I am skeptical of those things, but I feel that the burden of proof is on those performing actions that can be regarded as torture to prove they're not, not the other way around.

patteeu
05-11-2011, 06:32 AM
I want to know, did you actually think about what this man's testimony means? Is waterboarding until loss of consciousness common? Its pretty much impossible for oxygen to have been resupplied quickly enough to prevent brain damage, as well as damage to other tissue if he was deprived of oxygen long enough to cause unconsciousness. Therefore, you're saying that it appears to be possible that waterboarding can be performed without pain, but if that is the case, not without lifelong mental and physical damage also occurring.

Yes, I've thought about what the man's testimony means. Any damage of the sort you're describing would be trivial rather than severe.

I am skeptical of those things, but I feel that the burden of proof is on those performing actions that can be regarded as torture to prove they're not, not the other way around.

How do they do that? Normally when we accuse people of criminal behavior the burden is on the accuser not the accused.

IIRC, Direckshun called the solitary confinement treatment of the wikileaks leaker (or as Direckshun would describe him, "whistleblower") torture. Has anyone proven to you that it's not torture and if so, how did they do it?

Cave Johnson
05-11-2011, 09:15 AM
One testimony is one more than the number of targets of US waterboarding who are testifying to the opposite. If you accept the testimony of this particular victim of waterboarding, then you accept the fact that waterboarding can be performed without inflicting severe pain. Given the lengths the Bush administration went to avoid crossing the line into torture, it doesn't seem unreasonable that they developed a protocol that minimized the chances of inflicting severe pain (e.g. Using water with the right ph level to avoid the burning sensation you get when tap/pool water accidentally goes up your nose). If you insist on being "skeptical" of this effort then I think we've reached an impasse.

Your skepticism conveniently goes in only one direction which makes it indistinguishable from faith.

So one Filipino lawyer, interviewed god knows how many years later, says it wasn't that bad, and Pat makes this the basis of his whole position on waterboarding.

Who could argue with that kind of logic?

patteeu
05-11-2011, 10:22 AM
So one Filipino lawyer, interviewed god knows how many years later, says it wasn't that bad, and Pat makes this the basis of his whole position on waterboarding.

Who could argue with that kind of logic?

I see it as just one brick in my rock solid wall of a case. At the very least, it's just one data point in my multi-faceted argument.

BTW, what kind of logic is it when you ignore a hundred other posts and pretend that a single post is the entire basis of an argument?

MagicHef
05-11-2011, 12:28 PM
Yes, I've thought about what the man's testimony means. Any damage of the sort you're describing would be trivial rather than severe.



How do they do that? Normally when we accuse people of criminal behavior the burden is on the accuser not the accused.

IIRC, Direckshun called the solitary confinement treatment of the wikileaks leaker (or as Direckshun would describe him, "whistleblower") torture. Has anyone proven to you that it's not torture and if so, how did they do it?

Yeah, I don't think I really trust the government to make the determination of whether the harm to someone is severe or trivial. Maybe I'm just too tinfoily. That's probably the main distinction between us, I really don't trust the government with much of anything, especially with so little transparancy.

As far as the wikileaks guy, I didn't even know that had happened, so its pretty hard to form an opinion. Just as a gut reaction, it doesn't seem like solitary confinement is really torture, but I certainly haven't looked into it.

Is it just me, or has this conversation gotten really boring?

patteeu
05-11-2011, 02:20 PM
Yeah, I don't think I really trust the government to make the determination of whether the harm to someone is severe or trivial. Maybe I'm just too tinfoily. That's probably the main distinction between us, I really don't trust the government with much of anything, especially with so little transparancy.

As far as the wikileaks guy, I didn't even know that had happened, so its pretty hard to form an opinion. Just as a gut reaction, it doesn't seem like solitary confinement is really torture, but I certainly haven't looked into it.

Is it just me, or has this conversation gotten really boring?

OK, we can agree to disagree and part friends. :)

ClevelandBronco
05-11-2011, 09:12 PM
Before the day escapes entirely, happy birthday, patteeu.

The_Doctor10
05-12-2011, 02:57 PM
I don't suppose that anyone cares that John McCain wrote a piece for the Washington post specifically addressing the fact that torture didn't lead to any of the breaks that led to bin laden's death? Nor that he specifically says that torture gives unreliable intelligence at best?


http://www.newstimes.com/news/article/McCain-Torture-did-not-lead-to-bin-Laden-death-1376683.php

The Mad Crapper
05-12-2011, 03:14 PM
I see it as just one brick in my rock solid wall of a case. At the very least, it's just one data point in my multi-faceted argument.

BTW, what kind of logic is it when

Pat, it isn't logic at all, it's excessive estrogen.

The Mad Crapper
05-12-2011, 03:14 PM
....he types furiously, while hiding behind his computer screen.

orange is that adult baby guy.

LMAO

patteeu
05-12-2011, 03:27 PM
I don't suppose that anyone cares that John McCain wrote a piece for the Washington post specifically addressing the fact that torture didn't lead to any of the breaks that led to bin laden's death? Nor that he specifically says that torture gives unreliable intelligence at best?


http://www.newstimes.com/news/article/McCain-Torture-did-not-lead-to-bin-Laden-death-1376683.php

I don't suppose it matters to you that Director Mukasey, who unlike McCain, was actually fully briefed on the subject, says that McCain got it all wrong?

And to answer your question directly, no, McCain's uninformed, agenda-driven position doesn't matter much to me.

RedNeckRaider
05-12-2011, 03:45 PM
I don't suppose that anyone cares that John McCain wrote a piece for the Washington post specifically addressing the fact that torture didn't lead to any of the breaks that led to bin laden's death? Nor that he specifically says that torture gives unreliable intelligence at best?


http://www.newstimes.com/news/article/McCain-Torture-did-not-lead-to-bin-Laden-death-1376683.php

McCain deserves respect for his service as does and did John Murtha. Two from both sides of the fence and both fought with honor. Sadly neither was worth a damn in politics~

Earthling
05-12-2011, 04:00 PM
I don't suppose it matters to you that Director Mukasey, who unlike McCain, was actually fully briefed on the subject, says that McCain got it all wrong?

And to answer your question directly, no, McCain's uninformed, agenda-driven position doesn't matter much to me.

Pat, what agenda do you suspect McCain of having here? And I'm not so sure you could call him uninformed on this subject as I suspect he witnessed it firsthand while a POW.

patteeu
05-12-2011, 04:28 PM
Pat, what agenda do you suspect McCain of having here? And I'm not so sure you could call him uninformed on this subject as I suspect he witnessed it firsthand while a POW.

His experiences in Vietnam certainly created an understandable bias in him, but they couldn't have informed him as to the specifics of the American enhanced interrogation program or it's results.

His agenda is to discredit the EIT program of which he's been unmistakably critical for years.

dirk digler
05-12-2011, 04:42 PM
Here is McCain's full response. He got his answers from CIA Chief Panetta.
“With so much misinformation being fed into such an essential public debate as this one, I asked the Director of Central Intelligence, Leon Panetta, for the facts. And I received the following information:

“The trail to bin Laden did not begin with a disclosure from Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, who was waterboarded 183 times. We did not first learn from Khalid Sheikh Mohammed the real name of bin Laden’s courier, or his alias, Abu Ahmed al-Kuwaiti — the man who ultimately enabled us to find bin Laden. The first mention of the name Abu Ahmed al-Kuwaiti, as well as a description of him as an important member of Al-Qaeda, came from a detainee held in another country. The United States did not conduct this detainee’s interrogation, nor did we render him to that country for the purpose of interrogation. We did not learn Abu Ahmed’s real name or alias as a result of waterboarding or any ‘enhanced interrogation technique’ used on a detainee in U.S. custody. None of the three detainees who were waterboarded provided Abu Ahmed’s real name, his whereabouts, or an accurate description of his role in Al-Qaeda.

“In fact, not only did the use of ‘enhanced interrogation techniques’ on Khalid Sheikh Mohammed not provide us with key leads on bin Laden’s courier, Abu Ahmed; it actually produced false and misleading information. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed specifically told his interrogators that Abu Ahmed had moved to Peshawar, got married, and ceased his role as an Al-Qaeda facilitator — which was not true, as we now know. All we learned about Abu Ahmed al-Kuwaiti through the use of waterboarding and other ‘enhanced interrogation techniques’ against Khalid Sheik Mohammed was the confirmation of the already known fact that the courier existed and used an alias.

“I have sought further information from the staff of the Senate Intelligence Committee, and they confirm for me that, in fact, the best intelligence gained from a CIA detainee — information describing Abu Ahmed al-Kuwaiti’s real role in Al-Qaeda and his true relationship to Osama bin Laden — was obtained through standard, non-coercive means, not through any ‘enhanced interrogation technique.’

“In short, it was not torture or cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment of detainees that got us the major leads that ultimately enabled our intelligence community to find Osama bin Laden. I hope former Attorney General Mukasey will correct his misstatement. It’s important that he do so because we are again engaged in this important debate, with much at stake for America’s security and reputation. Each side should make its own case, but do so without making up its own facts.

patteeu
05-12-2011, 05:05 PM
Here is McCain's full response. He got his answers from CIA Chief Panetta.
...

And Michael Mukasey, who got his information from actually being the Attorney General said that McCain's second-hand analysis was "simply wrong". :shrug:

dirk digler
05-12-2011, 05:23 PM
And Michael Mukasey, who got his information from actually being the Attorney General said that McCain's second-hand analysis was "simply wrong". :shrug:

I guess Panetta needs to come clean on whether what McCain stated is true and did Panetta tell McCain that.

I don't think McCain would go out and lie about Panetta telling him this when it is easy verifiable.

mlyonsd
05-12-2011, 05:28 PM
I guess Panetta needs to come clean on whether what McCain stated is true and did Panetta tell McCain that.

I don't think McCain would go out and lie about Panetta telling him this when it is easy verifiable.Serous question here.

If another 911 happened and we captured the mastermind would you look down your nose at Obama for using EIT's, waterboarding, whatever you want to call it to gather all info from him?

patteeu
05-12-2011, 06:03 PM
I guess Panetta needs to come clean on whether what McCain stated is true and did Panetta tell McCain that.

I don't think McCain would go out and lie about Panetta telling him this when it is easy verifiable.

My guess is that he chose his words carefully so that the facts he chose to relate were true while those that worked against his agenda were left out. It's his conclusions, both those drawn explicitly and those implied, that I doubt.

go bowe
05-12-2011, 08:42 PM
My guess is that he chose his words carefully so that the facts he chose to relate were true while those that worked against his agenda were left out. It's his conclusions, both those drawn explicitly and those implied, that I doubt.
i bet he did... LMAO LMAO LMAO

The Mad Crapper
05-14-2011, 10:33 AM
Pretty stupid thread title considering B.O. has been sitting on the intel since January 2011.

go bowe
05-14-2011, 01:09 PM
Pretty stupid thread title considering B.O. has been sitting on the intel since January 2011.
no no no...

bush sat on the intel until osama, er obama took office...

try to keep up...

The Mad Crapper
05-15-2011, 12:56 PM
no no no...

bush sat on the intel until osama, er obama took office...

try to keep up...

Typo, I meant Jan 2009.

go bowe
05-15-2011, 05:30 PM
Typo, I meant Jan 2009.
nm... :) :) :)

penchief
05-15-2011, 06:30 PM
The Obama administration stands on the shoulders of the Bush administration when it comes to the GWoT.

The same as the Bush Adminstration stood on the Clinton Administration's shoulders.

The Bushies mocked Clinton when Clinton told them that bin Laden and al-Qaeda would be the biggest threat the country faced. They called bin Laden "Clinton's ghost."

Then the Bush Administration let 9/11 happen on its watch.

Then the Bush Administration let bin Laden escape into Pakistan when they had him trapped in Tora Bora.

The question of torture is a moot question at this point. There is no way to prove any benefit received from the inhumane treatment of prisoners.

Obama said he was going to make the capture or killing of bin Laden a top priority. He gave his administration that directive. And he made it happen.

He said he would strike inside Pakistan if needed and he did exactly that. If Obama is standing on Bush's shoulders then Bush must be standing in a six foot hole.

Trying to strip Obama of any credit for the death of bin Laden and give it to Bush is somewhat petty, IMO.

stevieray
05-15-2011, 07:45 PM
Then the Bush Administration let 9/11 happen on its watch.


Trying to strip Obama of any credit for the death of bin Laden and give it to Bush is somewhat petty, IMO.


...IMO, it's no coincidence that you've shown back up jumping on a weak bandwagon when it scores a TD, spewing the same old rhetoric, pretending others weren't involved in the score.

By your partisian logic, the President LET Ft. Hood happen on his watch...it's ridiculous.

Trying to strip Bush of any credit and give it to Obama is the definition of petty.

penchief
05-15-2011, 08:58 PM
...IMO, it's no coincidence that you've shown back up jumping on a weak bandwagon when it scores a TD, spewing the same old rhetoric, pretending others weren't involved in the score.

By your partisian logic, the President LET Ft. Hood happen on his watch...it's ridiculous.

Trying to strip Bush of any credit and give it to Obama is the definition of petty.

It's no coincidence that you missed the point of my post in order to accuse me of partisan logic. That has been your standard operating procedure. Did you do the same to patteeu's logic? I mean, considering that my post was in response to similar logic on his part. You should have been able to tell by the first sentence of my post. But no, you cherrypicked my post. I should know not to expect any better from you.

By the way, I didn't try to strip ANY credit away from Bush and give it to Obama. I was pointing out the absurdity of those trying to strip credit away from the Obama Adminstations's success in killing bin Laden. It's amazing the amount of butthurt by Obama haters over this.

stevieray
05-15-2011, 09:37 PM
It's no coincidence that you missed the point of my post in order to accuse me of partisan logic. That has been your standard operating procedure. Did you do the same to patteeu's logic? I mean, considering that my post was in response to similar logic on his part. You should have been able to tell by the first sentence of my post. But no, you cherrypicked my post. I should know not to expect any better from you.

By the way, I didn't try to strip ANY credit away from Bush and give it to Obama. I was pointing out the absurdity of those trying to strip credit away from the Obama Adminstations's success in killing bin Laden. It's amazing the amount of butthurt by Obama haters over this.

"I should know" ..spare us your elitism.

....stop deflecting to patt. your response is your own.

So you agree that the President LET the Ft Hood massacre happen on his watch?

penchief
05-15-2011, 09:48 PM
"I should know"..spare us your elitism.

....stop defelcting to patt. your response is your own.


So you agree that the President LET the Ft Hood massacre happen on his watch?

Yeah, duh. My response. My response to who or what? Don't act like a response sits alone in a vacuum. A response is in response to someone or something. In my case, my response was in response to patteeu's post. So it is not a deflection. It was a direct response.

And I stand by my response. But if you are going to cherrypick bits and pieces in order to cast my words in a different context than they were intended you are being manipulative in order to do what it is that you do.

And the only thing you have ever done when responding to my posts is attack my character or my motives. If you have a problem with what I say why not take on the meaning of my post instead of playing amateur psychologist? Because you suck at it.

penchief
05-15-2011, 09:50 PM
"So you agree that the President LET the Ft Hood massacre happen on his watch?

Sure. Obama let that happen. But he also killed bin Laden on his watch. That said, if you want to compare the magnitude of 9/11 to Fort Hood I believe you are reaching.

stevieray
05-16-2011, 07:03 AM
Sure. Obama let that happen.

awesome, a relevant response.

Obama willingly let American Soldiers die @ Ft. Hood....if that's true, then he should be removed from office....something tells me you weren't singing that tune when that terrorist act happened.

patteeu
05-16-2011, 07:30 AM
The same as the Bush Adminstration stood on the Clinton Administration's shoulders.

The Bushies mocked Clinton when Clinton told them that bin Laden and al-Qaeda would be the biggest threat the country faced. They called bin Laden "Clinton's ghost."

Then the Bush Administration let 9/11 happen on its watch.

Then the Bush Administration let bin Laden escape into Pakistan when they had him trapped in Tora Bora.

The question of torture is a moot question at this point. There is no way to prove any benefit received from the inhumane treatment of prisoners.

Obama said he was going to make the capture or killing of bin Laden a top priority. He gave his administration that directive. And he made it happen.

He said he would strike inside Pakistan if needed and he did exactly that. If Obama is standing on Bush's shoulders then Bush must be standing in a six foot hole.

Trying to strip Obama of any credit for the death of bin Laden and give it to Bush is somewhat petty, IMO.

Unlike Obama, the Bush administration dramatically changed (in a very positive way) the US approach to the radical Islamist threat from that of his predecessor. It's an acknowledgement of the Bush administration's superior approach that it's been nearly completely embraced by the man who campaigned against it.

I haven't denied any due credit to Obama for the killing of Osama. I'm not going to buy into the fairy tale that Obama did anything but follow the same policy arc that George W Bush started though.

penchief
05-16-2011, 07:58 AM
awesome, a relevant response.

Obama willingly let American Soldiers die @ Ft. Hood....if that's true, then he should be removed from office....something tells me you weren't singing that tune when that terrorist act happened.

It happened on Obama's watch. The buck stops with the president. He is ultimately responsible.

Bush wouldn't have looked so bad on 9/11 if he hadn't scoffed at Clinton's warning about al-Qaeda. One can see how his close relationship with Saudis might have made him feel less vulnerable but it still doesn't look good.

penchief
05-16-2011, 08:05 AM
Unlike Obama, the Bush administration dramatically changed (in a very positive way) the US approach to the radical Islamist threat from that of his predecessor. It's an acknowledgement of the Bush administration's superior approach that it's been nearly completely embraced by the man who campaigned against it.

I haven't denied any due credit to Obama for the killing of Osama. I'm not going to buy into the fairy tale that Obama did anything but follow the same policy arc that George W Bush started though.

This great change you speak off only occurred after the attacks of 9/11. Something Bush was not prepared for even though he had ample reason to be prepared.

When it comes to invading countries that had nothing to do with 9/11 you are correct. Bush took a much more proactive stance post 9/11. However, if it is the issue of bin Laden we are discussing, Bush's track record doesn't cut the mustard. He had him at Tora Bora and didn't make his capture a top priority. In fact, he turned his attention away from bin Laden in order to invade and occupy Iraq. Unfortunately, that speaks volumes.

patteeu
05-16-2011, 08:35 AM
This great change you speak off only occurred after the attacks of 9/11. Something Bush was not prepared for even though he had ample reason to be prepared.

When it comes to invading countries that had nothing to do with 9/11 you are correct. Bush took a much more proactive stance post 9/11. However, if it is the issue of bin Laden we are discussing, Bush's track record doesn't cut the mustard. He had him at Tora Bora and didn't make his capture a top priority. In fact, he turned his attention away from bin Laden in order to invade and occupy Iraq. Unfortunately, that speaks volumes.

It's good to have the good old penchief revisionist history back in DC. Are you going to stick around or should we expect you to only stop by on the infrequent occasions when Obama does something positive

dirk digler
05-16-2011, 09:00 PM
My guess is that he chose his words carefully so that the facts he chose to relate were true while those that worked against his agenda were left out. It's his conclusions, both those drawn explicitly and those implied, that I doubt.

The letter has been seen and verified by the CIA. It seems McCain may not have been bullshitting after all. Shocking I know..:D

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/post/exclusive-private-letter-from-cia-chief-undercuts-claim-torture-was-key-to-killing-bin-laden/2011/03/03/AFLFF04G_blog.html

Exclusive: Private letter from CIA chief undercuts claim torture was key to killing Bin Laden

By Greg Sargent
CIA chief Leon Panetta has written a private letter to Senator John McCain that offers the most detailed answer yet to questions about the relationship between torture and Osama Bin Laden’s death — and undercuts the claim by former Bush administration officials that torture was key to Bin Laden’s killing.

The letter has not been released publicly but was sent my way by a source. Marie Harf, a CIA spokesperson, confirmed the letter’s authenticity to me, but declined further comment.

Last week, Senator McCain published a widely discussed Op ed in the Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/bin-ladens-death-and-the-debate-over-torture/2011/05/11/AFd1mdsG_story.html) calling into question claims that torture was instrumental in tracking down Bin Laden. McCain cited Panetta as a source for his information, but didn't release any material provided to him by Panetta, and conservatives like former Bush attorney general Michael Mukasey subsequently dismissed (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/post/mukasey-responds-to-mccains-op-ed/2011/05/12/AFhhVO1G_blog.html) McCain’s account. The CIA has not publicly taken sides in the dispute.

But Panetta’s letter, dated May 9th, bears out McCain’s version of events.
To be sure, there are a couple of lines in the letter that conservatives will seize on to bolster their case. But the overall thrust of the letter clearly undercuts their larger version of events.

The case being made by conservatives — that Bin Laden’s death vindicates torture — was spelled out last week by former Bush
AG Mukasey in an Op ed in the Wall Street Journal (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703859304576305023876506348.html). Mukasey argued that the trail to Bin Laden “began with a disclosure from Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, who broke like a dam under the pressure of harsh interrogation techniques that included waterboarding. He loosed a torrent of information — including eventually the nickname of a trusted courier of bin Laden.”

The account in Panetta’s letter clearly contradicts this. Here are the operative three paragraphs from the letter, which represents a response from Panetta to McCain’s earlier request for information about torture and Bin Laden’s death: Nearly 10 years of intensive intelligence work led the CIA to conclude that Bin Laden was likely hiding at the compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan. there was no one “essential and indispensable” key piece of information that led us to this conclusion. Rather, the intelligence picture was developed via painstaking collection and analysis. Multiple streams of intelligence — including from detainees, but also from multiple other sources — led CIA analysts to conclude that Bin Laden was at this compound. Some of the detainees who provided useful information about the facilitator/courier’s role had been subjected to enhanced interrogation techniques. Whether those techniques were the “only timely and effective way” to obtain such information is a matter of debate and cannot be established definitively. What is definitive is that that information was only a part of multiple streams of intelligence that led us to Bin Laden.

Let me further point out that we first learned about the facilitator/courier’s nom de guerre from a detainee not in CIA custody in 2002. It is also important to note that some detainees who were subjected to enhanced interrogation techniques attempted to provide false or misleading information about the facilitator/courier. These attempts to falsify the facilitator/courier’s role were alerting.
In the end, no detainee in CIA custody revealed the facilitator/courier’s full true name or specific whereabouts. This information was discovered through other intelligence means.
Emphasis mine. Panetta’s account contradicts Mukasey’s claim that the trail to Bin Laden “began” with disclosures from Khalid Sheikh Muhammed that were achieved through the “pressure" of torture.

Panetta’s account also represents public, on-the-record confirmation from the CIA of — and adds new detail to — a careful and thorough investigation (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/04/us/politics/04torture.html?_r=1&scp=3&sq=scott%20shane%20torture&st=cse) by Scott Shane and Charlie Savage of the New York Times, which was based on anonymous sources and concluded that torture “played a small role at most in identifying Bin Laden’s trusted courier and exposing his hide-out.” Shane and Savage also quoted unnamed sources claiming torture resulted in bad information — also confirmed in Panetta’s letter.

Conservatives will argue that little is known about the “other intelligence means” used to secure the courier’s name or whereabouts. They will also point out that Panetta’s letter also indicates that some detainees who “provided useful information about the facilitator/courier’s role” had been subjected to torture. In saying this, Panetta is expanding on an earlier claim in an interview (http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/42880435/ns/today-today_news/t/cia-chief-waterboarding-aided-bin-laden-raid/) that torture, waterboarding included, produced info that played some kind of role at some point in tracking Bin Laden.

But if anything, Panetta’s letter actually downplays the info achieved through torture, is inconclusive on how useful it was in the end, and states that we can’t know if that info would have been achievable through other means. While the emphasis of Panetta’s account may be intended to be in line with the administration’s anti-torture position, his downplaying of the role of torture is an important addition to the public record.

In the end, we may never be able to establish with total certainty the precise nature of the relationship between torture and the killing of Bin Laden. But for now, Panetta’s account — the most extensive public accounting we now have — simply doesn’t square with claims that torture was key to getting him, which would vindicate Bush’s torture policies.

penchief
05-16-2011, 09:21 PM
It's good to have the good old penchief revisionist history back in DC. Are you going to stick around or should we expect you to only stop by on the infrequent occasions when Obama does something positive

I've never left. I just post when I read something so ridiculous that I'm compelled to respond. And there has been a lot of that displayed around here since the Obama Administration killed bin Laden.

You, of all people, have little room to talk when it comes to revisionist history. You and BEP are at the top of the class in that regard.

stevieray
05-16-2011, 10:23 PM
It happened on Obama's watch. The buck stops with the president. He is ultimately responsible.

Bush wouldn't have looked so bad on 9/11 if he hadn't scoffed at Clinton's warning about al-Qaeda. One can see how his close relationship with Saudis might have made him feel less vulnerable but it still doesn't look good.

letting it happen and being responsible are two different things.

We aren't talking about Bush. Stay with me.

penchief
05-16-2011, 11:09 PM
letting it happen and being responsible are two different things.

We aren't talking about Bush. Stay with me.

What's good for the goose is good for the gander. I'll let you choose the wording and I'll go along with whatever you choose.

Do I think that Bush knew what was going to happen on 9/11 and let it happen so that he could implement the WOT as justification for invading Iraq and eroding our civil liberties? No.

However, I do think that he had ample reason to believe that al-Qaeda was planning an attack on America and was not as diligent as he should have been. In that sense, yes, I believe he is accountable to a large degree.

Applying that standard to Obama I have no choice but to hold his adminstration accountable for terrorist attacks under his watch even though he may not have prior knowledge.

The buck stops with the president. Don't you agree?

Ugly Duck
05-16-2011, 11:48 PM
Bush's track record doesn't cut the mustard. He had him at Tora Bora and didn't make his capture a top priority. In fact, he turned his attention away from bin Laden in order to invade and occupy Iraq. Unfortunately, that speaks volumes.

True... but that's "revisionist history" to those who have revised history to the point that actual history is now seen by them as revisionist.

stevieray
05-17-2011, 07:07 AM
Do I think that Bush knew what was going to happen on 9/11 and let it happen No.




oriignally you said he did.... and it was ridiculous.

that was the point.

The Mad Crapper
05-17-2011, 08:33 AM
Bush wouldn't have looked so bad on 9/11 if he hadn't scoffed at Clinton's warning about al-Qaeda. .

LMAO

penchief
05-17-2011, 09:08 AM
oriignally you said he did.... and it was ridiculous.

that was the point.

I never said he had prior knowledge. Try to keep up. Clearly, knowing what we know now about the intelligence our government had, Bush had good reason to be far more diligent than he was. Enabling the attack via arrogance or negligence is not the same as having prior knowledge of the actual plan but can be viewed by some as allowing it to happen, in a more general sense.

But no, I have never thought Bush had prior knowledge and allowed it to happen. Although he behaved very beligerently (IMO) both prior to and after 9/11, I have never felt he was capable of anything like that.

penchief
05-17-2011, 09:09 AM
LMAO

ROFL

The Mad Crapper
05-17-2011, 09:10 AM
ROFL

:drool:

penchief
05-17-2011, 09:13 AM
:drool:

:drool:

patteeu
05-17-2011, 09:21 AM
The letter has been seen and verified by the CIA. It seems McCain may not have been bullshitting after all. Shocking I know..:D

It looks to me like I was right. McCain chose to only mention the parts of Panetta's letter that seemed to suggest that harsh interrogations were irrelevant to Osama's demise. He left out the parts that indicated that we did, in fact, get useful pieces of the bin Laden hunt puzzle from those interrogations.

Multiple streams of intelligence — including from detainees, but also from multiple other sources — led CIA analysts to conclude that Bin Laden was at this compound. Some of the detainees who provided useful information about the facilitator/courier’s role had been subjected to enhanced interrogation techniques.

While McCain and the author of the article take Panetta's letter to mean that the information gathered from enhanced interrogation was somewhere between inconsequential and minor, Panetta never really says this. In fact, Panetta leaves the question of how useful that information turned out to be unanswered as you'd expect him to since he's a member of an administration whose policy is that enhanced interrogation is unnecessary and counterproductive. Panetta could have simply said that we didn't get anything useful from harsh interrogation if that were true, but he didn't. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand what that means.

patteeu
05-17-2011, 09:23 AM
I've never left. I just post when I read something so ridiculous that I'm compelled to respond. And there has been a lot of that displayed around here since the Obama Administration killed bin Laden.

You, of all people, have little room to talk when it comes to revisionist history. You and BEP are at the top of the class in that regard.

I've got a different theory. My theory is that you just post when Obama does something right. That explains your long periods of silence.

penchief
05-17-2011, 09:25 AM
I've got a different theory. My theory is that you just post when Obama does something right. That explains your long periods of silence.

Your theory would be wrong. But that is par for the course. It seems that assigning ulterior motives to posters as a means of discrediting them or their posts is commonplace around here.

The truth is that dealing with the blind partisanship and aggressive nature of many on this board can get wearisome and calls for a break every now and then.

dirk digler
05-17-2011, 10:00 AM
It looks to me like I was right. McCain chose to only mention the parts of Panetta's letter that seemed to suggest that harsh interrogations were irrelevant to Osama's demise. He left out the parts that indicated that we did, in fact, get useful pieces of the bin Laden hunt puzzle from those interrogations.



While McCain and the author of the article take Panetta's letter to mean that the information gathered from enhanced interrogation was somewhere between inconsequential and minor, Panetta never really says this. In fact, Panetta leaves the question of how useful that information turned out to be unanswered as you'd expect him to since he's a member of an administration whose policy is that enhanced interrogation is unnecessary and counterproductive. Panetta could have simply said that we didn't get anything useful from harsh interrogation if that were true, but he didn't. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand what that means.

What McCain said was true:

McCain: “The trail to bin Laden did not begin with a disclosure from Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, who was waterboarded 183 times. We did not first learn from Khalid Sheikh Mohammed the real name of bin Laden’s courier, or his alias, Abu Ahmed al-Kuwaiti — the man who ultimately enabled us to find bin Laden. The first mention of the name Abu Ahmed al-Kuwaiti, as well as a description of him as an important member of Al-Qaeda, came from a detainee held in another country. The United States did not conduct this detainee’s interrogation, nor did we render him to that country for the purpose of interrogation. We did not learn Abu Ahmed’s real name or alias as a result of waterboarding or any ‘enhanced interrogation technique’ used on a detainee in U.S. custody. None of the three detainees who were waterboarded provided Abu Ahmed’s real name, his whereabouts, or an accurate description of his role in Al-Qaeda.

“In fact, not only did the use of ‘enhanced interrogation techniques’ on Khalid Sheikh Mohammed not provide us with key leads on bin Laden’s courier, Abu Ahmed; it actually produced false and misleading information. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed specifically told his interrogators that Abu Ahmed had moved to Peshawar, got married, and ceased his role as an Al-Qaeda facilitator — which was not true, as we now know. All we learned about Abu Ahmed al-Kuwaiti through the use of waterboarding and other ‘enhanced interrogation techniques’ against Khalid Sheik Mohammed was the confirmation of the already known fact that the courier existed and used an alias.
That is all true according to Panetta's letter.

go bowe
05-17-2011, 10:27 AM
Serous question here.

If another 911 happened and we captured the mastermind would you look down your nose at Obama for using EIT's, waterboarding, whatever you want to call it to gather all info from him?i don't know about my looking down my nose, but i am not convinced that eit and/or waterboarding is effective, let alone more effective than standard interrogation techniques...

accordingly, i would not be in favor of using eit on anybody, even bin laden...

patteeu
05-17-2011, 11:14 AM
What McCain said was true:

That is all true according to Panetta's letter.

We're not arguing about whether McCain's facts were true or not. I already said was that they probably were. It was his conclusions (i.e. that enhanced interrogation wasn't helpful) that I think are wrong. And Panetta's letter is consistent with that.

I suspect that Panetta's facts are true too, but when a politician avoids stating something simply (e.g. enhanced interrogation was not helpful in our hunt for Osama bin Laden) even though he has every reason to do so, you can bet that it's because that simple statement isn't true.

patteeu
05-17-2011, 11:18 AM
i don't know about my looking down my nose, but i am not convinced that eit and/or waterboarding is effective, let alone more effective than standard interrogation techniques...

accordingly, i would not be in favor of using eit on anybody, even bin laden...

If you have two rooms with safes in them and a detainee in each who knows the combination but has strong motivation to resist giving it up. Who do you think will get the combination out of his detainee first, the guy whose hands are tied by the Army Field Manual or the guy who is allowed to use the Army Field Manual as well as the enhanced techniques authorized by the Bush administration?

mlyonsd
05-17-2011, 12:16 PM
i don't know about my looking down my nose, but i am not convinced that eit and/or waterboarding is effective, let alone more effective than standard interrogation techniques...

accordingly, i would not be in favor of using eit on anybody, even bin laden...

So you'd cast Obama into the same category as Bush?

go bowe
05-17-2011, 12:55 PM
If you have two rooms with safes in them and a detainee in each who knows the combination but has strong motivation to resist giving it up. Who do you think will get the combination out of his detainee first, the guy whose hands are tied by the Army Field Manual or the guy who is allowed to use the Army Field Manual as well as the enhanced techniques authorized by the Bush administration?
different scenario...

one bit of information, the combination of the safe, can be extracted more quickly no doubt...

but most interrogations seek intel about a much broader range and in greater quantity than a simple combination...

under extraordinary circumstances when dealing with a threat like a nuclear bomb about to go off in topeka, i'd consider going jack bauer with little hesitation...

otoh if the damage could be limited to the wbc, i'd buy the terrorist a drink...

go bowe
05-17-2011, 12:56 PM
So you'd cast Obama into the same category as Bush?

i admit it's a combover...

mlyonsd
05-17-2011, 01:00 PM
i admit it's a combover...Keep all options on the table.

Jaric
05-17-2011, 01:05 PM
If you have two rooms with safes in them and a detainee in each who knows the combination but has strong motivation to resist giving it up. Who do you think will get the combination out of his detainee first, the guy whose hands are tied by the Army Field Manual or the guy who is allowed to use the Army Field Manual as well as the enhanced techniques authorized by the Bush administration?

The correct answer is Jack Bauer

stevieray
05-18-2011, 05:18 AM
[QUOTE=penchief;7644340]I never said he had prior knowledge. QUOTE]
damn, you are so dishonest. you said he let it happen , then tried to say I chose the words.


you. are. a. waste. of. time.