DISQUS

Ecclesiastes · 2 years ago

There is a legal definition of torture. Neither waterboarding, nor tasering is torture by themselves.:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18...

The whole point of this debate is to embarrass President Bush and essential to that effort is to make sure the actual definition for torture is not known and not part of the discussion.

All this wailing and moaning about what is torture needs to cease. The US doesn't torture, and that's the end of it.

po · 2 years ago

So, apparently to many here the GWOT is really nothing more than a race to the bottom of human morality. Just because "they" do it, doesn't mean we should. Had the CIA, FBI, DOD and other been doing their job before 9/11, there would have been no need for catch-up and torture, as if there is ever a need to torture. After 9/11, when all the CIA and FBI folks who'd been beating the drum finally got a listen, there was no need for it then. No, it was just easy and this administration is all for taking the easy way out.

BTW, No one has offered any proof that torture works. In fact all of the evidence states the contrary. Even you CIA hero doesn't know if it works, he's just been told (by who I wonder) that it did. Of course, there's conflicting evidence on this as the guy tortured was probably a mental case with little real information. That's never stopped a headline, though, has it?

So, you keep running that race. The terrorists, however, have already won.

Swede · 2 years ago

I would point you to the thread up above concerning the retired CIA guy who not only says waterboarding works, he gives us how fast it works.

BurfordHolly · 2 years ago

Note he was there to help catch the guy, but didn't ship out with him nor was he part of the interrogation team. So we're left to wonder, who trotted out this guy?

BurfordHolly · 2 years ago

Video - who IS this guy?

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/12/11/cia-sp...

davod · 2 years ago

This may seem a little out of place in this opeb society we live in but, shouldn't this guy be covered by some sort of confidentiality agreement?

JMHanes · 2 years ago

"The decision to use this technique should come as part of policy, not as a violation of it."

In a nutshell! The whole ticking bomb scenario is also a complete red herring, because 99.9% of the time, you won't know whether you're dealing with a ticking bomb or not. As for assigning responsibility for pontential intel losses and the consequences thereof, however, don't we have more than enough fodder for blame games already without adding another set of "what ifs"?

Kudos to Kiriakou for speaking out frankly and publicly.

**BTW: I really miss being able to preview comments, and the indenting replies mostly make the screen more complicated. Once you get a couple of people responding at different points to a comment and/or its follow up, it actually makes the conversation/thread harder to follow, IMO.**

BurfordHolly · 2 years ago

Like I always say, when there's a bomb threat at the high school, round up the goth kids and start chopping off fingers. You KNOW there's a bomb!

Del_Dolemonte · 2 years ago

How many bomb threats at your local high school have resulted in thousands of deaths?

BurfordHolly · 2 years ago

But we KNOW there's a bomb. It would be irresponsible to not use every possible mesure.

DON'T YOU CARE? THINK OF THE CHILDREN !

Otter · 2 years ago

I pity yours.

BurfordHolly · 2 years ago

Whenever one accuses the other of something, I beat the offender until they confess or implicate the other one. Then I beat the other one until they confess. Best not to take chances.

chaking · 2 years ago

applause to BurfordHolly --- funny

quickjustice · 2 years ago

You're repeating yourself. The first time a school blows up, I guarantee you that the authorities will resort to more aggressive methods to identify the bombers. And schools already are evacuated every time such a threat materializes.

The authorities already resort to aggressive measures when threats of shootings in schools occur. That's because the threat is perceived as more credible.

rabidrobert · 2 years ago

This thinking is what got us 9-11 to begin with. JM is a holdover from the Clinton admin.

jr565 · 2 years ago

JM, you wrote:
In a nutshell! The whole ticking bomb scenario is also a complete red herring, because 99.9% of the time, you won't know whether you're dealing with a ticking bomb or not.

What about when we capture someone like Khalleid Sheik Mohammad, who is considered ""the principal architect of the 9/11 attacks" and who has a long history of planning out and assisting with terrorists attacks for the past 20 years, including the LAST WTC attack carried out by his nephew Ramzi Yousef.
For a target like that, isn't the ticking bomb scenario a given, or at the very least an assumption that should be made for those interrogating him. Any one of those terrorist attacks that were not stopped and carried out successfully was a ticking bomb scenario. On top of that though, he also is connected to an organization that funds and trains various jihadists around the world who will similarly attempt to carry out more attacks in the future, and everyone one of those will be a ticking time bomb scenario in its own right. And even if the attack is not imminent, at the very least he has info and intel on various plots and those carrying out the plots and those financing the plots and those planning the plots, and the location of the plots, any one of which can become a ticking time bomb scenario.
Even if you don't know of a specific plot in the works, and whether its a ticking bomb scenario, he does, so it would be incumbent on you to get that info from him, no? He has his hands in all of the cookie jars, and his knowledge on the players who may or may not attempt various attacks in the future is invaluable.

There is also, no chance of his innocence. We all know he's Khalleid Sheik Mohammad and that' he's behind various terrorist attacks in the past. And we know that Al Qaeda, is not resting on its laurels and will carry out attacks in the future, and that if he weren't captured that he woudl be the prime architect of many of them or at the very least would no who would carry them out.

BurfordHolly · 2 years ago

KSM was caught because of a $26,000,000 bounty, which I assume we paid to a terrorist.

They didn't torture the information out of the informant, they paid him off.

If torture is the ultimate tool, why did we have to bribe a terrorist to catch KSM?

Just asking.

jr565 · 2 years ago

Nice diversion. Actually, not eventhat nice.We don't' always have to restort to interrogation to get info. But we''re not talking about that, and noone issaying we should torture everyone, or even interrogate everyone for every reason at any and all times.

But back to the subject:
My question was, what if the person caught is a Khallid sheik mohammad who we know is not innocent, and who we know has an incredible amount of intel about past plots and future plots as well as knowledge of those who will carry it out.

BurfordHolly · 2 years ago

I'll assume you don't mean start torturing the second you catch him, since that's how you get a corpse and no info.

Well a good first step is to convict him of something, and considering KSM had made a lot of videos bragging about his crimes, that's a slam dunk. Then you would avoid suspending habeas, and kicking that hornets' nest.

In WW2, one plan floated was to catch and hold Hitler in Saint Elizabeth's mental hospital (here John Hinkley Jr. is) as a symbol Nazi defeat. I don't know if anything similar has been considered for people like KSM.

But as far as questioning, considering this is the biggest catch they ever made, I'd go high tech. You'd get a lot more out of using polygraphs and even the new PET scan techniques than flogging the guy.

BurfordHolly · 2 years ago

And that goes back to the unspoken question - is this about getting real information, or simply about getting phony confessions for propaganda?

Our POWs in Vietnam were tortured for years, not because they had info, but to make them sign absurd confessions. The Russians and others all had the same goal - fake confessions for propaganda use.

If you're looking for the truth, a serious team of investigators fact checking and cross referencing info has to be part of the mix. A couple of guys roughing up someone in the basement and faxing the confession to the PR department shows the dismantling of any real anti-terrorism program.

jr565 · 2 years ago

what if the investigators actually investigate the claims of those being waterboardsed to determine if their accounts are accurate? Are you suggsting that that was n't in fact done. If you reference the article that you cited about the mentally challenged guy being tortured it notes taht every time he said anything, agents went scurrying all around trying to find out if the sotry was accurate. That knid of sounds like the cross referencing info part of the mix. So noone is simply being waterboarded because we want to get some confession. If we interrogate a khaelleid sheik mohammad (and not torture him) we then have people cross reference the story to see if its accurate

BurfordHolly · 2 years ago

When they questioned the meatball and checked out his stories they concluded his stories were nonsense.

Interestingly the guy who claimed his penis was getting sliced every month says that they kept him just to sign accusations implicating people he'd never heard of.

Doctor Stranglove:
General Jack D. Ripper: Were you ever a prisoner of war?
Group Capt. Lionel Mandrake: Well, yes I was, matter of fact, Jack, I was.
General Jack D. Ripper: Did they torture you?
Group Capt. Lionel Mandrake: Uh, yes they did. I was tortured by the Japanese, Jack, if you must know; not a pretty story.
General Jack D. Ripper: Well, what happened?
Group Capt. Lionel Mandrake: Oh, well, I don't know, Jack, difficult to think of under these conditions; but, well, what happened was they got me on the old Rangoon-Ichinawa railway. I was laying train lines for the bloody Japanese puff-puff's.
General Jack D. Ripper: No, I mean when they tortured you did you talk?
Group Capt. Lionel Mandrake: Ah, oh, no... well, I don't think they wanted me to talk really. I don't think they wanted me to say anything. It was just their way of having a bit of fun, the swines. Strange thing is they make such bloody good cameras.

jr565 · 2 years ago

Yet Khallid isn't dead. So therefore the argument that that's how you get a corpse holds no water..
Good first step is to convict him of something? How long will that take? Are the tapes admissable? Does Khallid and his lawyers have a right to look at all the evidence against him even if its top secret?
Also, as far as holding HItler in a mental hospital, how is that different than holding someone for the duration of the war? Would holding Hitler in a mental hospital conform to Geneva. Don't think that Geneva is big on humiliating those who have been captured, and holding someone in a mental hospital is certainly humiliating. How heartless of you. I think this country would have lost our souls were we to resort to such barbarity.
As far as going hitech, does Khallid need to have his lawyer present when interrogations are going on? We all know that polygraphs are not conclusive, especially in a court of law, and wouldn’t his lawyer argue that any confession received was because he was brow beaten by law enforcement? What if he fails his polygraph test, does he then clam up and not have to say anymore, or can we then interrogate him further? What if, after a long trial where, because he has due process rights he doesn’t reveal anything to the cops and some lawyer puts the case in jeapordy, because of some legal loophole, or mishandling of evidence?

BurfordHolly · 2 years ago

Not dead, but other people have died under questioning, which is another issue entirely.

You're just not following my train of thought regards the point of getting the point of getting a conviction. Wow law enforcement is in great shape when the official line is that we must NOT get convictions.

You only need to convict on ONE count for anything he bragged about on his videos. Once he's convicted, he belongs to the man. No habeas, limited access to attorneys, no due process etc etc.

The alternative is overturning the entire legal system just to get one guy and cover W's butt.

whatistoruture · 2 years ago

Here is a question.
Is the use of a Taser torture?
Law enforcement uses it to disable unruly individuals, where there is often, probably most often, not a life-threatening situation. Would the use of a Taser against a terrorist suspect be torture?

BurfordHolly · 2 years ago

Smacking someone with a nightstick to subdue them is using nonlethal force to apprehend someone. It also has to be justified by resistance on the suspects part and probable cause for arresting them. Beating random people is right out.

Smacking someone to sign a confession is torture.

Glenn · 2 years ago

<quote>
[Congress] will have the responsibility
</quote>

If I hadn't finished my beverage several moments ago, you'd owe me a new keyboard.

Congress will accept responsibility for the consequences of its actions the day that there is a total replacement of the members, staff, and sycophants therein with actual caring human beings.

I'm willing to accept the possibility that there is actual intelligent life in Washington, but I haven't seen any evidence thereof.

Dan Tana · 2 years ago

The funny thing is that the pieces of crap in Congress always absolv themseves of the responsibility.

Oversite committees exist above and beyond the terms of changing executive administrations.

Yet...and YET...they never take responsibility for their failures.

For example, who has been conducting oversite at Walter Reed for the last 20 years?

Congress. Who do they blame? The executive branch of the moment.

Bastards.

BurfordHolly · 2 years ago

>For example, who has been conducting oversite
>at Walter Reed for the last 20 years?

You know, I thought that did not smell quite right.

".................Walter Reed Army Medical Center is run by the Army, not the VA. Mark Kleiman, Professor of Public Policy at UCLA, points to the misdirection put forth by Republicans, "[h]elped by some sloppy journalists, [to encourage] the widespread belief that Walter Reed is part of the Veterans Administration—and its mismanagement is therefore another piece of evidence in their brief against 'big government', and, of course, 'socialized medicine.'"

"In an example of this misdirection, President Bush recently announced a federal investigation into both military medical care and VA medical care in the wake of the scandal," Kleiman writes.

"But of course Walter Reed is run by the Army, with the help of those private contractors Republicans love because they're so efficient (and so generous at campaign season). As for the VA medical system—it did used to be terrible," Kleiman writes. "But it was fixed under President Clinton, and now, as the Monthly reported in 2005 has the best quality and customer-satisfaction numbers in the entire health-care system........."

EW-3 · 2 years ago

The whole issue of waterboarding is absurd.
We use waterboarding to train our own troops.
So how can that be OK but using our training techniques on people who have comitted crimes against humanity (terrorism) be a bad thing.
Pathetic.

BurfordHolly · 2 years ago

So when they also put pilots into into an ejection seat simulator for a dunk in the pool, that's the same as actually getting blown out of plane getting your spine permanently compressed two inches? Basic training is the same as combat? Drivers ed is the same as Nascar? Reading Hustler is like getting laid?

McCain loses me on some of his points, but I like the fact that he's earned the right to heap honest contempt on arguments like that.

txslr · 2 years ago

If you have evidence that the waterboarding that is performed on U.S. military personnel is merely a scaled-down simulation of that performed on captives, please reference it.

BurfordHolly · 2 years ago

If you can provide evidence that I don't have that evidence, please reference it.

txslr · 2 years ago

Don't have to. You just did it for me.

BurfordHolly · 2 years ago

blah blah blah. Like I said, I like McCains style on this issue, and apparently a lot the republicans at the debate felt the same way.

Just keep this issue alive because more and more shocking stuff is going to come out.

dougf · 2 years ago

"If this Congress outlaws water-boarding, they will have the responsibility for the potential intel loss that it creates, and the damage that loss eventually does."--Capt Ed

And here while you have put your finger on the problem, you have not in fact provided a solution to it.

This increasingly fantastical mea-more-culpa will not lead to anything good. If people such as John McCain could in fact be held to account for their policy of NO WATER-BOARDING then that would one thing. But they can't . How can you possibly demonstrate that a successful terror attack could have been prevented ? You can as Mr.Kiriakou has done,say with some degree of certainty that such an attack was prevented by interrogations, but you can't say the opposite. And as a result there will never be any consequences for getting up on your high moral horse and postulating down to all those who don't have your exalted ethical vision.

Oh I know that Mr. McCain indicates that in extremis the agents might have to do what they have to do and then all will be 'understood' later but that is just complete garbage. Why should anyone be put in the position of committing a crime in order to do what his masters expect him to do. <i. Nudge-nudge. Wink-wink. That is both immoral AND cowardly. Why should anyone put his head on the block for a culture that has with complete forethought told him NOT TO DO SO ?

Either you allow it or you don't. If I refuse to use 'stressful techniques' and a big bomb goes off that I might have prevented, can I say that I did my duty as the law instructed me to do ? Do I get a promotion ? And if not --- why not ? i surely deserve one for my 'courage' , do I not ?

GarandFan · 2 years ago

I'd thought we'd learned after the Johnston administration, give missions, don't run them.

quickjustice · 2 years ago

Should our government use torture to extract information from known terrorists? There are only two ways to extract information: persuade the subject of interrogation talk voluntarily through bribes or other inducements, or persuade him or her to talk through use of fear and intimidation. Torture and infliction of death are on one extreme of the spectrum.

Torture and intimidation clearly work on some subjects. The risk is that information obtained by duress will be unreliable, and will be given to avoid further pain. You avoid that risk by corroborating the information through third parties, or other intelligence sources if possible.

If the stakes are low, you can avoid resort to extreme tactics. If the stakes are high, and time is short, you sacrifice innocent American lives to spare the guilty.

"We're better than that" is an argument akin to "Gentlemen don't read one another's mail". You read the gentleman's mail if you think it can save American lives.

docjim505 · 2 years ago

Cap'n Ed: Bottom line: if we outlaw the procedure, it should not be with the understanding that someone can order its use and that Congress will forgive it later, depending on the circumstances. If those who propose that as a solution believe that certain circumstances warrant its use, then they should write laws that allow it -- and keep men like Kiriakou from having to determine whether to follow what amounts to an illegal order.

Exactly. I've read similar proposals from gutless liberals when (if) they are finally backed into a corner and admit that, yeah, waterboarding MIGHT be necessary, but they CERTAINLY don't want to make it legal. Rather, they just sort of hope that some military or intelligence officer somewhere will "do the right thing" and hope that the courts back him up years afterward when he's tried for what he did.

Congress' job is to write laws, not leave them unwritten and then bitch at the executive branch because of what they did or didn't do in the resulting legal vacuum.

Cavedog · 2 years ago

Yeah, I have to admit to making such a similar proposal myself, on this very site, despite being a fairly long way from a gutless liberal. Torture may very well be a necessity sometimes, and I certainly understand the need to protect interrogators from being slapped with a court martial for doing exactly what we expected and asked of them. So it's safe to say that I've changed my mind on this one.

That said, I don't see any problem with keeping the actual practice of torture as secret as possible; there's just not much reason that the public at large needs to know about it, and certainly no reason that our enemies need to know about it. Not until five or ten years later, at least.

Heather · 2 years ago

The public needs to know, because it is being done in THEIR names!

For Dan,
Heather

RKV · 2 years ago

If it ain't done to a US citizen nor on US territory, doesn't result in death or permanent injury, it ain't torture. That isn't pretty, but it's how I feel. Illegal combatants are MEAT. We should be able to do anything to them which doesn't send the souls of our soldiers to hell. And making them feel intense pain isn't it. It appears that the process works, so why change it?

New_Jersey_Buckeye · 2 years ago

If I understand this correctly, and please correct me if I'm misunderstanding: The act of "Torture" in itself is not wrong. It is the intent behind the torture that determines it's moral standing.

For example: Torturing someone for a confession to a terrorist action already committed is wrong because it is not preventing harm to another. However, the same torture to a person to prevent a harm is morally alright.

Therefore, it is not the action itself that is the wrong, but the intent behind the action that determines its morality. I.e. stealing isn't wrong when you are starving.

P.S. I know that I shouldn't be bringing morality into life and death national security questions and will be suitably chastised for it. The United States Government should have no interest in legislating private morality, but should it encourage government immorality?

quickjustice · 2 years ago

You're right. You shouldn't. We're in a moral zone I call the "lesser of two evils". Torture is never "good". The question is, is it the lesser of the two evils with which one is confronted?

Many of the tactics of asymmetric warfare (terrorism) were developed by the British during the Second World War to fight a far more powerful Nazi Germany. There were many warnings that having resorted to these tactics, the British could expect them to be employed by others against the West. They were.

Del_Dolemonte · 2 years ago

"Torturing someone for a confession to a terrorist action already committed is wrong because it is not preventing harm to another"

Unless it would help us to understand how the original attack was carried out. Which would in fact in theory at least prevent further attacks.

BurfordHolly · 2 years ago

Salem Witch Trials: 100% False Confession Rate

Unless you believe in witches.

Del_Dolemonte · 2 years ago

Not even a nice try.

Next?

txslr · 2 years ago

Irrelevant.

jr565 · 2 years ago

so your argument is that there is no such thing as Al Qaeda? That has to be what you're arguing, otherwise your comparison really foolish. See, because there were no witches in Salem, but I do distinctly rember 9/11 occuring, and as far I know Al Qaeda had soething to do with it.
But if you do believe that, Id tell your fellow democrats who are trying to get Bush for diverting us from the REAL war on terror. I assumed they were referring to Al Qaeda, with their statements, though maybe they were in fact referring to someone else. Mabye the were referring to the rogue, waterboarding CIA agents.

BurfordHolly · 2 years ago

Hyperbole

TheYell · 2 years ago

You mean somebody who tries to work magic through witchcraft?
Or somebody who succeeds?

BurfordHolly · 2 years ago

I mean conjuring whirlwinds, dancing with Satan, flying etc like all the witches at Salem confessed to.

They were under torture by professionals they confessed so it all had to be true?

TheYell · 2 years ago

No, they weren't under "torture". They were miserably imprisoned but by confessing stood a better chance of avoiding execution.

BurfordHolly · 2 years ago

Giles Corey was publicly tortured to death for refusing to enter a plea.

Derek · 2 years ago

Burford, that little witch comment just won you the dumb shit of the year award.

BurfordHolly · 2 years ago

Your wit is exceeded only by you charm.

Derek · 2 years ago

As is your blissful ignorance.

docjim505 · 2 years ago

New_Jersey_Buckeye : If I understand this correctly, and please correct me if I'm misunderstanding: The act of "Torture" in itself is not wrong. It is the intent behind the torture that determines it's moral standing.

A good point. When a police officer shoots and kills a criminal, or a soldier shoots and kills and enemy soldier on the battlefield, these are not considered "wrong" acts. However, if the same police officer or soldiers shoots and kills an innocent person, either by accident or intention, it DOES become a "wrong" act.

Torture is distasteful to say the least. It may also be necessary under some circumstances. The job of the Congress is to determine what those circumstances are. They also need to determine what constitutes "torture". They shouldn't be allowed to simply pass the buck.

exhelodrvr · 2 years ago

This is such a common-sense issue. Clearly there are circumstances where this is helpful. Clearly it can be abused, and needs to be used sparingly. Why do we need laws spelling that out?

essucht · 2 years ago

Because a future administration may well prosecute American soldiers/agents, or allow a foreign body to do so?

SteveMG · 2 years ago

As one of his last acts, Bush will issue pardons for all the agents who waterboarded the terrorists.

Second prediction: Keith Olbermann won't like it.

rabidrobert · 2 years ago

And why should anyone else care?

rabidrobert · 2 years ago

As if we should care what K. O. likes, or not.

winemkr · 2 years ago

What a crock. A lot of the "company" boys have no military experience.

A lot do.

If the compassionate amongst us want to end CIA interrogation I don't see that as a problem.

The solution is to send the pukes (enemy combatants) to Marine Corps boot camp, USAF Pararescue indoct, SEAL BUDS, Special Forces combat Diver School, or a host of other sanctioned torturous schools that the ass kicking warriors of our great nation have to endure in order to wear their respective uniforms.

35 seconds? Ask a Pararescue Officer what it's like to intentionally drown and then be revived or fail the class and get dismissed from the program.

These so called monsters don't have the guts to get tortured, the term is not applicable to them and the reason is simple.

The scumbags have no honor, therefore they have no reason to resist, and that equals no torture in the truest sense has been visited upon their bankrupt backwoods caveman minds.

Semper Fi

DonSmithnotTMD · 2 years ago

Although a little off, this is exactly something I've wondered for awhile. Certainly waterboarding is on the severe end, but most of the so-called torture I've heard about isn't any worse than what happens at the SERE course everyday. The comments also demonstrated that there was a deliberate process and that these methods weren't implemented randomly.

Porkopolis · 2 years ago

In the hopes of contributing to the "National Debate" on waterboarding, the following argument is offered:

Immune Systems Provide a Framework for Developing Principles on the Use of Interrogation Techniques

LenS · 2 years ago

Correct. This whole debate is absurd. Our enemy does not abide by the Geneva Convention. Therefore, we need only worry about one thing -- winning the war. And that means teaching our enemies that their atrocities will merely result in even greater misery, death and destruction for them. Waterboarding works. Use it. Not as a last resort either. It should be our first option with all captured terrorists. Break them quickly, take their info, and then execute them for not wearing uniforms or following the Geneva Convention.

But as long as we argue over an innocuous procedure as waterboarding, then we are not really serious about winning. Worse, we hasten the day when our enemies get their heads out of their medieval tushes and start killing us by the millions.

I'm sure when Islam beats our sorry indecisive tushes, they'll be nice and mention us favorably for not using waterboarding. Not! They'll simply mock us as dead losers.

middle_american2 · 2 years ago

Bob Schieffer’s commentary on Sunday's Face The Nation looked at the growing CIA torture tape scandal and noted Edward R. Murrow’s belief that sometimes it’s not our actions that do the most damage, it’s the message we send when we act inappropriately that can truly do the most harm.

Schieffer: “Is THAT our message to the world? That we are a government of laws except when it is inconvenient? If so, then what was done in the name of security has greatly harmed security. Weapons keep our enemies at bay, but our real security risks are whether the rest of the world comes to share our values, or the values of those who oppose us.”

docjim505 · 2 years ago

middle_america2,

Perhaps you and Schieffer can correct me if I'm wrong, but the "growing CIA torture tape scandal" was the result of a CIA official unilaterally deciding, over the stated objections of the Congress AND the DCI, to destroy the tapes, no? It wasn't done as a matter of national policy.

At any rate, I suggest that those who whine about our "national image" should consider what damage THEY are doing to it when they create "scandals" (cf. Newsweek and the Koran flushing "scandal"). There's a line between having an open society and handing propaganda victories to the enemy, and Schieffer and his ilk routinely cross it. It is clear to me that they are less concerned with "security" than with scoring partisan points against the administration. What's next? Will C-BS and the other MSM outlets all run Special Reports entitled, "America: We're Evil and You SHOULD Hate Us for It" or "America: Everything Bad We've Ever Done and Why You SHOULD Hate Us for It"?

I would also say that the belief that "Weapons keep our enemies at bay, but our real security risks are whether the rest of the world comes to share our values, or the values of those who oppose us.” is horses**t. The rest of the world is NEVER going to "share our values". The best we can hope for is that they don't hate our "values" so much that they attack us. Those goons on 9-11 didn't take over aircraft, murder the flight crews, and crash into buildings to murder 3000 Americans because we're "not nice" (exactly which American "value" is it that really pisses bin Laden off, by the way?). They did it because they hate us. They will continue to hate us until either (A) we submit to them or (B) we make them submit to us, and even if we DO submit, they will still hate us (cf. Jews in nazi concentration camps). Whining that we are somehow to blame for their psychoses is not only ridiculous, it weakens us and strengthens them by putting a stamp of legitimacy on their murderous world view.

middle_american2 · 2 years ago

docjim,

Sir, thankfully the rest of the civilized world does indeed share our values; it is the extremes, the fanatics who oppose us.

How quickly and conveniently you forget how the entirety of the civilized world stood behind us in the immediate aftermath of 911! The support for our attack on the Taliban in Afghanistan was vast and overwhelming among our countrymen (on both sides of the political spectrum) as well as among the entirely of the civilized world. You are as wrong as you are certain on this point!

You asked "(exactly which American "value" is it that really pisses bin Laden off, by the way?) The answer is our propensity for colonialism, just as our forefathers resented foreign powers attempting to impose their will upon us.

Now am I 'blaming America first" as you would propose (in order to stifle dissent) NO...adamantly NO I am not blaming America first....I am simply answering a question you put to me sir. While I do not expect you to accept my response as a sincere answer to the question you posed, I fully expect more of the same "Blame America first" "Terrorist sympathizer" etc babble that emanates from those of your mindset against anyone who dares to express an opposing viewpoint.

The only whining that I see comes from you and those of your mindset against our national media (MSM to you professional ‘victims’ on the extreme right) and the only ones interested in 'scoring partisan points' are the those like yourself who express hatred for their countrymen for daring to believe differently than you, for daring to express opinions different from yours.

IF and when we become like our enemies (accepting their tactics as our own) in our pursuit of them...they will have won a victory over us that they could never win without our active participation, without our adapting their evil tactics as our own, sir!

That is my opinion and nothing more sir, and I await the 'thought police' that many of your mindset would have scoop up those who of us who dare to believe differently than do you who would call us 'those who would blame America first" or "terrorist sympathizers". (Again in order to stifle debate and silence those with different viewpoints.)

Your attempts to stifle debate and dissent will always fail until your ‘thought police’ are successful in rounding up the roughly half of your fellow countrymen who dare to believe differently than do you sir.

docjim505 · 2 years ago

"Colonialism"

"Stifle dissent"

"Become like our enemies"

"Silence those with different viewpoints"

"Everybody loved us after 9-11"

"Thought police"

Good heavens, you're a walking cliche! Or a joke. Not sure which.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I've got to call the Super Secret Ultra-Right Wing Christian Conservative Thought Police to have them secretly arrest you and spirit you away to one of our super secret foreign detention centers for some serious waterboarding because you dared to disagree with me. Don't try to run, by the way: we've tapped all your phone calls and we know about your secret hideaway in your parents' basement.

/sarcasm and contempt

middle_american2 · 2 years ago

docjim,

Your response was quite predictable and completely as expected! What else could you do other than attack the messenger when you found yourself totally lacking the ability (or desire really) to refute the opinions I express?

Attack the messenger it's what those of your mind set do so well!
Please feel free to continue your expressions of hated and contempt for your fellow countrymen who dare express opinions you find disagreeable. (Is this a GREAT country or what?)

Thank you Sir for unwittingly substantiating my point with your '/sarcasm and contempt' !

I await your next attack further substantiating my point, sir!


Respectfully,

middle_american2

docjim505 · 2 years ago

I'm sorry; you had a point? All I see is tired cliches that basically add up to, "It's all our fault they hate us!" Oh, and the obligatory paranoid rant about "stifling dissent" and "thought police". But if it makes you feel better:

We are so NOT a colonial power!!!

We are so a nice country and people should like us!!!

We are so NOT like our enemies!!!

Happy now?

I'm genuinely curious: who has tried to stifle your dissent? Did Cap'n Ed delete or alter some of your posts? Did somebody else demand that he do so, because I haven't? Did I or anybody else tell you to shut up and threaten you if you didn't? What "thought police" have showed up at your door? Has the FBI called your house and warned you against posting your opinions here at CQ or anywhere else?

It seems clear to me that, like many libs, you are so insecure and paranoid that you automatically regard ANY criticism leveled at you and your (ahem) ideas to be clear evidence of some deep conspiracy to get you. Either that or it simply makes you feel important to imagine that you're the target of an Orwellian machine. Big, brave middle_american2, bearding O'Brien in his den in MiniLuv. I'll bet a courageous patriot like you isn't one little bit afraid of Room 101, eh?

Here's a tip: when people don't fall all over themselves to agree with everything you say, or at least admit that your awesome logic and rhetorical skills have left them crushed and unable to even try to answer your unassailable arguments, it doesn't necessarily mean that they are out to stifle you. It may simply mean that they think you're full of s*** and not worth bothering with.

Incidentally, it is impossible to refute "opinions". I can offer competing opinions or even facts that undercut your opinions, but I can't refute your beliefs any more than I could refute somebody's religious beliefs. I can shake my head and wonder how in the hell you believe the garbage that you espouse, but I can't refute it. The term I've seen others use is "truth to fantasy", and I've learned that it just doesn't work.

So have fun, you maverick renegade! And don't let the black helicopters get you.

middle_american2 · 2 years ago

docjim,

I guess you'd have us believe your comment of "There's a line between having an open society and handing propaganda victories to the enemy, and Schieffer and his ilk routinely cross it." was intended to encourage a free and open debate in our "open society". <-- certainly no cliches employed here.

[...]exactly which American "value"... <-- certainly no usage of tired cliches by you sir.

"Will C-BS and the other MSM outlets all run Special Reports entitled, "America: We're Evil and You SHOULD Hate Us for It" or "America: Everything Bad We've Ever Done and Why You SHOULD Hate Us for It"?" <-- I'm certainly pleased to see you refrain from the usage of tired cliches.

Mr Schieffer and I say things with which you disagree therefor he and I are giving aid and comfort to the enemy and should consider what damage we are doing to our "national image". <--No cliches ever employed by docjim that's for certain!

It is apparent you support Freedom of speech for all Americans, that is unless the speaker dares to espouse opinions different that docjims!

According to your comments, IF we disagree with you we are "handing propaganda victories" to OUR enemies and we are damaging our "national image". <--No one can ever accuse you of employing "tired cliches" now can they Sir?

Your sarcasm, contempt, condescending air of superiority and hypocrisy are duly noted sir.

docjim505 · 2 years ago

Obviously not much point in continuing, but I'll give it one last try. Please try hard to understand the difference between "disagreement" and "stifling free speech", will you? As it happens, I DO support free speech for all Americans within the generous bounds of our legal tradition; I don't support the right to shout "FIRE!" in a crowded theatre, for example. If you look carefully at my posts - ALL the posts I've ever made here at CQ - you won't find me espousing prior restraint on free speech or locking people up for speaking their mind. I didn't tell you to shut up (though heavens knows that it crossed my mind more than once); I haven't advocated making Schieffer shut up. Again, please try hard to see the difference.

One last note:

"sarcasm" - most definitely

"contempt" - unquestionably

"condescending air of superiority" - should be "condescending air of undoubted and well-demonstrated superiority". You could also add "arrogance".

"hypocrisy" - not sure where I've demonstrated hypocrisy (outside your own twisted little mind, that is), but I've found that libs like throwing that slur around almost as much as they like calling people who don't agree with them nazis or fascists.

"duly noted" - by whom? If by you, then give yourself a kewpie doll for spotting the obvious.

Oh, well...

quickjustice · 2 years ago

As usual, Schieffer's trite commentary misses a more important point: that respect for the law is a function of public respect for the legislature that enacts it.

If the "law is an ass", then it's the laws that should be revised. And you don't enact laws that are manifestly foolish or the result of corrupt influence. That's where we are in this country-- earmark city. No wonder Mark Twain called the U.S. Congress "the only native American criminal class".

Kevin Doyle · 2 years ago

Amen!
You Libs are ridiculous! You make Dennis Kucinich sound reasonable!

In order to be consistent, then it would make perfect sense that you also defend and request both Geneva Convention and American Civil Rights for the Nazi SS soldiers in WWII who disguised themselves in American uniforms and savagely killed American GI's in Belgium and France during the Battle of the Bulge.
Any sane individual would see that no such rights nor protections be conferred. Summary execution was appropriate and legal. Taking them prisoner was humane and beyond the example of Mother Theresa.

Tecas Dude · 2 years ago

Forget the Geneva Convention ... our enemies rarely abide by it, if ever!

Jim Harris · 2 years ago

I hope that Ed Morrissey pays close attention to the link to the US Code posted in the previous comment. That link not only defines torture, but also criminalizes it with a penalty of up to 20 years in prison.

Despite what the commenter says, waterboarding certainly could be interpreted as torture under that law. In fact you would have to read the law and the case with aggressive bias to conclude that waterboarding isn't torture. Clause (2)(C) extends torture to include mock execution as torture. Waterboarding is a mock execution ceremony which instills the impression in the victim that he is drowning. Simply put, yes, waterboarding is torture. Ed Morrissey has talked as if Congress needs to pass a new law to prohibit waterboarding. It doesn't. I bet the CIA knows that full well, and that it is one reason that they destroyed those tapes.

Ed Morrissey would also do well to study the case of James C. Parker. He was a Texas Sheriff who in 1983 was sentenced to prison for waterboarding jailed suspects. No one in that trial had trouble calling it torture: They called it water torture rather than waterboarding. Even the defense didn't try to define down torture; they just denied that Parker had done it. If it was torture when Parker did it, then it still is. Congress does not need to write a law to make it so.

BurfordHolly · 2 years ago

>Ed Morrissey would also do well to study the case of James C. Parker.

Yep, there is law as it is written and PRECEDENT which is how the courts apply it , and the precedents are against waterboarding over and over.

Saying that the law needs to be rewritten is an absurd talking point and nothing more.

quickjustice · 2 years ago

So by implication, you believe that U.S. law should be applied to known foreign terrorists held in foreign countries? Remember, we're not inflicting discomfort on these people to get a confession. We're inflicting it to get information quickly enough to help us on the battlefield, or to save lives.

And inflicting discomfort on a unconvicted suspect held in a U.S. jail for an ordinary crime is an entirely different situation. In the U.S. criminal justice system, only convicts are punished after receiving due process of law by trial. It's obvious that that sheriff was out of line.

Jim Harris · 2 years ago

So by implication, you believe that U.S. law should be applied to known foreign terrorists held in foreign countries?

US law applies to the conduct of American citizens wherever it says it applies. USC 2340A (follow the link I posted above) specifically applies only to acts of torture perpetrated by Americans "outside the United States". It does not list any exemptions based on who the victim is.

It is also offensive to refer to mock execution as "discomfort". The word for it is torture. If someone convinced you that you were being executed, with waterboarding, a firing squad, by dangling you from a helicopter, or by any other such method, you would certainly call it torture, and you would be right.

Jay · 2 years ago

Its like smacking a beehive with a stick, and when you stand there getting stung you grab a bee and pull its wings off instead of just leaving it alone. Meanwhile a thousand other bees are getting mad and stinging you with all their might. But instead of realizing that you caused this, you just call the bees terrorist and insist that they 'hate' you for whatever reason instead of taking responsibility for your actions. But, from what I've seen that's the American way... what a doomed country.

quickjustice · 2 years ago

I understand your liberal masochism. "Our going after terrorists will only make them madder. We must convert to Islam, or change our behavior to make the terrorists happy. Then maybe they'll stop hurting us."

keemo · 2 years ago

Typical Liberal viewpoint; it's America's fault. We swatted the innocent beehive of terrorism, therefore we deserve what we got.

BurfordHolly · 2 years ago

This story is still making the rounds

http://www.guardian.co.uk/terrorism/story/0,127...

'One of them made cuts in my penis. I was in agony'


Tuesday August 2, 2005
The Guardian

Benyam Mohammed travelled from London to Afghanistan in July 2001, but after September 11 he fled to Pakistan. He was arrested at Karachi airport on April 10 2002, and describes being flown by a US government plane to a prison in Morocco. These are extracts from his diary.

They cut off my clothes with some kind of doctor's scalpel. I was naked. I tried to put on a brave face. But maybe I was going to be raped. Maybe they'd electrocute me. Maybe castrate me.

They took the scalpel to my right chest. It was only a small cut. Maybe an inch. At first I just screamed ... I was just shocked, I wasn't expecting ... Then they cut my left chest. This time I didn't want to scream because I knew it was coming.

One of them took my penis in his hand and began to make cuts. He did it once, and they stood still for maybe a minute, watching my reaction. I was in agony. They must have done this 20 to 30 times, in maybe two hours. There was blood all over. "I told you I was going to teach you who's the man," [one] eventually said.

They cut all over my private parts. One of them said it would be better just to cut it off, as I would only breed terrorists. I asked for a doctor........

Swede · 2 years ago

See how quickly the Guardian and Buford T. Justice are to believe a terrorist?

Surprising, I know. Who saw it coming?

The Guardian and Burford, protecting terrorist pecker since 2001.

rabidrobert · 2 years ago

If you're going to make up a story then it better be good. Truth or fiction. I say fiction.. The Guardian has a great record for factual reporting. I don't believe a word of it. Nice try Benyam. See you in the next life scumbag.

BurfordHolly · 2 years ago

well we are releasing the final 5 Brits from AG, so we'll see....

Corsair · 2 years ago

So they circumcised him. I bet that really pissed him off. His friends might think he became a Jew.

rabidrobert · 2 years ago

i second that!

essucht · 2 years ago

I see some here have pointed out that our navel gazing over waterboarding has encouraged our Islamists enemies. And this is a valid concern because it is a the obvious truth. We need to stop playing at being the weak horse. It didn't help in the 90s, and it certainly won't help now.

Actually though I'm more worried about how our other competitors on the world stage are viewing this fiasco. What does China or Russia think of our rush to treat captured terrorists as somehow better then either a POW or a criminal defendant when the norms of war demand execution?

During World War II, Hitler did not use biological or chemical weapons against the western allies because he knew we would respond in kind.

Now we broadcast to the whole world that no matter the provocation or atrocity committed by our foes, we will continue to try and play nice with them. This is neither wise, nor does it gain us an ounce of support from the peaceniks in Europe...

“It is better to be feared than loved, if you cannot be both.”

skydaddy · 2 years ago

"Red is positive"

Swede · 2 years ago

Nope. No problem with it.

The reality is that most people, anywhere, won't be affected by terrorism.

For most people here, this is an academic debate.

I wonder how many of the people who lost somebody on 9/11, given their druthers, would give a rat's ass if water boarding was used to prevent that scale of death and destruction.

How many of you would care if it prevented the death of somebody you knew or loved?

quickjustice · 2 years ago

I lost twelve of my friends and neighbors on 9/11. And I read comments here arguing for gentle treatment of those who masterminded the scheme. "If only we're nice to the terrorists, maybe they won't hurt us."

I wonder if they have a clue how they sound to the rest of us?

keemo · 2 years ago

To waterboard or not to waterboard...

I say; protect the American people, our borders, our cities, our way of life... America is the greatest Democracy mankind has ever created. Those who live here and deny the right to protect our people by whatever means possible, should be publicly denounced prior to being exported to the nearest border.

My country is in the process of going soft due to the politically correct "do as I say, not as I do" Liberal weenie crowd. If my country continues down this road, my country will look much like GB 25 years from now. Liberals are a cancer to the free world, spreading their virus upon all free people. If governments don't figure out a way to stop the spreading of Liberalism, free people will take this battle upon themselves.

The fact that OBL and the enemies of America quite often talk and act much like Democrats and the American Liberal Media, is not a mystery any longer.

Teresa · 2 years ago

What this man has to say is strikingly different from EVERY SINGLE OTHER REPORT on this suspect. No one has reported anything other than the man was mentally ill and spewed out confessions to dozens of so-called plots that were figments of his imagination. This guy is trying to save his own butt from being sued for violating the Geneva Conventions for engaging in torture.

quickjustice · 2 years ago

I don't think the Geneva Convention on torture applies to terrorists, Teresa. And the speed with which you attribute "mental illness" to a terrorist shows your own state of mind. As several psychologist bloggers have suggested, liberals are masochists, while terrorists are sadists.

When a terrorist attacks, the masochistic liberal reaction is: "How did I cause this savagery? How can I change my behavior so the terrorist won't do it again?"

By contrast, a conservative says, "Maybe a lethal injection, some water boarding, or insertion of the U.S. military, can move us towards a satisfactory solution in this case."

Del_Dolemonte · 2 years ago

al Qaeda doesn't fall under GC protection, as they don't wear uniforms and aren't fighting for one particular country.

rabidrobert · 2 years ago

Truth to fantasy!

quickjustice · 2 years ago

Check out this website for more details on the psychology of jihadis:

http://neoneocon.com/2006/06/20/by-their-works-...

"Many cultures traditionally have had terms for “the other.” Even if those appellations don’t start out as pejorative, they usually wind up that way. And so it is with “barbarian” and “barbaric,” which have come into general use to mean especially vicious, cruel, and sadistic.

It’s really that last definition–sadistic–that seems to be the most important element here. When a soldier kills, there is always violence, no matter how the killing is accomplished. But barbarism implies a gratuitous level of mayhem, a sort of overkill, which indicates an emotional element that drives the perpetrator towards inflicting the maximum amount of pain for personal enjoyment and sensations of power.

One of the hallmarks of jihadi violence has been this element of barbarism–or, perhaps more correctly, sadism. There is a practical and strategic goal as well, which is to instill fear. Sadism and strategy are not mutually exclusive, however; they can coexist, and both may be driving this particular behavior. No one who has watched the beheading videos–or even read descriptions of them–can avoid the sense that those doing the deed are reveling in their own barbaric power, unleashed.

Sadism traditionally has been linked to sexual kinkiness. If you Google the word “sadism,” most of the definitions you find will have some connection to sex. Many have also remarked on the disturbances in Arab culture’s treatment of women and their sexuality (see this, for example), so it’s easy to surmise that there’s a connection between the two."

docjim505 · 2 years ago

Teresa: What this man has to say is strikingly different from EVERY SINGLE OTHER REPORT on this suspect.

In other words, you're calling him a liar.

Surprise, surprise, surprise...

BurfordHolly · 2 years ago

It would explain them burning the tape if it looked like the jocks beating up some retarded kid. Probably make you want to puke.

The reason they are trying to spin this is that W reportedly order it personally.

"Abu Zubaydah also appeared to know nothing about terrorist operations; rather, he was al-Qaeda's go-to guy for minor logistics -- travel for wives and children and the like. That judgment was "echoed at the top of CIA and was, of course, briefed to the President and Vice President," Suskind writes. And yet somehow, in a speech delivered two weeks later, President Bush portrayed Abu Zubaydah as "one of the top operatives plotting and planning death and destruction on the United States." And over the months to come, under White House and Justice Department direction, the CIA would make him its first test subject for harsh interrogation techniques.......
In interviews with intelligence officers, Suskind often finds them baffled by White House statements. "Why the hell did the President have to put us in a box like this?" one top CIA official asked about the overblown public portrait of Abu Zubaydah. ......."I said he was important," Bush reportedly told Tenet at one of their daily meetings. "You're not going to let me lose face on this, are you?" "No sir, Mr. President," Tenet replied. Bush "was fixated on how to get Zubaydah to tell us the truth," Suskind writes, and he asked one briefer, "Do some of these harsh methods really work?" Interrogators did their best to find out, Suskind reports. They strapped Abu Zubaydah to a water-board, which reproduces the agony of drowning. They threatened him with certain death. They withheld medication. They bombarded him with deafening noise and harsh lights, depriving him of sleep. Under that duress, he began to speak of plots of every variety -- against shopping malls, banks, supermarkets, water systems, nuclear plants, apartment buildings, the Brooklyn Bridge, the Statue of Liberty. With each new tale, "thousands of uniformed men and women raced in a panic to each . . . target." And so, Suskind writes, "the United States would torture a mentally disturbed man and then leap, screaming, at every word he uttered."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/ar...

jr565 · 2 years ago

burford wrote:
"Abu Zubaydah also appeared to know nothing about terrorist operations; rather, he was al-Qaeda's go-to guy for minor logistics -- travel for wives and children and the like.
Ok, so you're saying now that he was the equivalent of Corky, and that Al Qaeda had a retard around to do minor errands for them because they felt sorry for him or something?
"Hey Abu, do you mind picking up a pack of cigs for the wife? Kind of tied up with the plot to take down the WTC at the moment."
Now of course, I'm not sure if this report is in fact accurate.
But the bigger problem is, how are you determining that Abu is a small fish or one of the head guys at Al Qaeda unless you interrogate him? Al Qaeda underlings don't have different uniforms than the big dogs, so if you capture an Al Qaeda agent, or member the only way you''ll determine his status is by pressing him and making him uncomfortorable till he spills the beans to your satisfaction.
We know hes in Al Qaeda. you''re not disputing that. But what does he actually know and how valuable a target is he? So how are you determining what his status is buford? Leave out the waterboarding. What are you willing to do to actually find out if he is or isn't dangerous and does or does not have information that can prove valuabe. Are you going simply by his say so? He says he's' just an errand boy for al qaeda, therefore there's no reason to even hold him and/or interrogate him? Because we all know suspects will never lie about anything.

Your argument is ludicrous on its face. He is IN AL QAEDA! Even if he's simply doing errands, he''s doing errands for people IN AL QAEDA! He can''t possibly not realize that the guys he is dong the errands for are the same Al Qaeda who carried out attacks in Africa and against the US Cole prior to 9/11 and who declared jihad against the US back when Clinton was still in office.Now you can say he's not carrying out direct attacks, but he''s doing errands for the people who are. That means he has information, apparently, even if he doesn't' know particulars about attacks. He'll know particulars about people and addresses, and even what errands he's doing and for whom can be valuable info.

most importantly though, we dont know his status until we've interrogate him and cleared him or interrogated him and found out he had valuable info. Those who went running off in a panic everytime he told one of his stories certainly took him seriousy, but by the same token why wouldn't they? He's in Al Qaeda.

And there's no way to ascertain his involvement but through interrogation. We can quibble about the methods, but all are coercive. Even if you simply play good cop bad cop, thats coercive. And according to you, apparently, any interrogation technique is torture,so I guess there would be no interrogation if you were in charge.

But then how are you determining if he in fact should be let go? He says he's' in Al Qaeda but doesn't know anything? Howdo you know?The same interrogation that you are damning is what gave Suskind the information that he says exhonorates Abu Zubaydah.
This is again, even assuming that this is accurate, and not merely his side of the story.
But regardless, you saying we shouldn't interrogate the prisoners doesn't really suggest how we are to get the intel that would either prevent attacks, or suggest that the guy is a small fry who doesn't know anything. And there is certainly no reason,that were we to not interrogate him, because of your delicate sensibilities that we should still let him go free either. After all, if we know nothing of his role in Al Qaeda prior to interrogating him, we at least knew he was in Al Qaeda. So that alone would be a flag, to at least not let him go free.

Then you would be arguing that we were holding someone indefinitely, and that would be torture to you. We''d be deprving him of his due process rights and what not, this Al Qaeda member, who apparently is to delicate to even be questioned aboug what he knows lest we lose our souls in the process, accoriding to you.

What a crock. Maybe he should be careful who he does errands for. Maybe he should expect that if he is carrying out errands for a terrorist organization he should recognize that if he's captured those who capture him might be a little leery about his "I just walk Osama''s dog" story. I remember when Al Qaeda capture Nick Berg, and Daniel Pearl, they actually decapitated them. I'm sure Nick and Danny, if faced with the option of having their heads choppoed off or thrity seconds of waterboarding or loud noise might choose the latter. It reminds me a bit of like Eddy Izzards cake or death routine where the torturers offer the option of cake or death, and all the prisoners choose the cake, naturally.(I''ll take the cake,please).
The point is, even if he's an errand boy, hes an errand boy for an organization who carry out horrific attacks that kill thousands, who REALLY torture and murder those they capture, and because he's part of that organization he's culpable, and not entitled to a presumption of innocence to interrogators who know ahead of time that he is in Al Qaeda. Sometihing tells me if Abu were an enemy of AlQadea and was captured by them, instead of doing errands for them, he would be receiving a lot worse than loud noise and waterboarding. So, maybe that tells you you have to be careul about the company you keep.

But the bottom line is, we need info. Who is going to know about what Al Qaeda is planning, but Al Qaeda. We capture an al Qaeda operative, who may be really big, or a bit player, but who is in Al Qaeda, I would suggest that interrogation is warranted, and considering we just lived through 9/11 and since that was a ticking time bomb scenario if there ever was one, and since Al Qaedas purpose is to carry out as bombastic attacks as possible, any attack planned by them is a potential ticking time bomb scenario. So if youre lucky enough to capture Al Qaeda members, especially a high level target like KhalleidSheik Mohammad, its not a question of IF they have the info, its a question of how much info can we get so as to save lives and prevent attacks. And if its a question of what role the person plays in the organzation, then we still need to gather the intel so as to know one way or the other.
And that means applying pressure. I'd actually agree, that if we were actually torturing people,(ie, drilling kneecaps, chopping off limbs, throwing people off buldings, chopping off heads, etc - you know, kind of like the stuff sadaam was doing in his prisons) I would question how effective torture would be.
But I also recognize that interrogation by its very nature,and EVERYTHING could be construed as torturous. I certainly wouldn't want to be tasered, and Im sure many would consider tasering people torture. Yet, every day we have people in this country being tasered when they're arrested (and why are they being tasered? Because the taser is considered less lethal than shooting someone, or beating them with baton and cracking open their skull for example) and I'm' not calling cops torturers. Because some degree of force is necessary when trying to subdue a suspect. Some degree of coercion is also necessary when trying to get info from terrorists. Some degree of force is necessary when the dentist drills your teeth, fo r crying out loud.
Only in lefty land fantasy world are we able to combat terrorists, and find out perfect intel, and not lay a finger on the suspect, because in lefty land, I guess all terrorists tell the truth right off the bat, and wear signs saying they are underlings, None of the info has to actually be extracted, and they are totally above board and cooparative.

Tina · 2 years ago

Do you actually believe all of the garbage they say on the news? Haven't you ever seen the movie Wag the Dog. The government only tells us what they want us to know, when they want us to know it.

How naive!

Scott · 2 years ago

So now movies like Wag the Dog are proof of govt conspiracy! What kind of world do you live in? How about the one where this is this coyote, see, and he always chasing this roadrunner, and then stuff always blows up in his face because GWB thinks that all coyotes are really terrorists, see.

You must really be enjoying this year's movie selections: Lions to Lambs, Redacted, etc., etc., etc.

What a maroon!

DayTrader · 2 years ago

I suggested last night you were stating your opinion on your world view. By first hand account NOW you must agree you were working from the one author out of many plus dozens of official reports that went against what the one author said.

So now what you really need to do is learn from the issue and say for example

Where did I pick up this viewpoint and who was the source
Should I evaluate that source with more caution in the future
Should I have reconsidered when the rest of the whole world seemed to be against his position
Who else supported his position in the media/blogs etc should I now reconsider their future output on the basis of were they just misled/mis judging or were they knowingly spinning for purposes of advancing an agenda

Del_Dolemonte · 2 years ago

Don't confuse her

Teresa · 2 years ago

No... You are picking out one guy who goes against every other report that is out there. In fact, this man was not directly involved in the interrogation if you actually bother to read the story. He was part of the team that captured Abu in Pakistan, but the interrogation was done by other people and this guy has zero first hand knowledge of what was done. Forgive me for taking him with a big ole grain of salt. He even says in the transcript of his interview that he was offered the chance to train to do interrogations/torture and turned it down because a senior offficer warned him to stay away from it because someone would take it too far.

Del_Dolemonte · 2 years ago

One more question, Mama T- exactly how many countries and/or individuals have been sued for violating the Geneva Convention? And what were the results of those lawsuits?

Teresa · 2 years ago

I suggest that you go back to school.

---How about looking at the Nuremburg Trials first for an example of a country and people held to account by the Geneva Conventions.

--In May 1993 the UN Security Council established an International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia. The tribunal, based in The Hague, began to prepare indictments for war crimes committed by the various sides in the Yugoslav conflict, and in April 1995 an alleged Bosnia Serb war criminal—Dusko Tadic—became the first occupant of a new UN detention centre while awaiting trial for outrages committed in the Omarska prison camp. Tadic was later sentenced to 20 years' imprisonment for crimes against humanity. Radovan Karadjic, the Bosnian Serb leader, together with other Serbs, Croatians, and Bosnian Muslims, were also later indicted. Following the recrudescence of genocide and ‘ethnic cleansing’ in Kosovo in early 1999, the Hague tribunal began preparing evidence for another round of indictments.


--In September 1998, Jean-Paul Akayesu, the Hutu mayor of Taba in central Rwanda, was convicted on nine counts of genocide, torture, rape, murder, crimes against humanity, and breaches of the 1949 Geneva Conventions.

Heather · 2 years ago

Thank you !

My husband was a Vietnam vet and POW, who was tortured by his North Vietnamese captors. He suffered from his injuries for over thirty years, until his fatal heart attack two years ago.

Torture is ALWAYS wrong, no matter who is doing it to who.

For Dan,
Heather

txslr · 2 years ago

This is patently untrue. A few minutes with Google proves it to be untrue. You should stop posting assertions that are so easily debunked.

rabidrobert · 2 years ago

Don't forget, they get to make up their own BS, true or not. It's still BS.

Del_Dolemonte · 2 years ago

I'll ask you again, Mama T: if waterboarding could have prevented 9/11, would you have called it torture?

And before answering, think of those innocent WTC civilians who had to chose between burning to death or jumping 1,000 feet to their death.

BurfordHolly · 2 years ago

Does your question involve ESP or time travel?

Del_Dolemonte · 2 years ago

Not even a nice try. If you could answer the question you would have.

Next?

chaking · 2 years ago

It's a loaded question Del... Answer Markt's question and you'll see why we won't answer yours... We don't live in the "24" world...

BurfordHolly · 2 years ago

Real life doesn't give you the split screen showing you that there really is a bomb. Otherwise, we should torture the students when someone calls in a bomb threat to the high school. You have a tip, right? So start torturing the kids.

Of course, if a terrorists can get our own government to start torturing based on hoaxes, they can just phone in their terror as easily as ordering pizza and the government will carry out their wishes with your tax money. Which is what terrorists are really after.

Markt · 2 years ago

> if waterboarding could have prevented 9/11, would you have called it torture?

While we are analyzing hypothetical situations, how about this one: If waterboarding had produced many false leads that wasted our investigators' time and caused them to fail prevent 9/11, would you still support it?

docjim505 · 2 years ago

Markt: While we are analyzing hypothetical situations, how about this one: If waterboarding had produced many false leads that wasted our investigators' time and caused them to fail prevent 9/11, would you still support it?

I can't speak for Del, of course, but my answer is "yes", just as I support police use of confidential informants even though this occasionally leads to them arresting innocent people and letting guilty people go. I also support issuing our police firearms even though they occasionally shoot innocent civilians while the bad guys get away. I support having national intelligence agencies even though they occasionally provide bad information that leads to mistakes in national policy. I support using armed aircraft in our military even though they occasionally bomb innocent civilians or even our own guys instead of the enemy, or the enemy will sometimes use unexploded bombs dropped by our aircraft against our own men in the form of IED's.

I realize that we don't live in a perfect world. I'm not especially keen to waterboard anybody, but if I think that there's a reasonable chance - nay, even a rather UNreasonable chance - that waterboarding some poor SOB will save lots of American lives, then somebody get get me a waterhose.

Now, perhaps you can answer Del's question.

mmpost · 2 years ago

My dad worked for Air Force intelligence back in the 70's. Recently, I talked to him about this torture issue. Bottom line, when ANY U.S. agent is compromised, it is assumed that all information known to that agent is also compromised, for torture by trained professionals almost always works.

So, please no more arguments that torture does not work. That is just hogwash.

chaking · 2 years ago

What you're missing here is that everyone we get doesn't know the things we think they do. If we always got the right guy, the responsible person, then sure torture might work. But when half the time we get some numbnut that knows nothing but has to lie and say he does to stop the torture, that's where it doesn't work.

If we have to torture someone to get an answer to a question, then apparently we don't know the answer right? So how the hell do we know it's accurate... We don't, simple as that, and we can never be sure it is...