Fox News runs with dubious claim that KSM's interrogation thwarted L.A. plot
SUMMARY: Fox News hosts and contributors have advanced the assertion that the use of harsh interrogation techniques on Khalid Shaikh Mohammed "stopped an attack on the Library Tower in Los Angeles." But the Bush administration said that the attack was thwarted in February 2002 -- more than a year before Mohammed was captured.
In recent days, several Fox News hosts and contributors have advanced the claim by former Bush speechwriter Marc A. Thiessen that the use of harsh interrogation techniques -- including waterboarding -- on Khalid Shaikh Mohammed "stopped an attack on the Library Tower in Los Angeles." But the claim conflicts with the chronology of events put forth on multiple occasions by the Bush administration, as Slate.com's Timothy Noah has noted. Indeed, the Bush administration said that the Library Tower attack was thwarted in February 2002 -- more than a year before Mohammed was captured in March 2003.
During an interview with Thiessen on the April 17 edition of Fox News' The Live Desk, co-host Rick Folbaum stated, "We haven't had a terror attack since 9-11 here in the United States. Might these techniques have been the reason that we haven't been attacked since then?" Thiessen responded, "It absolutely is. This attack -- this program stopped an attack on the Library Towers in Los Angeles." Neither Folbaum nor co-host Martha MacCallum challenged Thiessen's claim. Later, former federal prosecutor John Flannery said, "[T]he truth is people will say anything when they're tortured, including that the program worked." Thiessen replied, "That's absolutely false. ... The interrogation of Khalid Shaikh Mohammed -- the interrogation of Salid [sic] Shaikh Mohammed led to the capture of a cell of Jemaah Islamiyah terrorists who were planning to hijack a plane and fly it into the Library Tower in Los Angeles. And if it had not been for this program, there would be a hole in the ground in Los Angeles to match the one in New York City."
Thiessen repeated these claims in an April 21 Washington Post op-ed. Later that day on Fox News' Special Report, Fox News contributor and Roll Call editor Mort Kondracke said, "You know, we were scared to death that there was going to be more attacks. And there would have been more attacks. As Marc Thiessen points out in today's Washington Post, the interrogation, the waterboarding of Khalid Shaikh Mohammed resulted in information, which foiled an attack on a tower in Los Angeles, the second so-called 'second-wave attack.' "
Similarly, on the April 22 edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends, co-host Brian Kilmeade claimed that harsh interrogation techniques worked because when suspected terrorists "reached that limit, they did things like give up the second-wave attacks that would have taken down things like ... the Library Tower in Los Angeles." Co-host Steve Doocy later said:
DOOCY: So, what happened was, Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, he was being interviewed by the CIA guys, the operatives, he said, "I'm not going -- I've told you all I'm going to tell you." And they took him right up to waterboarding. And he had said something ominous. And they said, "Do you know of any other attacks?" And he said, "You will know about it soon." And so they waterboarded him a bunch of times. Next thing you know, he's spilling the beans.
And he said that there was going to be an attack and it was going to kill hundreds if not thousands of Americans and it was going to be on this place. Then, the next thing you know, the CIA guys go in -- some other national, international operatives -- and they caved this thing that would have crashed these jetliners under the control -- that had just been hijacked by some Asian hijackers -- into the Library Tower out in Los Angeles. So, it worked.
But as Noah noted in response to Thiessen's Post op-ed, the "chronology" of events presented by the Bush administration contradicts the claim that the harsh interrogation of Mohammed was responsible for thwarting the Library Tower plot. Noah explained:
What clinches the falsity of Thiessen's claim, however (and that of the memo he cites, and that of an unnamed Central Intelligence Agency spokesman who today seconded Thessen's argument), is chronology. In a White House press briefing, Bush's counterterrorism chief, Frances Fragos Townsend, told reporters that the cell leader was arrested in February 2002, and "at that point, the other members of the cell" (later arrested) "believed that the West Coast plot has been canceled, was not going forward" [italics mine]. A subsequent fact sheet released by the Bush White House states, "In 2002, we broke up [italics mine] a plot by KSM to hijack an airplane and fly it into the tallest building on the West Coast." These two statements make clear that however far the plot to attack the Library Tower ever got -- an unnamed senior FBI official would later tell the Los Angeles Times that Bush's characterization of it as a "disrupted plot" was "ludicrous" -- that plot was foiled in 2002. But Sheikh Mohammed wasn't captured until March 2003.
How could Sheikh Mohammed's water-boarded confession have prevented the Library Tower attack if the Bush administration "broke up" that attack during the previous year? It couldn't, of course. Conceivably the Bush administration, or at least parts of the Bush administration, didn't realize until Sheikh Mohammed confessed under torture that it had already broken up a plot to blow up the Library Tower about which it knew nothing. Stranger things have happened. But the plot was already a dead letter. If foiling the Library Tower plot was the reason to water-board Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, then that water-boarding was more than cruel and unjust. It was a waste of water.
Indeed, in the White House press briefing Noah cited, Townsend specifically noted that Mohammed was not captured until well after the individuals planning the Library Tower attacks concluded they had been "canceled":
TOWNSEND: Khalid Shaykh Muhammad was the individual who led this effort. He initiated the planning for the West Coast plot after September 11th, in October of 2001. KSM, working with Hambali in Asia, recruited the members of the cell. There was a total of four members of the cell. When they -- KSM, himself, trained the leader of the cell in late 2001 or early 2002 in the shoe bomb technique. You all will recall that there was the arrest of the shoe bomber, Richard Reid, in December of 2001, and he was instructing the cell leader on the use of the same technique.
After the cell -- the additional members of the cell, in addition to the leader, were recruited, they all went -- the cell leader and the three other operatives went to Afghanistan where they met with bin Laden and swore biat -- that is an oath of loyalty to him -- before returning to Asia, where they continued to work under Hambali.
The cell leader was arrested in February of 2002, and as we begin -- at that point, the other members of the cell believed that the West Coast plot has been canceled, was not going forward. You'll recall that KSM was then arrested in April of 2003 -- or was it March -- I'm sorry, March of 2003.
In addition to the senior FBI official that Noah mentioned, several other American counterterrorism officials also reportedly expressed doubts that the Library Tower plot ever advanced beyond the initial planning stages and ever posed a serious threat, as Media Matters for America documented in February 2006.
From the April 17 edition of Fox News' The Live Desk with Martha and Trace:
MacCALLUM: You know, reading through this, I found it interesting, because it describes --
FLANNERY: Interesting --
MacCALLUM: -- the efforts that are made to make sure that no one is injured in this process because, you know --
THIESSEN: That's exactly --
FLANNERY: That's a shame and a disgrace.
MacCALLUM: No, they --
THIESSEN: That's exactly right.
MacCALLUM: I mean, I --
THIESSEN: It was a very --
FLANNERY: This is ridiculous --
THIESSEN: Can we get a word --
MacCALLUM: It's like, you know, during --
THIESSEN: Let me get a word in edgewise.
MacCALLUM: -- [unintelligible], make sure that no one's fingers --
FLANNERY: -- absolutely ridiculous.
MacCALLUM: -- are in the way, so that the eyes don't get poked. You know, it --
FLANNERY: Oh, come on.
MacCALLUM: -- explains a number of ways --
THIESSEN: Can I get a word in?
MacCALLUM: Please go ahead, Marc.
FLANNERY: These people are suffocating.
THIESSEN: Well, first of all -- hold on.
FLANNERY: They are kept standing for 40 hours.
THIESSEN: Hold on. Can I get a word in, or are you -- or is this your show?
MacCALLUM: These people have beheaded terrorists.
THIESSEN: Can I get a word in here?
FOLBAUM: Go ahead, Marc.
MacCALLUM: Go ahead, Marc.
THIESSEN: I'll tell you something. What these -- what was not in those -- I agree with you 100 percent. It was very carefully defined in order to protect the people. But I'll tell you what's not in those memos is: The dirty little secret of this program is it worked. It stopped the next terrorist attack. It stopped --
FLANNERY: Oh, it didn't work. Where's Osama bin Laden?
THIESSEN: Hold on. Let me get in --
FLANNERY: Where's Osama bin Laden?
THIESSEN: Please stop talking for a second and let me speak. Let me speak, OK?
You know, this whole thing is dozens and dozens of pages of unredacted information about the techniques. Then all of a sudden, you get when you're reading this report --
FLANNERY: But the techniques are a shame.
THIESSEN: -- you get to the point -- you get to the point where they start talking about the results of the techniques, and guess what? They bring out their black little pen, and this is what's there. What is behind here is, Mr. President, is what I want to know. What's behind here is proof that this terrorist program -- that this terrorist surveillance program -- interrogation program stopped the next 9-11.
FOLBAUM: John, what about that there? John --
THIESSEN: And they don't want to release that information.
FLANNERY: The next 9-11 --
FOLBAUM: Let me ask John --
FLANNERY: Yeah, well where was it going to happen?
FOLBAUM: How do you comment on that? We haven't had a terror attack since 9-11 here in the United States. Might these techniques have been the reason that we haven't been attacked since then?
THIESSEN: It absolutely is.
FLANNERY: First of all --
THIESSEN: This attack --
FLANNERY: No. No. No. I'll tell you what I think.
THIESSEN: -- this program stopped an attack on the Library Tower --
FOLBAUM: Marc, let John speak.
THIESSEN: -- in Los Angeles.
FLANNERY: Excuse me, Marc. I thought I was asked the question, Marc. I'm sorry, but I thought I was asked the question. And I think the answer is --
THIESSEN: Well, sorry, you're interrupting me. I've got to fight to get a word in.
FLANNERY: The answer is -- well, you did OK. The answer is that I -- we didn't get any information from these that meant anything.
THIESSEN: That's --
FLANNERY: We did an awful lot at our borders and our airports.
THIESSEN: That is patently false.
FLANNERY: We did a lot of surveillance that was legal. We did some that was illegal. Also, the evidence of these interrogations of the top lieutenants of Osama bin Laden, if it worked, you would think by now we would have him. And the truth is --
THIESSEN: It's patently false.
FLANNERY: -- people will say anything when they're tortured, including that the program worked.
THIESSEN: That is just absolute --
FOLBAUM: Marc, go ahead.
THIESSEN: That's absolutely false. This terror --
FLANNERY: Yeah, well, where's Osama bin Laden?
THIESSEN: The interrogation of Khalid Shaikh Mohammed -- the interrogation of Salid [sic] Shaikh Mohammed led to the capture of a cell of Jemaah Islamiyah terrorists who were planning to hijack a plane and fly it into the Library Tower in Los Angeles. And if it had not been for this program, there would be a hole in the ground in Los Angeles to match the one in New York City.
It stopped an attack on Heathrow airport. It stopped an attack on downtown London. It stopped an attack on our consulate in Karachi. It stopped an attack on our Marine camp in Djibouti. It rooted up an Al Qaeda anthrax cell --
FLANNERY: All this -- all this came from torture.
THIESSEN: -- that was used --
FLANNERY: All this came from torture.
THIESSEN: -- that was used -- that was developing -- yes, all of this came, not from torture, from this enhanced interrogation of --
FLANNERY: All this came from waterboarding.
THIESSEN: -- Khalid Shaikh Mohammed and the senior terrorists who were responsible for the 9-11 attacks. And you don't know what the --
FOLBAUM: John, go ahead.
THIESSEN: -- the question -- you don't know the facts --
FLANNERY: It's ridiculous.
THIESSEN: -- because they closed it up.
FLANNERY: That's because you keep it secret.
THIESSEN: They won't release the information.
FLANNERY: Right. And you --
MacCALLUM: One last thought, John.
FLANNERY: And you're allowed to release the information to prove to us what is not otherwise released to show that torture worked. That's ridiculous.
MacCALLUM: All right.
THIESSEN: It's in the documents that they released, except they took their black pens and crossed it out.
MacCALLUM: You know what? This is -- John --
FLANNERY: Well, then how can you talk to us about it? Why isn't it exposed? If it -- why --
THIESSEN: I just told you about it.
FLANNERY: -- isn't this public then? You told us about it?
THIESSEN: President Bush -- President Bush gave a speech in September 2006 where he laid it all out, and there's more information that he couldn't because of ongoing operations --
MacCALLUM: All right, gentlemen. We gotta go.
THIESSEN: -- that's blacked out in this report.
FOLBAUM: John Flannery. Marc Thiessen.
From the April 21 edition of Fox News' Special Report with Bret Baier:
BILL KRISTOL (Weekly Standard editor and Fox News contributor): And President Obama at the CIA yesterday -- if I could make one more point -- in a speech to the CIA operatives, trying to reassure them, said, "Don't be discouraged by what's happened in the last few weeks. We may have potentially made some mistakes. That's how we learn."
I mean, really, we have a president engaging in baby talk at a time when there's an ongoing terror threat to this nation.
BRET BAIER (host): Mort, there is a push from the left, MoveOn.org specifically, to get a special prosecutor.
KONDRACKE: And its handmaiden, MSNBC, is shrieking for it, too.
I mean, look, there is hysteria on the left about this, and it's not hysteria only over the alleged torture. What they want is they want the heads of Bush administration officials. They didn't get what they really wanted, which was impeachment of George Bush and Dick Cheney and all that, so now they want their blood this way.
And it really is hysteria. I mean, they and everybody in their corner, including The New York Times editorial page, The Washington Post editorial page, for heaven's sakes, has completely forgotten what things were like on 9-12. You know, we were scared to death that there was going to be more attacks.
And there would have been more attacks. As Marc Thiessen points out in today's Washington Post, the interrogation, the waterboarding of Khalid Shaikh Mohammed resulted in information, which foiled an attack on a tower in Los Angeles, the second so-called "second-wave attack."
What we really need here is a full disclosure of what -- or to the extent possible, of what was actually prevented by this, by these interrogations, so that the public understands. If the public knew all the stuff that was prevented by this happening, and how it was prevented, I think they would support a continuation of the policy.
BAIER: Which is what Vice President Cheney called for on Hannity.
From the April 22 edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends:
KILMEADE: Unbelievable. [White House chief of staff] Rahm Emanuel says Sunday, "We're not going to be looking back, we're not looking to prosecute." You had [White House press secretary] Robert Gibbs saying the same thing the day prior. And all of a sudden, they're pretending as if this wasn't a major shift in approaches?
Keep in mind something else embarrassing came out. The national intelligence director, the current one, Dennis Blair -- he writes a memo, supposedly internal memo, saying, "By the way, on this stuff? It worked. The enhanced interrogations worked. They provided information that we would not normally have gotten." Why? Because of what was revealed in the 170 pages. Abu Zubaydah himself said this: "Brothers" -- and by the way, he's one of the key terrorists under lock and key -- "Brothers who are captured and interrogated are permitted by Allah to provide information when they believe they have reached the limit of their ability to withhold it in the face of psychological and physical hardships."
When they reached that limit, they did things like give up the second-wave attacks that would have taken down things like the library building in --
DOOCY: The Library Tower.
KILMEADE: -- the Library Tower in Los Angeles. I apologize -- and I think the Bush administration should apologize to all those who survived the would-be attack.
GRETCHEN CARLSON (co-host): Well, that's funny, Brian, because I find it highly amazing that Dennis Blair, who is this national intelligence director, would write that they got high-value information, but then his public statement was completely different. His public statement said, "Well, I'm not going to really discuss whether or not they got good information from those interrogation techniques."
This thing is going to turn into a huge mess.
DOOCY: So, what happened was, Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, he was being interviewed by the CIA guys, the operatives, he said, "I'm not going -- I've told you all I'm going to tell you." And they took him right up to waterboarding. And he had said something ominous. And they said, "Do you know of any other attacks?" And he said, "You will know about it soon." And so they waterboarded him a bunch of times. Next thing you know, he's spilling the beans.
And he said that there was going to be an attack and it was going to kill hundreds if not thousands of Americans and it was going to be on this place. Then, the next thing you know, the CIA guys go in -- some other national, international operatives -- and they caved this thing that would have crashed these jetliners under the control -- that had just been hijacked by some Asian hijackers -- into the Library Tower out in Los Angeles.
KILMEADE: It has --
DOOCY: So, it worked.
KILMEADE: It has already severely affected the CIA. David Ignatius of The Washington Post, hardly a conservative columnist, said this -- said, "I'm told in the case of an Al Qaeda suspect captured weeks ago in Iraq, the CIA was told about this and didn't even interrogate him." They said, "Bring him right to the U.S. military."
So, our best interrogators said, "Just send them to the military. We are not going to try to get intelligence." You know those 24 hours when they look at your pockets and they find your cell phone and they follow up? The most valuable? The CIA says, "It's not worth it for me."
DOOCY: Sure. So, just keep in mind, that's kind of what's going on. It did apparently work and get a bunch of information, and there was this huge flip-flop. And according to those in Washington, it's all because after Obama said, "We're looking forward, not backwards," a whole bunch of people on the left who helped get him elected --
KILMEADE: Like MoveOn.org?
DOOCY: MoveOn.org, in a hissy fit, suddenly phoning everybody, and they caved.
I would call that claim debunked rather than dubious.
That pesky timeline. But this will dominate right-wing media for the next few days. Another excuse to apologize for torture.
Rove is peeing his pants in anticipation of being tried. Bet he wishes someone would torture his attackers to keep him safe...
This assertion aside, why should we have to apologize for torturing, especially if it provides valuable information that saves lives, and not just American lives.
You have to be kidding, right? Have you not read anything but right wing blogs and watched nothing but FoxNews for the past 7 years?
The USA doesn't torture, or at least didn't until George Bush and Dick Cheney came along. The Obama Administration has regained the high ground with regard to torture after Bush gave up the moral high ground.
The ends don't justify the means.
Our enemies don't make us torture. Bush et al chose to torture our enemies.
The reason the USA doesn't torture is because we've agreed, with all other civilized nations, to not torture. It doesn't matter if we're fighting Tunisia or the Third Reich or terrorists. It's the USA that agreed to not torture.
If torture might provide valuable information, there's no way to know if non-tortuous interrogations might have gained us even more valuable information! In fact, interrogation experts say that torture is almost 100% ineffective and less coercive methods are much more effective.
Losing the moral high ground is too high a price to pay to hope to gain information via torture.
Why should we apologize for treating humans inhumanely? No human, no matter how vile they are, deserves to be tortured. Not one human being deserves to be treated that inhumanely, and since we did torture (and actually murder a few detainees), we need to apologize for the Bush Administration's lapses in judgement when they pushed torturing of suspected terrorists.
"Not one human being deserves to be treated that inhumanely..."
Dick Cheney?
Dick Cheney is a human being???
I don't read blogs, they annoy me. I don't have much time for TV either. But I do know thousands of Americans died on 9/11. That day changed a lot of things, maybe even our stance on torture (obviously because of GWs stance), but many agree with him because you have to ask yourself what you would do to prevent another attack. We're not talking about torturing the Pope, or a local hero, but a known terrorist who plots to kill innocent people. I know your stance is to be concerned with the humane treatment of this individual, but what about the inhumane treatment that individual intends to deal out to innocent Americans? Is that of no concern to you? Personally, I don't have a problem with the use, especially since "torture" can only be used in specific situations. There are guidelines the CIA has laid out to ensure this tactic is not abused, and rightly so. I'm not some right winger who backs Bush on everything, period, but I do care about anyone who has information on potential attacks on our country.
I saw yet another professional interrogator tonight speaking about the effective methods of getting information from a suspect. None of these methods involve physical violence. The idea that "torture works" is a cooked up fantasy made popular on movies and television. In the intelligence community, this is known to be nonsense.
Mary59, WRONG
markbfoot199, WRONG Mary59, RIGHT.
Thanks. Guess markbfoot didn't have anything to back up his post.
Mary, you do not either. There are reports coming out now and have come out in the past that have said that information had been gathered from these individuals during interrogations that help stop attacks. Go back and look at the interview on 60 mins of then CIA chief.
But you must notice, grasshopper, that experts say you can get the same intel WITHOUT breaking the law by torturing. Quit apologizing for torture, an illegal act.
Wow. I guess the FBI and CIA interrogators who disagree with you don't know what they're talking about. Or maybe you're just sadistic and self righteous.
This is from ABC News - Date September 13, 2007 4:09 PM
When Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was strapped down to the water-board, he felt humiliated -- not by the treatment but by the fact that a woman, a red-headed CIA supervisor, was allowed to witness the spectacle, a former intelligence officer told ABC News. Holy Cow, not the red headed women in the room technique
"It was an extraordinary amount of time for him to hold out," one former CIA officer told ABCNews.com. "A red-headed female supervisor was in the room when he was being water-boarded. It was humiliating to him. So he held out."
"Then he started talking, and he never stopped," this former officer said. KSM was never water-boarded again, and in hours and hours of conversation with his interrogators, often over a cup of tea, he poured out his soul and the murderous deeds he committed. ( really, he started talking knowing he would not have not face waterboarding, so the fear of doing it again starting him to talk?)
"He was sitting across the table from his interrogator, and he just blurted out, 'I killed Daniel Pearl. I killed him Hahal (slit his throat in a ritual fashion).' There was no water-boarding, no belly slapping; just two guys sitting across the table having a cup of tea." (so if we had not done the waterboard to begin with, he would not have started talking! He did not want to do it anymore, so he talked) WOW!!
Hey Mary59 - A current CIA official says that KSM actually told interrogators the only reason he confessed was because of the water-boarding.
Look at my post below. Torture is wrong ethically, tactically, and strategically. Defending torture is reprehensible.
History, what do you deem as torture? Sitting in a cell having to listen to Red Hot Chilli Peppers? Well that is on the list of torture techniques. Do you consider that torture?
You keep posting these asinine comments asking what is torture?
http://www.nybooks.com/icrc-report.pdf
try reading this report.
Waterboarding is torture. Rather you realize it or not. Rather you decide to change the arguments to Dan Rather and/or illegal immigrants. Regardless. Waterboarding is torture. And it has been prosecuted as such.
Read page 7 of the ICRC report I linked for you.
"How would we handle it?"
Well, we aren't interrogation experts, nor anti-terrorism experts, and I don't think you are one either, so maybe we shouldn't try.
I refuse to believe that we're not the same country we were. The attack on Pearl Harbor killed almost as many as the attacks in NY and Washington. In the aftermath, there was no citizen outcry to use torture. Torture was not authorized by our, government and implemented by our troops, in the name of our citizens, to extract information from the Japanese.
If anything, the nation responded with a renewed sense of patriotism. No one boasted what they would do if they were interrogating prisoners. No one claimed that they would have killed as many of our enemies as they could.
Instead of using their mouths and lips in service of some agenda, they used their feet to take them to enlistment offices and their hands to sign up to fight and perhaps die in service to their nation.
Those who were too old, or too rich found other ways to serve. Entertainers and movie stars dedicated themselves to flying around the world entertaining our troops (Glenn Miller) or on bond drives (Carol Lombard) and lost their lives. Not like ttodays entertainers employed by FNC and the EIB Network.
And if you think things have changed you're admitting that Al Qaeda and the terrorists have won. They've made us turn into that which we've reviled for two centuries. Thanks to them and to Americans like you., we can proudly call ourselves a pariah nation.
Apologists for torture like smitty are anti-American. Period.
Conversely, I believe I am very pro-American. What is it with people on this web site and their inability to discuss topics? Instead, there is an instant assumption that I know nothing, have no education, and lack values because I believe in something. I don't and never will claim to know all. I am very interested in both sides of this issue. I need other perspectives to broaden my thinking, and then I'll come to my own conclusion, and you don't have to agree with it. I tend to think that if someone plans to kill innocent people, especially innocent Americans, then we should do all we can to prevent that from happening. And I'm not willing to completely take the option of torture off the table, but I'm also not in favor of resorting to torture immediately. If you have a disagreement with me, kindly let me know why you disagree and the reason and history behind your position. I'll admit when I'm wrong, and I very well could be on this issue.
All you need to know, and remember forever, is that TORTURE IS ILLEGAL.
Not to mention immoral.
In fact the Japanese did torture by using waterboarding. And we saw to it that they were prosecuted. This was back before the right-wing became a bunch of cowardly crybabies.
I wasn't talking about waterboarding by the Japanese, I was referring to America's reaction to the Pearl Harbor attack. We never allowed our interrogators to torture during WWII.
Sorry, I was actually trying to respond to Smitty. As usual, the right does not know their history. Or else, they are claiming that we were the bad guys after World War II. Either way, I think it's a wonderful platform to run on in the next election.
Again, fill me in instead of assuming I'm some moron who can't think. I would love it if you gave me the history behind why you think the way you do. New perspectives are a good thing, I'm open to yours.
OK. Earlier you wrote this:
We're not talking about torturing the Pope, or a local hero, but a known terrorist who plots to kill innocent people.
That's rationalizing torture, which is illegal and immoral under ALL circumstances. There's no Jack Bauer situations out there. Interrogators say that get bet better intel from NOT torturing. It's really that simple.
And who decides if these people are "known" terrorists? After all, they don't get their day in court. Most of the gitmo detainees were sold to the CIA by Afghan drug/warlords in order to get rid of their enemies.
To some killing a fetus while inside a mother is inhumane, not so much for others. That is why there is a debate on issues such as this. Illegal acts are legalized all the time, as are legal ones made to be illegal. I'm obviously not going to be on the opposite side of an argument with an experienced interrogator. They have the experience and know what works, but I also find myself wondering what I would do in this situation. Don't we all have to ask that question? Do I try and extract information from an individual who is believed to have information that will help us save lives, or do I simply hope nothing terrible is going to happen? My instinct is to try and do something...anything within my power to save innocent people.
Also, please provide where you found these techniques to be illegal.
By having the moral high ground when capture we could tell the enemy that the United States does not torture...not anymore. This would at least give us some sort of hope to survive , not anymore....Gen. Powell knew this and the FBI knew this. Who do you think got all of the information during WWII from the Nazi Spies here in the US. That crap does not work and it is unrealiable. I am a retired Navy SCPO combat aircrew Vietnam Era and War. Door Gunner...so I know this, you dig.
LuvLuLu, please define torture!
"...it provides valuable information that saves lives, and not just American lives."
Even if it worked it will cost the lives of many more Americans in the future. For example, U.S. military which have to fight enemies who otherwise would surrender. Recruits which are influenced to join anti-USA paramilitaries who otherwise might not have done so. Maybe your own life when some future American government uses it to scare your friends into giving you up.
Your entire post is speculation.
No, it's based on predictable human behavior. The longer the time frame you choose to use, the greater the chance of each occurring. And the third's chances are greatly increased by the legitimization of government torture.
What has given you the notion that those who oppose the US will surrender?
Predictable human behavior and history. Surrendering to a non-torturing foe beats getting killed.
America faces many potential threats, not just the asymmetrical ones you perhaps are obsessed with.
Surrendering to a non-torturing foe beats getting killed.
Smitty should look up how the Germans did anything they could to be captured by the U.S. and not Russia in the waning days of WWII. They knew they'd be treated humanely.
Don't tell Franky, tell me fog. You can actually tell ME something instead of snickering to your pals.
OK:
Surrendering to a non-torturing foe beats getting killed.
You should look up how the Germans did anything they could to be captured by the U.S. and not Russia in the waning days of WWII. They knew they'd be treated humanely.
The U.S. Army Field Manual says that "is a poor technique that yields unreliable results, may damage subsequent collection efforts, and can induce the source to say what he thinks the [human intelligence] collector wants to hear." FBI interrogation instructor Joe Navarro said that "the only thing torture guarantees is pain, it never guarantees the truth." John McCain, a former prisoner-of-war himself, said: "While our intelligence personnel in Abu Ghraib may have believed that they were protecting U.S. lives by roughing up detainees to extract information, they have had the opposite effect. Their actions have increased the danger to American soldiers, in this conflict and in future wars." The Army field manual on counterinsurgency says that "Any human rights abuses or legal violations committed by U.S. forces quickly become known throughout the local populace and eventually around the world. . . and undermine both short- and long-term [counterinsurgency] efforts." Torture makes it harder for U.S. forces to establish a good relationship with the population in which our armed forces operate and alienates our allies.
Defending torture is wrong ethically, strategically, and tactically.
Frank, you are neive.
Is this a compliment? ;-)
Mary here is your complimet - Naive
Fog, how do you think we were able to stop that attack?
But the Bush administration said that the attack was thwarted in February 2002 -- more than a year before Mohammed was captured.
It wasn't through torturing KSM. I bet this plot was like those guys in Atlanta who were sitting around drinking and talking about blowing up buildings even though they had no money and access to bomb making material.
Fog, how about you answer the question, how was the attack in L.A. stopped. I did not ask about KSM, I asked a simple question. Let me ask again, what methods did we use to gather the information that keep terrorist from attacking the Library in L.A.?
The terrorist was arrested while bringing explosives across the US/Canadian border. No torture was involved, just good old fashioned police work.
http://www.atour.com/news/international/20010710c.html
How about you do your own research next time.
Fog, you just keep avoiding the question. Yes, I beleive in good ole fashion police as well. See here is a perfect example of having to face facts, so instead of facing the facts you avoid the question. Again, try answering the question.
Maybe because your question has been answered you just don't like the answer!
Congero, no one has answered the question, you know it, I know it. The answer is we extracted the information from a suspect in our custody. We saved American lives because we have individuals that are not weak like yourself, ones that know their jobs are not easy, but yet they do there job knowing the can saves lives. That is how the indiviudals in L.A. were saved. FYI, that individual that gave us the information is also alive today as well. Was it worth it, yes, should we do it again to saves lives, YES.
Fog explicitly answered your question in the prior post and you completely ignore it as if that post did not exist. You show yourself to be a phony. He does not need to answer the question again. Face the facts.
Yes, debunked. But you'd never know it from watching Faux Spews. I haven't heard anyone over there discuss this. All I've seen is the talking head repeating and affirming what Marc Thiessen is saying.
And as of last night, MM can add O'Reilly to the list of talking heads enabling this Los Angeles attack claim. He had Thiessen on and didn't challenge him on anything of substance. The debunking facts were not brought up at all. The viewers only hear one side of the Los Angeles attack claim. Faux reports, Faux decides.
Well... maybe Khalid was so scared by the prospect of getting captured and being waterboarded that he called ahead and turned in the terroists before he was captured. Yeah, that's the ticket.
I think it says a lot that the best source they could find to advance this falsehood (part of Cheney and/or Rove's retaliatory hardball politics, no doubt) is a former speechwriter, not someone with any national security credentials.
Wolf, wow they got the wrong tower, so they had info about a attack, able to stop it, keep Americans alive. So tell me Wolf, how did we stop that attack, how did we get the info to stop the attack?
I am going to tell you nothing. Figure it out youself by reading the article, not just my posting. As a heads up, pay close attention to the part that explains Zubayda was captgured a full year after the alleged plot discovered / made up .
and don't forget, I have pictures stored on my computer from places i have been to that were considered " cultural" and somehow, after the Bush administration, could be construed miraculously as " targets ".
Wolf, you do not want to answer the question, I do not care about KSM. We stopped the attack in L.A., many lives were saved and the information had been gathered by a captured terrorist. Wolf, so if the attack would have happen, we then find out later that a individual in our hands could have given us information to stop it, but we did not want get it because weak liberals like yourself felt other ways to gather the information was too harsh, you would be screaming from the roof tops now. So, again how do you think the information was gathered?
"My impression of what the president said is that they - the National Security Council - have culled through information to look for something that resembled a serious threat in 2002. It doesn't strike me, either as someone who was there or as someone who has followed al-Qaida pretty closely, that this was really a serious sort of effort. Just on the face of this, it sounds to me like it might well have been a threat that was reported, but not one that at the time was taken all that seriously."
Michael Scheuer, CIA al-Qaida counter-terrorism expert
Mike, OBL was not considered a risk either with Clinton had a chance to arrest him. Guess that was a mistake.
What does Clinton have to do with the CIA al-Qaida expert telling you that the threat was not real? It never got to the actual threat stage? What does that have to do with Clinton, strawman?
You are just like Fog, avoiding the question. Why is that, it the truth to painful for you?
Some conservatives make liberal use of their time machines this isnt the first time they have warped the space time continuum to suppor their claims
They're working on a time machine, modeled after superman, heavy water and the earth's rotation. Still got some bugs, though...
Still some bugs?
I thought they used all the bugs they could find in their torture boxes.
Oh, they just use the fun bugs in the torture boxes that they use for themselves. The big bugs go towards reversing the earth's rotation.
Torture doesn't work.
And since when has the question been "Can we torture if it gives us the results we're looking for?"
Torture is a war crime regardless of the reasoning for its use.
To all the progressives on this thread: Obviously, the interrogation techniques used during the KSM interviews worked. The US received info that prevented an attack on LA. Even left-wingers cannot deny that. The attack was planned...the attack did not happen.
As to the timing, the CIA memo clearly states that KSM provided the info. Read it yourself. I cannot speak to the statements made by the Bush admin. I'll have to read up on it myself...though not from Slate, a known leftist site. I prefer, as should you, to review multiple sources.
Here's one source you apparently failed to review. It's right at the top of this page:
"But the Bush administration said that the attack was thwarted in February 2002 -- more than a year before Mohammed was captured."
This is like beating a dead horse with a stick (is that torture?) but; even if they did get actionable intelligence from using "enhanced interrogation" techniques it doesn't make it right. (eg the ends do not justify the means)
Also, there is no information on any other information that may have been gleaned from that process. Did they get one item of true information and 99 items that were made up, in an attempt to stop the waterboarding, et al. We don't know and probably never will know. Again, ask the experts that actually understand interogation. All of them state that torture does not work!
Yes . read multiple sources and provide the link where the CIA said that the torture of KSM thwarted the attack in L.A. Tell me again how you thwart an attack a year before the capture of KSM? WTF are you smoking!
If you read the second paragraph of my original post, I state that the Bush admin was clearly mistaken on the dates the original intel was captured. The CIA memo documents that KSM DID provide the info that stopped the LA attack. That is the point of this article. Not the fact that someone within the Bush admin misspoke on the thwarting date.
Who cares if one data point is wrong. The date the attack was reportedly stopped has no bearing on this discussion. The CIA says KSM provided the info. Therefore, interrogation techniques employed worked, and prove that it is effective.
Why do progresives always attack someone who challenges them? As for links, why post them? Go to your own sources. Use your favority search engine on the web.
Worrier, what do you consider torture?
You should look it up Mark? It's not left up to interpretation of worrier to define. We have signed onto international treaties that define it? But here's one for you.
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/usc_sec_18_00002340----000-.html
The definition that Congero links to is applicable ONLY to US citizens. It is part of the US Code, not international.
I absolutely, 100% do NOT believe that terrorists trying to kill American citizens should be given the same rights and privs that we, as law-abiding citizens, receive. As such, the terrorists were confined to a military location. They do not receive the protections of the US law.
However, Bush DID sign an international treaty that attempted to define torture, but left it VERY ambiguous. Based on their interpretation of the treaty, Bush officials (lawyers) deemed waterboarding as not torture.
I, personally, do not believe it is torture. Shooting them in the knee, pulling finger nails, branding...those are torture. What happened to soldiers captured during Vietnam was torture. Being sleep deprived or having Sesame Street played continously is NOT torture. Remember...only 3 high-value terrorists were waterboarded.
I'm beginning to consider torture sitting here listening to you insist that people are avoiding your questions after your questions have been answered, and answered, and answered. How about you get an educated response together instead of pretending that you don't understand the answers. Or, maybe you are not pretending.
The RW media is working overtime to control the anti-torture flood.
And for the life of me , i cannot understand why these people are trying so hard to make torture an acceptable endeavor for this country. Let Cheney and Bush defend themselves, they got money for the best lawyer, they don't need lackeys like Doocy. Is it worth to then to make torture part of the national policy so Bush-cheney can walk free among us ? And what would their reaction be if one of our soldiers gets capture and beheaded because of radical muslim law ? think about this, miss Pretty Face Carlson.
Wofle Kotenberg: "And for the life of me , i cannot understand why these people are trying so hard to make torture an acceptable endeavor for this country."
Reply: I don't think they can make it "acceptable" in this country, but grudingly 'accepted' is at least a possibility.
The motivation would be to begin the process of establishing its' legitimacy' as a coercive tool of governance. The ULTIMATE goal is to be able instill fear in US, the citizenry, so as to eventually be able chill dissent. They are the hopeful fathers of future American government domestic terrorism.
They figured that if we allowed our own troops to experience small doses of torture, to give them an idea of what they might face from rogue captors, that it was okay to do it to suspected terrorists.
But that's where their argument falls apart. What one person volunteers for, under close supervision, where the goal is to educate and give one experience, is not equivalent to a terrorist being tortured by his captors!
We're happy to report that after waterboarding KSM 183 times, he has finally revealed to us the details of a terrorist plot that was abandoned more than a year ago.
Without the waterboarding, we might never have found out exactly what this now non-existant plot didn't lead to.
Any questions?
I find your logic not fawlty in the least.
This sort of highlights the disadvantage we were all at, with the criminal administration of George W. Bush and Dick Cheney holding all the cards of Intelligence and all other National Security matters (cards held necessarily close to the vest and in secret), following the attacks of September 11 2001.
They had the power to claim just about anything they liked, regarding their so-called "global war on terror", because it all rose to a level of National Security that transcended the Courts and the Freedom of Information Act, and transcended even Congressional oversight and inquiry (somewhat) too.
We were at their (the Bush administration's) mercy, and they knew it... as long as they continued to make every appearance that they were attending to the protection and security of the American People, then they could stay above any accusations that they were not (not attending to the safety of the American People): because when they say that in politics "perception is reality", they of course mean that as long as people simply think the administration is doing the job, then the job is getting done (even if in appearance only): and in matters involving Intelligence, perception is only what is released to the Public by them (the Bush administration), because you have no other way of knowing, due to the necessary secrecy in these matters, and because "For Your Eyes Only" never actually means for your eyes.
So we were at the mercy of the Bush and Cheney administration... but no more.
All of these matters today come under the authority of President Obama.
George W. Bush and Dick Cheney are no longer in the loop, they now have no more authority in these matters than do you or I (true)... and where now it says "For Your Eyes Only", it means not for the eyes of the criminals Bush and Cheney and their many co-conspirators, but for the eyes of President Obama, and whoever else he authorizes to know and see such things.
As bad as I felt about all of this in the past, I feel better now: we were formally at the mercy of the Bush administration, but no more.
I think the best thing we can take away from all of this, is a renewed diligence, even an ultra-diligence of the greatest severity and the greatest seriousness, that we cannot ever again allow such powerful functions of the U.S. Government as are the functions of the CIA and Intelligence and the command of the U.S. Armed Forces, to ever fall again into the hands of such low and criminal types, as George W. Bush and Dick Cheney and their many co-conspirators were and are...
That mistake we made in the year 2000 (or perhaps that diligence we did not make in that year) got 3,000 Americans murdered on Sptember 11 2001, and put the balance of us all, the balance of the American People, at the mercy of the criminal Bush administration, for the seven plus years that followed.
As Benjamin Franklin so wisely said
If Benjamin Franklin said that, then I could never argue with it, because it must be true...
But's it's always nice when people rise above speaking in abstractions and generalizations, and speak instead in specific and concrete terms: what "essential liberty" and what "temporary security" is being referred to there?
Otherwise, to speak only in abstract and general terms, always invites a warm and fuzzy feeling... but the moment you replace those abstractions with concrete examples, then and only then can people determine whether the thing said has any truth to it, any truth in the real world (which is entirely concrete).
Well said. I would only add that we should not overlook the Constitutional importance of the GOP controlled Congress, although it would seem they deferred to the Bush administration in these matters.
Since when does calling someone a criminal make it so?
And you might want to look at your own timeline regarding the planning and implementation of the 9/11 attacks.
You people give good liberals a bad name...
What are you talking about, "my own timeline regarding the attacks of 9/11"?
It's easy to make a point of argument in your own head, when the point you make, makes no sense to anyone but you.
Demo, so breaking a law about torture (please define how you see torture) is wrong, but allowing individuals to cross into our land illegally and take jobs from American is ok. How do you feel about abortion, it is not torture to reach into a women’s body and take out a growing baby and kill it? The current President even fought a case that says a baby could be killed after a birth? I guess you consider that legal, so what laws do you get to choose to follow and not follow.
Strawman alert!
Mike, I bring up a simple example of what is ok in your mind, but you call it strawman. Good try, truth hurts I know.
You are so full of it!
Congero, I guess you also think ripping a baby out a women body and killing it is ok, but waterboard it not. Wow, the mind of a Liberal
Go shove it!
What in the world are you talking about? This is what the right-wing arguments have come to. "We have to torture because you kill babies!" You guys have completely lost it. And you wonder why you never win elections anymore. Good luck in the next one, strawman!
marbfoot199, I'm positive you replied to my comment, but I'll be danged if my comment had to do with torture or anything else you mentioned: your imagination is getting the better of you. And if you're going to say you didn't just imagine things in my comment about torture (and the other things you mention), then please quote from my comment, exactly where I wrote of torture (or of your other interests).
When it comes to defending Bush and the extreme right does Fox only give conspiracy based opinions and blatent lies as editorial news? I know editorial news is opinion in most aspects, but to state only opinions that have "no" facts to back them up a policy for fox news correspondents ?
Your definition of "torture" would get most Fraternities and Sororities closed.
Are you really that bitter about not being asked to pledge?
You ignore the rolw of the people involved. Just because somebody voluntarily submits to physical abuse does not mean its not torture if subjected to an involuntary recipient. You would have to be a complete moron to accept this line of thinking. Some people have their tongue pierced but if I stick a hot poker through a prisoner's tongue it is undeniably torture!
Oh great. Now we get the torture defense from a frat-boy. I knew this pathetic defense was missing something.
I think the right-wing is on the right track. Continue to voraciously defend the same torture that our fellow Americans prosectued a generation ago. Advocate for secession from the Union. Call a 3% increase in a marginal tax rate socialism, communism, and fascism. I think you will find that those crazies with the lunatic signs at the tea parties are now not only your base, but your entire party. Enjoy.
1. For the purposes of this Convention, the term "torture" means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.
Amazing, isn't it?
They don't even bother fact-checking because it's so much easier to just make stuff up as they go along.
Murdoch must save a fortune by not having an actual research staff.
Unlike your media that never fact checks, Dan Rather!! What about CNN making up lies during the Tea Parties. MSNBC recent comments by J.G. calling anyone at a tea party a redneck? Or what about all the stories about our soldiers killing citizens, these solider in jail going through a trail because a Time report made up the case. 7 of the 8 have been proven innocent, yet all the news organizations ran the story like they were guilty. Is it not torture to make these individuals sit in jail under false pretenses? The false story about soldiers at Gitmo flushing the Quran, yes that was a lie but yet the mainstream media ran that story. Dimes where can I find your outrage about those stories? Remember KSM has come out and taken claim before in our hands that he was the mastermind behind 9/11, what about the torture those families have gone through? If you asked them today, if we could waterboard one person to stop that act, would you be ok with stopping the attack and your family would be here today? What do you think that answer would be?
Strawman alert!
Although, I love that you guys continue to defend waterboarding. Always has been and always will be torture. But, by all means, please continue to defend it. As if your party has not shrunk enough.
Mike again the truth hurts. Everything above are facts, but yet you do not want to accept because the prove you to be a hypocrite.
Classic strawman arguments. Torture is good because I supported a false story about someone flushing the Koran down a toilet? (Which, by the way, sounds impossible to me unless they have some super strength toilet in Gitmo.) Torture is OK because Obama and I both support killing babies after they are born? Torture is acceptable and necessary because we have illegal immigrants in this country and somehow that has something to do with me not wanting our country to torture? Classic, desperate strawman arguments.
And, please, you right-wingers have got to stop saying provide a link for everything. Some things are known American or world history. Now you guys are claiming that the Japanese did not waterboard us? Or that we did not prosecute them? You are really desperate to defend torture which is just beyond me.
Here is a link for you: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/02/AR2007110201170.html
But, like I said, you really should get out more. Stop by the public library. Do some reading that is not on the Internet. The Internet is not the end all and be all of everything in the world. There's a whole big real world out there just waiting for you to discover it.
Mike, I feel sorry for you. You again avoid questions because in your mind you think one is ok but the other is not. If you read what was put out about torture you will find out that pain is not an issue. You gave us the Military writings of WWII, yes back then they thought inflicting pain would work, it does not I agree with that as well. This is not like John McCain being strapped up to electricity or beaten. What they are calling torture, is more like discomfort, not pain. The caterpillar was never used, (no animals were harmed) but the fact that a person thought he might have to sit in a small room with what he thought was a stinging animal. Having to listen to rock music, not getting to sleep, not know what day it is or what time it is. These are the tactics that were used. Waterboarding was used on 3 people and I have posted information that was from ABC News that showed it worked, that once KSM knew if he talked he would not have the discomfort of waterboard anymore. The information they gathered was truthful and was used to help the U.S. and sure we will find out soon that it may have saved lives. When he was not being questioned he was able to read, write, and well taken care of, not thrown in some hole to rot like John McCain. Do you know that if you place a Muslim in the same room as a pig, they consider that torture, but yet it works a well? Just having to be in the same room as a pig, ouch that must hurt.
Waterboarding was used on more than 3 prisoners and that wasn't the only technique used :http://www.nybooks.com/icrc-report.pdf please leaf through it. You are the sick one!
marky mark just cannot accept the fact that torture doesn't work. Any interrogation expert will attest to that.
And I guess marky is happy that a lawyer, hired by a politician, wrote a memo essentially negating the existing law against torture.
And that lawyer is now a judge!
Waterboarding is torture. Of course, you have no evidence that it works, but even if it did work that is not why it is beneath our society. We are above it. We are better than that. We are the good guys because we behave as such. You clearly did not read the link you were crying for if you think waterboarding is all about inflicting pain.
I know, I know. Dan Rather kills babies and Obama flushed a Koran down the toilet. Or whatever. Bring on the strawman!
The problem with your argument bigfoot is that we had the information about the attack on the world trade center without "waterboarding" we just didn't act on it!
Really, do you have these facts to prove or you just like to spew false information. Yes there was intelligence that terrorists were going to attack us, but we were not sure the details. Just think, if Clinton had picked up OBL when he had the chance we could have gotten the information out of him to stop the 9/11 attacks. Congero, I sure you also believe that the buildings were brought down with dynamite and that fire cannot melt steel.
All you do Mark is come here and spew misinformation so i find it amusing that your saying that about me. I'll look for the links. No , i don't believe that the buildings were dynamited---those conspiracy theories I'll leave to you,since you believe that information gathered from KSM helped thwart an attack that had been busted before he was captured!?!? Yea the WTC bombing was Clintons fault, no knuckleheads never miss a chance do you. The fact of the matter is GB and his whole administration was asleep and lax before the bombings and ignored all signs that it was about to happen, we didn't need the Patriot Act or torture to find it out !
Ronald Regan signed onto this treaty its called the "Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment" here's the link:
http://www.hrweb.org/legal/cat.html
I expect Sheer Insannity to repeat this lie on today's show (Thursday, April 23rd).
It is always going to be this kind of crap from the media. We MUST work on media reform. I think a representative media system must be established by the people. Begging mainstream medai to do a good job will not work. See my latest video: Good News Stories Plus Solutions: Media Reform
I say, interrogators can torture prisoners, but they have to be able to take the consequences of their actions. As in, can't do the time, then don't do the crime. If, as a lot of right wingers keep telling us, that we'd do "anything" to prevent attacks, then wouldn't it be worth it to these people to go to prison if they did prevent an attack? That's what I would call sacrifice right there.
But then again, as we're told almost on a daily basis, torture tends to not provide good intelligence. There was someone on here yesterday peddling this canard that KSM after being waterboarded provided information to stop this LA attack.
I care deeply for my family. I was raised that my countrymen are my brothers. If you make plans to hurt my family, I get wind of it, and then hold of you...may G-d have mercy on your soul.
There is a major issue of incompetency and arrogance!!! The international law and history was well established with Germans and Japanese prosecuted for war crimes after WW2.Definitions of what constituted torture were established and agreed to by many nations thru the Geneva Convention.Why did this administration and the justice Dept 'lawyers'(incompetence) think they could just redefine it and all would be well?Obviously some thought they would be above any repercussions(arrogance)? Maybe if Iraq had not been invaded and the world support that came after 9/11 had remained,It might have been excused if just truly Al Qaeda known terroists were involved.With the possibility or likelyhood of nonterrorist civilians being captured and tortured on top of an unjustified war,the international outrage is just not going away as they maybe had hoped after leaving office!To now find out that the torture may have been used to get confessions to link 9/11 and Iraq for post invasion jusrtification for the war makes it an even sadder day for America! We need to stop trying to justify the torture based on the results.
How can Republicans /Concservatives continue to defend it at the same time they criticize EVEYTHING the new President does!
SMTDL, of the 10 so called techniques that were used, please tell us which one was against the Geneva Conventions Definitions. I really would like to know where that rule is that we can not use a catapiller? Wait, the catapiller was never used, we just talked about it.
Waterboarding!!!!!Japanese were prosecuted for it !
Prosecuted, please give us the link, like to know their techniques.
Not that you appear to have any genuine interest inthe truth, but here you go...
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=15886834
As if you couldn't have easily found it yourself...
I already gave you a link showing you exactly what the soldiers reported the Japanese doing to them. You ignored it because it does not fit into your right-wing mindset. The truth hurts, I know.
OK, so the real question is, what person in U.S. hands gave up the information on the attack of the Library Towers in Los Angeles? How did we ge that information? How about we asked individuals coming out of that building today, "We found out today and stopped an attack on this building, that attack would have killed you, are you ok that we waterboard a indiviudal to stop it? Or would you have rather the attack happened as long as waterboarding had not been used?
Mark,
Are you really this stupid? Did you read the post?
mark is a betwetter, going through life scared all the time unless we're torturing the supposed evil-doers. He's also an apologist for torture, which is inherently un-American and un-patriotic. Apparently all he knows about interrogations came from Jack Bauer.
Fog, just had to start name calling again. Sorry to tell you, you lost today's prize of who would start name calling first, Skeptical beat you by a few minutes. I do not go through life scared at all, because I know weak liberals like you are not capturing the bad guys. Then again a weak liberal individuals like yourself would not know what a bad guy was until he had killed you. The bad guy would even have a gun pointed at your head and the whole time your thinking, wow we really need to have gun laws that should limit this person from carrying a firearm cause he seems to point it people and demand money.
You are a bedwetter. And an apologist for torture. You show that to be true every time you post on this site.
I have a question for you. Do you support breaking the law? Because that's what happened hear. And if you support law-breaking, you're no better than the terrorists that scare you so much.
Fog, I have once again provided the definition of torture below. Sitting here having to read your post is a act of suffering, so guess your torturing me! This is so vague of a definition that one can read what ever they want into the definition. Waterboarding is not painful, mentally yes, it may offer some discomfort and from what I have found in research, that is what KSM found uncomfortable, he did not want to do it anymore and started to talk. It you read military personnel whom have gone through the process that is what they say as well, not painful but heavy discomfort.
1. For the purposes of this Convention, the term "torture" means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.
Waterboarding is not painful, mentally yes
Wow. You really are a lost cause. Ask Christopher Hitchens if it's not painful.
Fog, ask the so many military personnel that have gone through it as well.
Apples/oranges. Try again.
I previously provided you a link where they quote military personel who had to go through waterboarding. Maybe you should read the link that you acted as if you wanted so badly.
OK, so the real question is, what person in U.S. hands gave up the information on the attack of the Library Towers in Los Angeles? (Simple Questions) How did we get that information? (Simple Question) So now we are moving into a new topic based of how you answer the first two questions. How about we asked individuals coming out of that building (L.A. Library Tower) today, "We found out today and stopped an attack on this building, that attack would have killed you, are you ok that we waterboarded a individual to stop it? (Simple Question) Or would you have rather the attack happened as long as waterboarding had not been used? (Simple Question)
So Skeptical, answer the questions.
You show me one example where torture by us has thwarted an attack?
Mark have you ever thought about this :
"...
So, the "enhanced interrogations techniques" may have had two deadly consequences: eliciting misinformation that helped lead the United States into the quicksand of Iraq (while al-Qaeda and its Islamic fundamentalist allies strengthened their position in nuclear-armed Pakistan) and contributing significantly to the deaths of more than 4,200 American soldiers in Iraq.
Congero, This information is from whom? These are assumptions not truths made by whom? There is no data to back up this individual’s idea.
No he doesn't read them, he does this reflexively! He thinks he's fulfilling his duty combatting the godless liberals...Pathetic! He twist himself into knots defending torture and inhumane treatment yet calls himself a Christian...Hypocrite!
Still wondering when someone will answer the questions?
Answer what questions Mark? I like how you ignore what doesn't fit into your world view. So it's an assumption that we have becomed mired in quicksand in Iraq and that Islamic fundalmentalist have strenghtened their piositions inside Pakistan? You never even gave it a thought that the information that we gathered from torture was purposely misleading and led to the situations I mentioned above. My conservative misinformer your opinions are one thing but the brutal facts are objective. Not that you would bother to read it but the above quote was from Robert Parry in an article titled "How Bush's Torture helped Al-Qaeda". it was written from information he gathered from recently released Justice Department memos.
I forgot the link :
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2009/04/23-9
Congero, Parry is so left wing, he makes Coulter look middle of the road. Does not help your arguments.
http://www.alternet.org/authors/2302
Congero, (still avoiding the questions at hand ) hate to bust her bubble; Iraq is under the control of its own people in majority of the country. You can even find stories in foreign newspapers that many in Iraq like us, even happy we helped them. FYI, you will not find that in the news around here, does not work with the Left Wing Agenda. Pakistan you are correct but last time I looked we are not in Pakistan so it would be hard to ever blame us for their problems. Pakistan is a Muslim country and that is the hard core extreme Muslims that are attacking the country. I am sure if they asked for our help, we would. I have proven in many, many links from past news reports including ABC that it worked on KSM. I will do my research on Mr. Parry and get back to you on his background.
Your just silly. Iraq was under it's own control before we invaded, fool. Last time i checked we invaded to find WMD, and because Sadamm had something to do with 9/11 and had ties to Al-Queda...hate to bust your bubble but they were all lies. We've lost more Americans in Iraq than were killed in 9/11 , what did Bin Laden say, he said he would bring us down by bankrupting us, so far we've spent over $1trillion dollars there and this unnecessary war is one of the reasons we are in this depression. In case you haven't been reading the papers violence for the Iraq's has gone up with over 70 of them killed today, and we still have after 6 yrs over 140,000 soldiers there.
While we were drawn into that quamire the article I highlighted for you pointed out that our enemies were able to establish themselves on the Afghan/Pakistan border and now have a foothold in the capital of Pakistan. We took our eye off the ball, mislead by information we gathered by torturing that turned our head away from the real threats. You seem to think that facts have a liberal bias....fine, but to me it would be beneficial to refute what he/she says than to tell me he's a liberal. Try providing me with quotes from the article you can disprove and I'd be more impressed.
I provided you with links to the ICRC reports on torture you have yet to respond to and as far as your previous post you've proven nothing but that your closed minded right wing zealot who believes in torture while considering himself a christian...which tells me your nothing but a hyprocrite.
Congero, question at hand, how did the U.S. stop the attacks on the L.A. target? Stop avoiding the question!
We have answered and answered you question. I linked to it above. A border agent discovered someone smuggling explosives across the US/Canada border.
And you must remember that all these "plots" must be viewed with skepticism because they were postulated by the Bush cabal to scare the general public. Looks like they really did a job on you.
Well documented. Well said.
Yes, we will never be 100% safe in a free society. The other option is what you advocate, living in a society where we will do whatever it takes to make ourselves feel safe. Where there is no line we will not cross. Where we are willing to become the terrorists for a feeling of safety. We do not all go through life full of fear as you do. Some of us understand that all of our lives will end, and we are OK with that. It is a question of how you live.
Mike, I am saying if we know for a fact that we have a terrorist in our hands that has information to help save American Lives, yes I think we follow guidelines to extract that information. I do not believe in inflicting pain, but using a individuals mind to trick him to extract that information is ok in my book. If you read reports waterboarding was used on only three individuals. It helped save American lives, which are worth some discomfort to them. These are individuals that are the evil of evil, which would not think twice to cut your head off. These individuals see us as weak, thanks to some of your liberal leaders and know that once in our hands why talk. The will still be feed, given a place to sleep and living quarters. These are individuals will have better living conditions in our hands then in their own homes.
If you read reports waterboarding was used on only three individuals.
That we know of. You conveniently forgot to mention the prisoners who DIED.
These are individuals that are the evil of evil...
Says who?
Please quit rationalizing/apologizing for torture. It's illegal.
You are terribly naive and ignorant of the facts. We got the useful information (even from those we did waterboard) before we waterboarded them. Any interrogation expert will tell you that relationship building is how you get information. Convincing the prisoner to trust you.
To be so afraid as to throw your values out the window as soon as you are threatened and scared IS weak. Not our "liberal leaders" - whomever that is supposed to be targeted at. Cheney and G-Dub were weak. Once they were tested and afraid they did not believe in the ideals that have kept America strong, that have made America different, for two centuries. They did not have the courage of their convictions. They were weak and cowardly. You are weak and cowardly. To believe in your values when they are tested is the true test of a man. It isn't about the terrorists, sir. It is about us.
"If you beat this son of a b*tch long enough he'll tell you he started the go**amn Chicago fire. That don't necessarily make it so."