Fox News correspondent on his on-air "waterboarding": "a pretty efficient mechanism to get someone to talk and then still have them alive and healthy within minutes"
SUMMARY: Fox News' Steve Harrigan underwent what he
described as three "phase[s]" of the controversial interrogation
technique known as "waterboarding," on camera, concluding that the
technique is "a pretty efficient mechanism to get someone to talk and
then still have them alive and healthy within minutes." Psychologists
have asserted that "such forms of near-asphyxiation" can lead to
long-term psychological damage.
On the November 3 edition of Fox News' On the Record with Greta Van Susteren, Fox News correspondent Steve Harrigan underwent what he described as three "phase[s]" of the controversial interrogation technique known as "waterboarding," on camera, concluding that the technique is "a pretty efficient mechanism to get someone to talk and then still have them alive and healthy within minutes." Harrigan stated that his report on waterboarding was meant to show viewers "what exactly it is," whether it is "torture," and if "the U.S. [should] use it."
During his demonstration, Harrigan, clad in an orange jumpsuit, was apparently put through three different procedures by three men dressed entirely in black, complete with black ski masks. The first technique to which Harrigan was apparently subjected involved his being handcuffed while lying in a pool, with two "interrogat[ors] applying pressure to Harrigan's stomach and chest, while the third "interrogat[or]" poured water over Harrigan's face.
The second "phase" was similar, though this time Harrigan's mouth was covered with what appeared to be a wet towel; one "interrogat[or]" poured water over Harrigan's nose. The final procedure involved water being dripped into Harrigan's nose while cellophane wrap covered his mouth. Harrigan alternated between claiming that the waterboarding was "really scary" and not "that bad" while being subjected to the different "phase[s]." According to ABC News, "former and current intelligence officers and supervisors" have claimed that prisoners are subjected to a waterboarding technique similar to the third technique Harrigan demonstrated:
The prisoner is bound to an inclined board, feet raised and head slightly below the feet. Cellophane is wrapped over the prisoner's face and water is poured over him. Unavoidably, the gag reflex kicks in and a terrifying fear of drowning leads to almost instant pleas to bring the treatment to a halt.
According to the sources, CIA officers who subjected themselves to the water boarding technique lasted an average of 14 seconds before caving in. They said al Qaeda's toughest prisoner, Khalid Sheik Mohammed, won the admiration of interrogators when he was able to last between two and two-and-a-half minutes before begging to confess.
ABC News further noted, that intelligence officials believed "that a confession obtained this way is an unreliable tool" because many may confess to anything in order for the technique to stop. Army regulations prohibit the use of waterboarding, but the CIA does not.
Reflecting on his experience, Harrigan remarked, "[Y]ou really learn you can crack pretty quickly. ... I mean, they took me to the brink, where I was ready to submit, tell them anything within minutes, and then, just minutes later, I was standing by the side of that pool feeling fine." Harrigan concluded that "as far as torture goes, at least in this controlled experiment, to me, this seemed like a pretty efficient mechanism to get someone to talk and then still have them alive and healthy within minutes." However, psychologists, such as Dr. Allen S. Keller, director of the Bellevue Hospital Center/New York University Program for Survivors of Torture reportedly disagreed: According to The New Yorker magazine, Keller asserted that "such forms of near-asphyxiation," like waterboarding, could indeed lead to long-term psychological damage:
Some victims were still traumatized years later, he said. One patient couldn't take showers, and panicked when it rained. "The fear of being killed is a terrifying experience," he said.
From the November 3 edition of Fox News' On the Record with Greta van Susteren:
VAN SUSTEREN: Waterboarding -- you heard me right. It's waterboarding, a notorious interrogation technique used to crack prisoners and get them talking. But what exactly is waterboarding? Fox's own Steve Harrigan wanted to find out. He joins us from New York. Steve, what is this?
HARRIGAN: Greta, so many people have been talking about waterboarding over the past couple of weeks. Is it torture? Should the U.S. use it? We left those questions on the side and just really tried to look at what exactly it is. Working with [retired U.S. Army] Major Bob Bevelacqua and two of his colleagues, here's what we found.
[begin video tape]
HARRIGAN: Stop!
So you pressed down here, and then I couldn't catch a breath and I felt water fill my nose and my mouth, and within, like, three seconds, I wanted out of there.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We wanted to give you that sensation of drowning.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Now the only place he can breathe is through his nose, and we're going to fill that with water.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Are you ready to talk?
HARRIGAN: No!
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Come on!
HARRIGAN: Stop!
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Don't pour anymore.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: OK.
HARRIGAN: One was not too bad. Two was a little scary. I don't know how many numbers these guys got, but we'll see.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We've got a lot.
HARRIGAN: All right.
I'm starting not to like these guys in the black masks. I expect I'll tap out pretty soon here because I'm scared.
No, this isn't that bad.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: OK.
HARRIGAN: Whoa!
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You OK, Steve?
HARRIGAN: Yeah, the -- when you try and take a breath in, the cellophane goes in your mouth, and then it's lights out.
[end video tape]
HARRIGAN: Yeah, phase 3 is when they put that Saran wrap over your mouth; it's really scary. And the interrogators said it's more about fear than pain. Just seeing them tear that Saran wrap off when they're about to put it over your face, it really gets you scared. And you can imagine people who go through this day-in, day-out, you really learn you can crack pretty quickly.
VAN SUSTEREN: Yeah, what I was reading, Steve, is that -- it seems that there's sort of a time when most people crack; how much they can endure. What's sort of how -- you know, what's the longest anyone can endure these things?
HARRIGAN: Greta, there's no hard science on this. Some people say a couple minutes is about as long as you go. But the thing that really impressed me was just how quickly you can recover. I mean, they took me to the brink, where I was ready to submit, tell them anything within minutes, and then, just minutes later, I was standing by the side of that pool feeling fine. So, as far as torture goes, at least in this controlled experiment, to me, this seemed like a pretty efficient mechanism to get someone to talk and then still have them alive and healthy within minutes.
VAN SUSTEREN: All right, Steve. Well, I'm glad this was your project and not mine. Fascinating. Thank you, Steve.
I say we test this on everyone over at Fox News.
but have the testing done by those who are not at all friendly towards them. I'm betting having it set up like that and being prepared for it is nothing in comparison to those who it is being committed on to get 'information'. I think having them experience what it is really like would have them changing their tune in no time.
But I think it would be fun to give them all swirlies.
works just as good as a sell-out mechanism.
That's too much! Very funny... the absurdity of it all. Almost makes me want to cry.
I'd Like to "waterboard" a few of those Fox Hotties. Oh, I mean "Waterbed". Then after we can "waterboard" them.
Especially the questioning - you know, the whole friggin' point of Duhhbya's defense of the technique.
I can't figure out which was the tougher question:
"Are you ready to talk?"
OR
"You OK, Steve?"
Maybe we could suggest some questions, y'know, like: "Have you ever had a sexual fantasy that envolved Roger Ailes, Brit Hume or Bill O'Reilly?"
"Have you ever tried to seduce a woman using a fist full of falafel?"
Why don't we just go Deer Hunter on them and keep firing an empty gun at their head, while they think it has a bullet in the chamber? It's about the same thing.
It seems that there are people out there that think that if a person isn't physically damaged by a procedure, that it can't be torture. However, if something causes so much mental anguish that they are "..ready to submit, tell them anything within minutes..", that's torture.
Let's get a 12 volt battery and jumpstart his testicles...he'll love that!
One thing missing from this cute little experiment...Harrigan knew they wouldn't let him die. Therefore, the experiment is pretty useless.
Oh, remember how the Right Wing Liars made a big deal out of the woman who was reporting on a flood, sitting in a canoe in water that turned out to be only inches deep, accusing her of sensationalizing? Will they harangue this guy for this little stunt? Don't hold your breath.
Also, he had his clothes on. A red jump suit to boot. They should have done him naked so people could watch that Fox fairy pi@@ himself.
Just because YOU don't approve of the US trying to save as many American lives as possible don't whine about how those who DO care get information!
I think it was a very informative "test". At least it's a way to get information that may save lives and doesn't maim or kill the person at the same time. I don't understand the liberal problem with trying to save lives. Oh, yeah....liberals hate to save lives, unless it's the life of a terrorist or someone on death-row.
LIAMD
Looks like the real whiners are the ones who are called on ignoring our obligations to the rule of law when it apparently suits their purpose.
You are just appeasing those that wish to make a mockery of our entire system and our treaties.
If you were a real man, you would simply advocate official abrogation of the "quaint" (as Alberto Gonzales would call them) Geneva Conventions. Isn't that what you really want here? Be honest.
" ignoring our obligations to the rule of law when it apparently suits their purpose. "
Rule of law?? What does a liberal know about rule of law? It has been my experience that liberals force change of law whenever they disagree with a law, not accept their "obligations to the rule of law".
I have no problem with the geneva convention agreements. The problem I have is with the liberal interpretation of the agreement. Similar to the inacurate interpretation of the constitution's "seperation of church and state" you liberals misinterpret the geneva convention agreement to suit your purpose also. The mockery is being made by liberals claiming injustice when there is no injustice occuring. Just like you whine about the constitutional requirement for seperation of church and state when it isn't even IN the constitution. Face it, if a torture works it isn't necassarily banned by the agreement just because LIBERALS don't approve of it!
I think you don't want us to get information from the enemy so that more of our troops are killed. I think you would prefer we leave Iraq in utter disgrace just so that you liberals can say "I told you so". Your afraid to swallow your pride and admit that we can win the war on terror if allowed to fight a war, not perform a police action. You liberals cost us the last war we were in, I don't want to see it happen again. If "roughing up" a couple people will save thousands of lives, then, YES I would allow it and support it. It sounds like you are saying that even if roughing up a couple people will save thousands of lives, it should not be done since the enemy is more important than your own brothers and sisters. THAT is true liberalism at work!
LIAMD
Even if we decide, as a nation, that some utilitarian justification for the use of torture is in the offing here, it's not clear that we should be so short-sighted. We can turn ourselves in circles trying to convince ourselves that what we are doing is not torture, but the truth is, if others see what we are doing as torture, and I think many around the world do, then we cannot continue doing it (especially since there is reason to think that it leads to bad information!).
I am a confessed crazy liberal, since I think that even a utilitarian analysis of whether or not we should be waterboarding should lead us to believe that we will create even more terrorists and more enemies and lose our moral standing in the world, which will create even more terrorist boogeymen for us to find and corral and torture. Don't be so short-sighted -- this is a battle that no one wins if we don't take some moral high-ground and differentiate ourselves from those who hate us.
" but the truth is, if others see what we are doing as torture, and I think many around the world do, then we cannot continue doing it "
Does that apply to everyone, or just the US? Because I certainly don't hear you liberals yell very loud when a head is cut off someone. Actually, I haven't heard ANY liberal as much as say what they do is slightly despicable. But, should the US try getting information that may save thousands of lives (potentially including yours) you liberals screem up a storm about "cruelty". Let's not ride that hypocrit horse too long while you complain about "how the world may view us". I would prefer the US to be thought of as "fair, but willing to protect itself against an evil entity". How bout you?
I would imagine that most, if not all, of you liberals would prefer the US just roll over and keal under to the terrorists. After all, they certainly offer you more of the freedoms you desire. Come to think of it, so does every communistic nation in the world...offer liberals more freedoms than they get here in the good ole US of A! Liberals must be proud that they can cry for better treatment in the US while protesting against the very men and women who give them the freedom to cry. Freedom aint FREE!! It sometimes is an ugly fight to gain those freedoms so if you can't stand the heat...get out of the kitchen.
I want to live in a safe nation (as safe as possible) and if causing a few evil terrorists a little discomfort will achieve a safe nation, I have NO problem with it.
The main reason your posts are mildly entertaining, but vapid is that they apparently rely almost entirely of you simply reading the minds of "liberals".
There really is no conclusion you can't come up with with such silly irrationality.
Blah...blah...blah liberals! Blah...blah...blah terrorists!
Your main point appears to be that you want to be more like the terrorists. Fine then. We simply disagree.
I think you don't want us to get information from the enemy so that more of our troops are killed. I think you would prefer we leave Iraq in utter disgrace just so that you liberals can say "I told you so" --Republichater
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
You are free to think all of that junk if it makes you feel better, but you are wrong (surprise...surprise). It is silly to think that torturing/abusing terrorists is a generally successful way of getting valuable or even reliable information from them -- it is especially true that in the case of Guantanamo where we often didn't even know the real identities of the people we were holding.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Rule of law?? What does a liberal know about rule of law? It has been my experience that liberals force change of law whenever they disagree with a law, not accept their "obligations to the rule of law". --Republichater
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
If you disagree with a law, of course, you can change it as Democrats and Republicans often do. I must admit I don't see your point there. That is the imperative of every legistature.
The real problem is that when Republicans disagree with the law or a treaty, they apparently would rather just often ignore it altogether as in FISA, ABM Treaty and the Geneva Conventions.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I have no problem with the geneva convention agreements. The problem I have is with the liberal interpretation of the agreement. Similar to the inacurate interpretation of the constitution's "seperation of church and state" [...blah...blah....blah...] Face it, if a torture works it isn't necassarily banned by the agreement just because LIBERALS don't approve of it! --Republichater
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Actually the Geneva Conventions specifically call torture a "grave breach" of the conventions. There is no "interpretation" of that. It is indeed "banned" by the conventions:
Art 130. Grave breaches to which the preceding Article relates shall be those involving any of the following acts, if committed against persons or property protected by the Convention: wilful killing, torture or inhuman treatment, including biological experiments, wilfully causing great suffering or serious injury to body or health, compelling a prisoner of war to serve in the forces of the hostile Power, or wilfully depriving a prisoner of war of the rights of fair and regular trial prescribed in this Convention.
You actually are silly enough to claim that "if torture works" it isn't banned by the agreement. I don't think I have ever seen such an idiotic statement. What if torture doesn't work? What then? Is it only banned when it doesn't work?
Was it okay to torture American POW's in WWII, Korea, Vietnam if they talked? Is that seriously your position? If it is, you are simply justifying torture on American citizens when you justify it on everyone else.
You put the 'blah, blah, blahs' in a very timely spot. It certainly tells me that what I say is exactly the way you think. Liberals are so predictable. At least as a conservative I have the freedom to think for myself and not use every strawman arguement that the liberal agenda gives to me like you are. None of what you said made any sense, so I'm sure every liberal reading it will agree with every word. You don't have any arguement proving your case so you don't need to try shoving those strawman arguements my way. I'm smart enough to know a pile of BS when I see it.
You really think that we're the ones just listening to the arguments given to us by leaders? Ask yourself these questions, though it may prove hard for you:
Before President Bush and Donald Rumsfeld and the others said it was so, would you have agreed that:
"simulating drowning others is OK if the President says so (Bill Clinton, for instance"
"listening into phone conversations to other countries is OK if the president says so (Bill Clinton, for instance)"
"holding prisoners of war without charges is OK if the president says so (Bill Clinton, for instance)"
The point of all of this is that the President doesn't get to decide who are enemies are and whether the information that we could potentially get from them is important. The President should be subject to the limitations of the law, both here and abroad. Take your favorite liberal and insert him into the office and keep in mind that he gets the same powers as your current president is exercising: Jimmy Carter, Al Gore, Howard Dean, Hillary Clinton. That is the point here.
Conservatives, such as yourself, are the ones that don't get to think for themselves. Because George Bush said it should be so, so shall it be.
"You put the 'blah, blah, blahs' in a very timely spot." --Republichater
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
No. I put it in where you were trying to derail the topic to Seperation of Church and State, which has absolutely nothing at all to do with the current topic.
Here are a few perfect examples:
"Just because YOU don't approve of the US trying to save as many American lives as possible don't whine about how those who DO care get information!"
"I don't understand the liberal problem with trying to save lives. Oh, yeah....liberals hate to save lives, unless it's the life of a terrorist or someone on death-row."
"...if a torture works it isn't necassarily banned by the agreement just because LIBERALS don't approve of it!"
Can we run electricity through your genitals until you break? I mean, within minutes of it being over you can be standing by the cables feeling fine. I'm sure it's a pretty efficient mechanism to get someone to talk and then still have them alive and healthy within minutes.
That Steve might be one of those who might enjoy that kind of attention being paid to his testicles? It might be the ONLY sexual experience of his life.
You could be right about that, Worrier. Poor Steve.
"Psychologists have asserted that "such forms of near-asphyxiation" can lead to long-term psychological damage."
Maybe it will, maybe it won't.
Accepting that as fact, what does that mean? I know I've heard stories about women who have been psychologically damaged by having abortions but that doesn't mean we should outlaw that, correct? That statement in and of itself should not be a disqualifier IMO.
the woman made her own choice...the individual being tortured is at the mercy of his torturers. And before someone chimes in with they chose to be "terrorists"...At the time of the torture they have never been tried and so we don't know if they are guilty or innocent or anywhere in between. I would say that is a big distinction you are failing to consider.
Yes that is a good distinction. My initial reaction was that waterboarding should be judged on whether or not it is a reliable tactic, not on the possibility of psychological damage which could probably be debated in the mental health community.
You could also probably put a plastic bag over their head and then pull it off right as they are about to lose consciousness. No harm, no foul right?
"No harm, no foul right?"
It wouldn't be nearly as bad as sticking a pair of scissors in a baby's head, which is what happens during a partial birth abortion, and is something that you support.
Your comment about Partial Birth abortion is off-topic for one.
It also claims that pragmatic liberal supports the procedure, which pragmatic liberal made no mention of in the previous post.
Therefore your post was a troll attempt to apparently stray the conversation onto a tangent.
Nice to have you back on board!
I AGREE with Bruce on this one. Using the "long-term psychological damage" argument shouldn't be a "disqualifier" here.
Yes, an abortion is often a choice one makes BUT there are MANY other situations that can lead to "long-term psychological damage" that have nothing to do with self determination. A child molested for instance is likely to suffer "long-term psychological damage".
Our eldest son fell into a pool at 3 yrs old at a family gathering. We couldn't get him back in the water for 7 years. He was petrified! It could be said he suffered a form of "long-term psychological damage"...Thanks to our very patient neighbor who convinced him to give it another try, AND ended up teaching him to swim, he eventually worked as a Life Guard the summer before he left for college.
As far as water boarding OR any form torture, I believe the best argument against it is that SOME experts have pointed out that you won't necessarily get the TRUTH by these methods. I know that I'd say just about ANYTHING--True or false to make my tormenters stop.
Torture in of itself is wrong, it's inhumane...BUT the "long-term psychological damage" argument is the weakest reason against it.
I have to disagree with you. The issue was important enough to be mentioned in the Geneva Conventions so I think it is a valid argument to make...of course it is not the only argument either. It has always been recognized that torture is not just a physical issue...it is just this administration and certain people on the right that have forgotten the Geeneva Conventions and their purpose. I think some have also forgotten the role humanity plays in the discussion...BTW I mean our humanity not there's. I think the Geneva Conventions had it correct and we should follow it; the same way we would argue it be followed for our troops. The unreliablility of the information obtained through torture and the inadmissabilioty of that evidence at trial is also an important consideration for the more practical minded amongst us. (-:
A molestor has broken the law. Similarly, if someone had pushed your son into the pool, they'd be breaking the law as well. Your analogy doesn't work.
First off PragLib, I wasn't making an "analogy". I was giving examples of other situations that could cause "long-term psychological damage".
Bruce had pointed out that SOME woman who have had abortions can suffer "long-term psychological damage". Lostlogic pointed out [correctly] that abortion, unlike torture was something a woman chooses.
I was giving examples of how being a victim of a crime [child molestation] or the victim of an accident [falling into a pool] can ALSO cause "long-term psychological damage".
Another words we're discussing VICTIMS not PERPETRATORS.
If we are torturing, even those later to be found guilty, we are perpetrators. America used to stand for something. Our values are slowly be eroded away.
I completly believe torture does not work. It will never work and those who have any heart at all will be completely against this atrocity.
"Torture in of itself is wrong, it's inhumane"
So do you think the terrorists will give us information if we just ask them nicely? How would you suggest that we should get information from the terrorists?
Law enforcement and interrogation experts, including our own FBI have found that building rapport is the most effective way to get RELIABLE information from suspects.
Example - we had a high-level al-Qaeda asset in FBI custody. They talked with him, got him cigarettes, prayed with him, and he was giving us information. He repeatedly stated that they didn't like Saddam, and he didn't like us.
The CIA grabbed him from the FBI, took him abroad and tortured him. He confessed to links between the organization. The facts he gave were vague, and didn't make logical sense, but we touted that as proof we should invade.
When the FBI saw him again, he recanted, and when asked why he said what he did, he said that he had to "make them stop."
Torture doesn't get the truth. It gets whatever the subject thinks you want. A lot of those Illinois death row prisoners who confessed were coerced. Think about that. They confessed to crimes they didn't commit, for which they would be EXECUTED to make the torture stop.
If we have the imaginary ticking bomb scenario and have to use torture, we probably get people killed because we're on a wild goose chase, running after bad info.
The experts agree, torture does not work.
there should be quotes around "they didn't like us", so it's clear he was talking about dislike between those two organization towards each other.
I would expect more of you Bruce. That's a dishonest and inapt comparison, as Lostlogic pointed out.
If psychological damage is not considered torture, let's broadcast that to the world. I bet our soldiers will love the idea of the enemy given the license to do this to them.
So you're fine with U.S. Soldiers being subjected to methods such as these and being afflicted with the same psychological damage?
The torture proponents always ignore the heart of the torture critics' argument: Using techniques such as this leaves the U.S. with absolutely no moral standing when it comes to how we want American POW's treated.
I dont have a problem with the US using waterboarding on the scum that tried to kill us on 9/11. It seems we forget who our real enemy is.
Al Qeida doesnt care if we are liberal or conservative , the fact is they hate us and want us dead. I dont know why most Americans fail to see that logic.
How do you know what these people are guilty of? They face no judge or jury to make that determination...I can't understand why some fail to understand that logic.
This is an excerpt taken from a great article published in 2 parts on MSNBC.com. This should be a real litmus test for whether you support this administration and their prosecution of the "War on Terror" or not.
--
"Speaking publicly for the first time, senior U.S. law enforcement investigators say they waged a long but futile battle inside the Pentagon to stop coercive and degrading treatment of detainees by intelligence interrogators at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
Their account indicates that the struggle over U.S. interrogation techniques began much earlier than previously known, with separate teams of law enforcement and intelligence interrogators battling over the best way to accomplish two missions: prevent future attacks and punish the terrorists."
...
"Although Pentagon officials have referred to an "elaborate screening process" before detainees were sent to Guantanamo, the law enforcement agents said evidence of criminal activity or intelligence value in some cases was flimsy."
...
"Because they saw so many detainees they thought didn’t belong [at Guantanamo], the investigators decided early in 2002 to expand operations to Afghanistan, to help evaluate detainees before they were sent to Guantanamo. In the end, they were able to develop criminal cases against only about 100 of the roughly 775 detainees who came to Guantanamo.
Out of 445 detainees still remaining at Guantanamo, the Pentagon says "more than 70" are in line for military trials. (See sidebar, In Limbo: Cases are few against Gitmo detainees.)
"There are some mean, nasty people down there," said Jeffery K. Sieber, a former resident agent in charge of the law enforcement task force at Guantanamo. "There’s always been some hard-core people down there who want to do very bad things to the United States. And some who weren’t — but now they’re very upset." --all italic emphasis Open_Mind's
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
May God have mercy on us.
Sorry, LL. Didn't mean to say "you" you. I meant "anyone". I didn't mean to suggest you support this administration's prosecution of the "War on Terror".
What they care about is that we're americans. If we condone torture, we are no longer Americans.
To paraphrase Bill Maher, Bush is always saying that the terrorists hate us because of our freedoms. - well soon he'll make sure that the terrorists won't have a reason to hate us anymore.
Everyone being tortured is a terrorist?
If they confess under torture, we know the torture worked, and they are a terrorist. If they don't, we keep torturing them until they do, and which point we thank our Christian God that we had this righteous instrument of truth to overcome the will of the evildoer.
Kind of like the Monty Python witch test. If she floats, she's a witch and we burn her. If she sinks and drowns, then she wasn't a witch.
we DO understand this.
We've also read and understand the United States Constitution. If these folks are so nasty, why don't we haul them into court and try them for their crimes?
Or are we going to continue to fight this war on terror by throwing cab drivers and other unpopular persons into prison without trial and keeping them for years and years?
haul them into court...nothing is admissable...because we tortured them to get the information the evidence obtained is now inadmissable. My understanding is this has already become a problme where some are in limbo because they can't be tried so what do we do with them.
From the same great MSNBC article from above:
In extensive interviews with MSNBC.com, former leaders of the Defense Department’s Criminal Investigation Task Force said they repeatedly warned senior Pentagon officials beginning in early 2002 that the harsh interrogation techniques used by a separate intelligence team would not produce reliable information, could constitute war crimes, and would embarrass the nation when they became public knowledge.
...
The law enforcement agents, who were building criminal cases against the detainees, also say that military prosecutors told them that abusive interrogations at Guantanamo compromised the chance to bring some suspected terrorists to trial. Among them, the agents say, is Mohammed al-Qahtani, a Saudi whom the Pentagon has described as the intended 20th hijacker in the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks.
"We were told by the Office of Military Commissions, based on what was done to him, it made his case unprosecutable," said Mark Fallon, the deputy commander and special agent in charge of the Criminal Investigation Task Force from 2002 to 2004. "It would taint any confession if obtained under coercion. They were unwilling to move forward with any prosecution of al-Qahtani."
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Of course, we all know that when these terrorists are eventually freed, the Bush Administration (or subsequent Republicans) will likely blame the courts (for upholding the Law).
Maybe we should try some signing statements.
the jurisdiction of the US Constitution stops at the borders of the US? A minor detail to such broad minded people as yourself, I know, but nevertheless, this is a basic principle of national sovreignty.
Nor does the US Constitution protect spies, enemy agents, illegal combatants or prisoners of war siezed on foreign soil during the conduct of war. It explicitly places these matters under the jurisdiction of the Commander-in-Chief except as has been limited by treaty ratified by the Senate. In these latter cases, the Supreme Court has ultimate jurisdiction.
Recent Supreme Court decisions have firmly said that Guantanamo is under U.S. law and the executive branch cannot be allowed to establish areas where they can be unlawful, and get away with it simply because of a geographic technicality.
The Supreme Court has and continues to exceed its Jurisdiction as described by Article III, section 2 and Amended by the 11th Amendment?
[link to www.usconstitution.net]
Section 2 - Trial by Jury, Original Jurisdiction, Jury Trials " (The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority; to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls; to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction; to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party; to Controversies between two or more States; between a State and Citizens of another State; between Citizens of different States; between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.) (This section in parentheses is modified by Amendment XI.)
In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.
The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed. "
11th Amendment: "The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State."
Notice the inclusion of 'Treaties made'.
Notice the omission of 'between foreign citizens and the United States'. Why do you suppose that was omitted?
the Supreme Court has been able to recognize the transparent and self-serving attempt by the Bush Administration to eat their cake and have it, too?
The Bush Administration has apparently been so desperate to get intelligence information from the detainees (through the use of coercive methods) that they may have ruined any chance at war crimes trials or other criminal proceedings against them. I think most intelligent people see where this is going. A large number of the prisoners will eventually have to be freed without standing trial and predictably many morons will blame the Judiciary for overstepping or some other pretense.
It is the Bush Administration's policies that are to blame for the mess. They were apparently just too mindlessly aggressive for their own good...again.
This line immediately stuck out to me, because Harrigan is right. This will make you tell your captors anything, including something that isn't remotely useful, such as giving the names of Green Bay Packers players instead of the names of members of your flight squadron, or a diagram of an aircraft carrier with a swimming pool. (John McCain, "Faith of My Fathers")
OK, I watched the clip, and now I've been staring at my computer screen for the last 5 minutes trying to think of exactly what to say to something like this.
I guess the most we could hope for would be for Fox to just stand up and admit they are nothing more than a propagandist for the right. I was talking with a co-worker about this earlier. If you listen to Air America, many of the hosts (like Franken) are blatant about admitting what their politics are. Most of what disgusts me about Fox is pulling a stunt like this and then telling us again and again that they are "fair and balanced."
A few things struck me about this: 1. As someone said eariler, this reporter had no reason to fear death - he knew he was in a controlled environment. 2. Did you notice how gentle the interregators were? I can't say this for sure, but I'm guessing the CIA is a little more foreceful - I'm assuming they use more than a turkey baster to drop water in someone's nose. 3. As soon as this guy yelled out "stop," they immediately stopped. Do you think actual interregators do that? If this isn't torture, would Fox and friends consider it torture if you continued to do this after being begged to stop. 4. Remember how Bush has said that the reason we can't talk about/debate these harsh interrogation techniques becuase that let's the enemy know what we do so they can prepare? Couldn't the terrorists just use this a manual and devise a plan to mitigate the effects of being waterboarded? 5. I think the number one issue is around what information do you get. Yes, someone breaks and says they'll talk, but what information are you getting.
This clip is even more shameless than the typical BS that Fox pulls. Ugh.
Now the terrorists can train their people to withstand waterboarding; I would think a few weeks of practice could make them almost immune to it....why is Fox undermining the War on Turr?
It's obviously a brilliant ploy by Fox to get terrorists to volunteer for waterboarding.
See? It's not so bad. What are ya, yellow?
Yeah, an effective tool, he was willing to give it up almost instantly.
The trick would have been this, strap him down, and tell him to admit we was supposed to be piloting another flight on 9/11, and that he personally hid Saddam's WMDs in his basement.
See how fast he'll confess to anything we want him too, even if it's 100% false.
Therein lies the uselessness of torture, particularly effective torture.
About the long-term psychological damage. I think O'Reilly, Hannity, Hume, Gibson, Cavuto, and the entire Fox and Friends gang and others might have already been exposed to the waterboarding if that's what happens. That can also happen after long-term exposure to FOX NEWS CHANNEL as well. That would explain a lot about what we hear whenever viewers call in there.
THANK YOU. njguy93@yahoo.com
has stopped a terrorist plot
and please you can not use the TV shows 24 or NCIS as example.
I need persons, date, and information recieved that stopped a terrorist.
They can't tell us because it's classified.
Apparently you're not paying attention, because about a year ago GW told us about the one plot they foiled. Remember, someone was going to fly a plane into the Liberty Bell, or something like that, and they were going to use shoe bombs to blow off the cockpit door, but the shoe bombs would be specially formulated to only blow off the door and not the entire plane...yeah, yeah, that's the ticket. And then they would take over the plane and fly in into to Liberty Bell, yeah, that's what they're talking about. (Note to the people who take all posts 100% literally - the above paragraph is supposed to be sarcasm)
If you'll recall this was the first of 10 attacks GW was going to tell us about, but after being humiliated by his inability to correctly name the building they were going to fly into or his inability to explain how a shoe bomb would defy the law of physics and blow up only a cockpit door and not the plane or the supposed terrorists that was supposed to then take the plane over we never got the rest of the 9 foiled plots.
Get out and vote tomorrow!
Jose Padilla's dirty bomb mission.
[link to www.csmonitor.com]
Khalid Sheikh Mohammed gave this up under waterboard interrogation.
Original question [MinnesotaMike]: "Can anyone show me where [waterboarding] has stopped a terrorist plot"?
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
"[Jose Padilla] was arrested in Chicago on May 8, 2002".
and...
""[Khalid Shaikh Mohammed] was captured in Rawalpindi, Pakistan on March 1, 2003..."
How exactly did waterboarding of KSM give us information enough to go back in time to "stop" Padilla's attempted "terrorist attack"?
The capture of Padilla actually demonstrates the failure of waterboarding as a technique. Most of the information that is known to have led to the capture of Jose Padilla came from Abu Zubaydah. Although Abu Zubaydah was indeed waterboarded, according to Donald Suskind:
"Zubaydah gave us the information he gave us because, in using softer techniques, we convinced him that his religious belief in predetermination was such that he believed that he wasn't killed, but captured, when other people died, obviously, that he was wounded and captured for a reason, and the reason was to give us some information. That was why he gave us some information, that was the rationale he used. That was what one would consider more sophisticated, "soft" interrogation techniques, where we got the stuff of value." [all emphasis open-mind's]--Salon.com(click on ad to continue to full article)
The waterboarding (and other arguable torture techniques) is apparently the main reason the government dropped some charges against Padilla in the article you cited as well. Yet more evidence of a fundamental Bush Administration policy screw-up.
Wasn't that the truth serum? Don't they have something better by now?
Or is that torture too?
The other thing I wonder about... Why is it okay to shoot at our enemies obviously trying to kill or seriously wound them, (which has long term psychological effects too,) but not to waterboard?
I wish I knew the answer.
"I wish I knew the answer."
We wish you and the other cons had the answer too. But alas, none are so blind that refuse to see.
When we are shooting at the enemy, they are not in our custody. They can choose to defend themselves, attack, run away or surrender.
Once they are in our custody, they are defenseless (for the most part).
The Geneva Conventions that we agreed to restricts our treatmen of them at that point. It is largely considered immoral and inhumane to mistreat prisoners of war as they are wards of an enemy state.
I see the point you are making, but what about these terrorists. They are not wards of another state. They do not conform to our previous definitions of enemy combatants. Why do they get the same protections when they do not operate at all by the same rules we do? After all, they do not abide by the Geneva Conventions and have proven it time and again when they butchered people they abducted.
Now before everyone gets their shorts in a bunch, I am not advocating torture. I understand we are Americans and we do not condone torture.
I am just wondering about the moral delimma of not coercing information out of them, when doing so can prevent innocents and our our soldiers being killed. What if we believe the person in question has information regarding a weapon of mass destruction? What if knowing of that information can save a million lives? Is it justifiable then to waterboard? What about a 1,000 people? 10? What if we don't know who could be saved. What if all we know is that this person is a known terrorist? What do we do then? Just feed him and shelter him for the rest of his life?
When does coercion become torture?
We have all seen movies where the tough anti-hero law enforcement officer, soldier, etc. uses "non traditional" tactics to get the bad guys to talk. I doubt if I've ever heard anyone complain about that. We end up cheering for the hero as he extracts that information and saves the day. (And yes, I know they are movies.) But if we applaud it in the movies why do we condemn it in reality?
I don't break it down to conservatives and liberals like some here. Like I said, I do not have the answer.
First off, your terms are questionable. Many people say waterboarding is torture, not "coercion". And this doesn't apply to just "terrorists", but terrorist suspects. So "torture of terrorist suspects" becomes "coercion of terrorists" according to you, which is an extremely charitable way of viewing it, to say the least.
As for your hypothetical, it would be a dilemma if we had some way of knowing that such a situation is the sole criteria for the action in the first place, or that it's effective anyway. That's a lot of qualifications to meet. And we don't seem to be very fond of outside oversight regarding these matters, do we? Surely if such a scenario were occuring we could justify our reasons for believing the suspect had vital information and cite evidence of the terror plot in question to outside interests, right? We can't just trust that this would be done only in case of dire circumstances, because the opportunity for abuse is both obvious and tremendous.
Without some display of accountability and oversight, there is simply no dilemma. Even granting that the situation is entirely possible, the risk of indiscriminate waterboarding outweighs the benefits, given all the qualifications it would need to meet. The difference between those movies and reality is that we know who the good guys and bad guys are in the movies, but reality is a lot murkier most of the time. Without some genuine display of a willingness for being monitored, a willingness to have our reasons and claims of effectiveness verified, we can't accept the hypothetical as a reason to believe this even rises to the level of "dilemma". With the use of secret prisons and rendition, and what we know of Abu Ghraib, it seems unlikely that we even believe our standards are so high for such actions ourselves. That makes the hypothetical not worthy of very much deep consideration, since there's little reason to believe we're currently willing to limit ourselves to those parameters.
Yeah, I saw "Dirty Harry" too. I thought it was great. Well written, well acted and from a great director.
But, I'm sure that everyone involved in the production would agree, that Harry was a psychopath.
To give another example, most viewers of "Psycho" thought at first, that Norman Bates was a sympathetic character. There is even a point in the movie where Hitchcock implicates the viewer in the cover-up of the murder. It's all about audience manipulation, something the Republicans have learned from those devils in Hollywood.
Why is it that our conservative posters are always bringing up TV shows and movies as though they portray real life? This "ain't no movie" AA.
"I see the point you are making, but what about these terrorists. They are not wards of another state. They do not conform to our previous definitions of enemy combatants. Why do they get the same protections when they do not operate at all by the same rules we do? After all, they do not abide by the Geneva Conventions and have proven it time and again when they butchered people they abducted." --AA
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The Geneva Conventions are a protection for BOTH sides in this conflict. The fact that the terrorists have not abided by it is a liability for them as they can be more readily charged with war crimes (and possibly executed) when they are caught (assuming we don't do something stupid ourselves like committing the war crime of torture or abuse).
The suspected terrorists at Guantanamo that may have committed war crimes by ignoring the Geneva Conventions should be tried and if guilty, executed. Ignoring the GC is a double-edged sword in many ways (even for us).
The problem is that the US has apparently bungled the whole thing, by possibly committing war crimes themselves against the prisoners by torture and coercion (both are banned by the GC). It may be impossible to try the suspects at all.
The administration apparently knows this. That is why I believe they faught Habeus Corpus and Article IV of the 3rd GC (war prisoner classification) so diligently.
The administration is apparently willfully ignoring the law and our treaty obligations here. They want to hold these Frankenstein's monsters forever on oftentimes little or no evidence.
Articles 3 & 4 are the ones you want.
These define who combatants are [4] and who non-combatants are [3].
Anyone found on the battlfield with a weapon that does not meet the tests of article 4 is an illegal combatant is is not subject to the provisions or protections of the Geneva Conventions.
to. wit. Saddam Hussein is, while in US custody, a prisoner of war, since he was lately head of the enemy state. He is being treated as a POW by the US. It is the Iraqi authorities who have some idea that he is a condemned criminal in Iraq. By contrast, Khalid Sheihk Mohammed is an illegal combatant since he meets the tests of neither article 3 or 4 of the conventions.
[link to www.icrc.org]
From www.icrc.org:
This assertion promotes the argument that persons who fail to qualify for prisoner of war status under Geneva Convention III are categorically outside of the protections of the Geneva Conventions. However, Geneva Convention IV, Article 4 provides protected status to persons "who find themselves . . . in the hands of a party to the conflict", unless they fail to meet certain nationality criteria or are covered by the other Geneva Conventions. Detainees not protected by those other Conventions, and who do meet the nationality criteria for coverage under Geneva Convention IV do, indeed, 'have a label in the law of war conventions'. That label is "civilian", or "protected person" under Geneva Convention IV – even if they are definitely suspected of activity hostile to the security of the detaining State or of being "unlawful combatants". Persons who do not meet the nationality criteria are covered by Article 75 of Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions. This article forms part of customary international law.
The ICRC apparently doesn't subscribe to your self-serving logic and neither do I.
Calling yourself Another______. Fill in the blank. Americans don't torture. If you condone it, you're un-American.
I am getting sick and tired of reading those words. Everyone is American. Some are just worse than others. Can't we all get along, even with our differences?
But condemning torture is fundamentally American. It should not be the official policy of our country. We can work together on a lot of things. We can compromise of most things. but we must insist that we will always treat those who we hold as prisoners as we would want another nation to treat our citizens who they've captured.
I dont know If I would put it that way unless it was part of our constitution.
I agree with it to a degree.
Our Constitution does condemn torture, at least of our own citizens and those within our borders. "Cruel and unusual punishment," "due process of law," etc. etc. The prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment recognizes that torture is not an American value.
Article IV, Paragraph 2 of the US Constitution states:
"This Constitution, and the law of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be Supreme Law of the land; and the Judges in every state shall be bound thereby, any thing in the Constitution or Laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding."
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
When our government tortures/abuses prisoners, they are violating the Geneva Convention (a ratified treaty) and thus the "Supreme Law of the land".
You cleared that up for me.
I still feel there is a time and place for it.
Hence the "evil" in your name. We get it.
Just not the Ultra kind.
There is nothing social or liberal about torture.
One could easily argue that deliberately and methodically defying and undermining our Constitution, treaties and applicable law is about as "un-American" as you could possibly get considering we are supposedly a "nation of laws".
LOLOLOL..... tell that to those who want to give amnesty to 12 million law breakers....
Bush?
Many Many on the left..... and right,,,, I know.
Nancy Pelosi....
Pelosi – who owns non-union vineyards in Napa Valley where grape-picking depends chiefly on the availability of cheap foreign labor – is doing everything she can to help open the floodgates to more illegal immigration.
Blame immigrants instead of the free trade agreements that flood the South American market with cheap susidized proceessed U.S. foods and displaces native farmers.
I think that is a pretty classic example of trolling.
But that proves your, "Nation of Laws" suits those who need it at the time.
Both parties (and more) are guilty of that.
Considering BOTH parties allow illegal immigration to continue largely unregulated, I am not quite sure who you are taking a swipe at.
My belief is that BOTH parties believe illegal immigration benefits their constituents more than it harms their constituents or else the elected representatives wouldn't allow illegal immigration at all. They are just too politically chicken to admit that or repeal the laws.
I agree with you that they are not enforcing the Constitution and applicable laws, but that is a hypocrisy that apparently voting Republican has yet failed to solve.
Neither party will fix it. The whole issue is moot (and off-topic) as far as I am concerned.
If the sight of it provokes disgust or repugnance, it must be torture. Just sit through "The O'Reilly Factor" and you'll know what I mean.
the absolutely totally true cigarette ads of the 50's. They're "not that bad" either!
Way to go Harrigan. All you're missing now is the smile and the thumbs up! (where have I seen that before?)
The point of waterboarding is that the person being tortured doesn't know that they'll let him live.
This idiot saying it's fine is like saying that it should be allowed to drown people until they admit to being criminals, because I've held my breath under water in the bathtub.
See, torture is GOOD for you and for the country.
I can't wait until one of these Fox-bots puts a black bag over their head and attaches electrodes to their genitals. See....shocking of genitals is good too!
The true test is whether if the procedure was done to any one of our troops would we consider it torture? I think we would. I think Sean Hannity et als. would be outraged. These guys know that water boarding is torture. But if they think that after 9/11 torture is justified to protect the security of the country then why not be honest about it? It's the dishonesty and bullsh*t spin that offends me almost as much as the idea of the glorious United States utilizing torture. It reduces us to the level of our barbarian enemies. One gets the impression that the proponents of torture such as the FOX regulars would like to see us use torture virtually unrestricted and not in very isolated and extreme circumstances. They'd rather protect the flag than uphold the prinicples of the Constitution.
...from people who in the face of overwhelming evidence keep claiming that this is the greatest nation on earth, so that they will not have to face the fact that in order to once again actually become that, we will have to make massive changes in our society.
The truth is that they want to go on pretending that the rest of the world doesn't exist, and dehumanizing suspected terrorists is just part of that - the world outside isn't important, so why should we care how we treat non-Americans?
for FOX "reporters" is a pretty efficient mechanism to get them to shut up.
"I mean, they took me to the brink, where I was ready to submit, tell them anything within minutes..."
Tell them anything, right? Not the information they were looking for, necessarily, but "anything." Thanks, Fox, for proving the point of the military people who oppose this process.
Nice job Fox. Why not just show everybody how to torture? See how safe it is (sarcasm). The guy was already coughing because he got water in his lung pipe.
If somebody picks up Fox's little stunt for a prank. Watch out. I see a lawsuit coming against Fox.
What's with the guys wearing the ski masks? Traditionally terrorists, evil ninjas, Darth Vedar and other villains wear black masks. Are those are supposed to represent U.S. soldiers? Where is Fox disinfotainment going with this segment? They really jumped the shark on this one.
They are tortured every night by those self-agrandizing anti- intellectual boobs. As for Greta, Yikes! Nuff Said...
John McCain has spoken forcefully that mock executions were much more stressful and "undesired" than were beatings and other physical abuses.
Goodness, what's the point of bringing up abortion? Just to obfuscate.
It's torture. Even Bush has said so.
But then there's President Cheney, giving the old "thumbs up" to a "dunk" in the water.
We have sunken as a nation to new moral lows, while the party of Higher Morality gets repeatedly caught in its own hypocritical webs of abuses of power, sexual harrassment, drug abuse (not just for Rush Limbaugh!), and secret gay sex trysts for the Preachiest Ones.
Good God, save our country.
Advocating Torture.
Ordering Torture.
Torturing, but claiming we DON'T Torture.
Minimizing Torture.
Claiming Torture is "productive".
Conducting a fake "DEMONSTRATION" of Torture in order to say it's "no big deal".
All are EVIL. Some are even more EVIL than others.
Our current Administration "leaders" are EVIL. As are their minions in the media.
If it came to the point of saving thousands of American lives, I would waterboard all day long. You think they are going to play nice and waterboard you if the shoe was on the other foot? Hell no.
It's not about what other nations do or allow. It's about Americans. We once had values. It appears we no longer do. I'm not sure why it is, but it seems those most removed from the horrors associated with war are always the first to suggest that we become monsters.
We are talking about an organized group of individuals who follow an idealogy.
Which makes torturing them okay... why?
What in your mind differentiates America from its enemies? I'm guessing the answer is "nothing"?
Is that you keep it up, until you learn something useful.
Is it reasonable to assume that some of those "captured on the battlefield" may be innocent, turned in for the bounties offered? Is it reasonable to assume that terrorists and insurgents who believe they are defending their country from invasion, will be treated the same? Is it reasonable to believe that a "street soldier" may not KNOW anything useful, or "considered" useful?
So, the torture continues, until something "useful" results. Otherwise, it's assumed that the suspect is just "holding back" and has not reached his pain threshhold.
Therefore, if we have "the wrong guy", who knows nothing at all, it is HE who will be tortured the most.
What a cool calculation!
(Considered the most important are movements of bands of combatants, their plans for attack, and their numbers. All that information becomes useless within a week, by which time everything will have changed. Why are we torturing people we have held for MONTHS again?)
"Harrigan knew they wouldn't let him die. Therefore, the experiment is pretty useless." ...you should try it sometime. Iv'e been on the water board, And i knew they weren't going to kill me either( well, i was pretty sure). It still was one of the most unpleasant experiences of my 22 years in the Navy. A doctor and a corpsman were present it and a Navy shrink asks the questions. It was in February of 1986. Since then hundreds of U.S troops have done it also.
Its not nearly as bad as someone cutting your head off with a knife though. maybe one of you Pragmatic Liberals could test that one out and blog about it? then I could come in and post jokes about electrical and cutting models being used on people- that would be funny??
its easy to piss and moan about things when they haven't happened to people you know.
this isn't a justification, but you should see some of the things the enemy has done over the last 40 years. They use plastic bags too- but they don't pull them off.
It makes me want to puke when i hear people in the states who have no idea what they are talking about make it look like the U.S forces are animals in interrogation. The sad thing is you wont change your mind about them until they cut a bag off your head that some psycho put there.