Following Wash. Post article, conservative media advance falsehood that CIA documents prove interrogation techniques worked
Citing a misleading Washington Post article that stated that alleged 9-11 mastermind Khalid Shaikh Mohammed became cooperative after being subjected to waterboarding, sleep deprivation, and other interrogation techniques, conservative media have advanced the falsehood that three recently released 2004 CIA documents prove that these enhanced interrogation techniques (EITs) were necessary to gain valuable intelligence. In fact, two CIA memos on the value of intelligence obtained from detainees do not discuss interrogation techniques, and a CIA inspector general's (IG) report of the CIA's interrogation program stated that "[t]he effectiveness of particular interrogation techniques in eliciting information that might not otherwise have been obtained cannot be easily measured."
CIA IG report repeatedly makes clear that it does not assess the effectiveness of particular techniques
IG report: "The effectiveness of particular interrogation techniques in eliciting information that might not otherwise have been obtained cannot be so easily measured." From the "conclusions" section of the 2004 CIA IG report on "Counterterrorism Detention and Interrogation Activities":
The Agency's detention and interrogation of terrorists has provided intelligence that has enabled the identification and apprehension of other terrorists and warned of terrorist plots planned for the United States and around the world. The CTC Detention and Interrogation Program has resulted in the issuance of thousands of individual intelligence reports and analytic products supporting the counterterrorism efforts of U.S. policymakers and military commanders. The effectiveness of particular interrogation techniques in eliciting information that might not otherwise have been obtained cannot be so easily measured.
IG report: "[T]here is limited data on which to assess [EITs'] individual effectiveness." From the IG report:
Inasmuch as EITs have been used only since August 2002, and they have not all been used with every high value detainee, there is limited data on which to assess their individual effectiveness. This Review indentified concerns about the use of the waterboard, specifically whether the risks of its use were justified by the results, whether it has been unnecessarily used in some instances, and whether the fact that it is being applied in a manner different from its use in SERE training brings into question the continued applicability of the DoJ opinion to its use. Although the waterboard is the most intrusive of the EITs, the fact that precautions have been taken to provide on-site medical oversight in the use of all EITs is evidence that their use poses risks.
IG report details reasons why "[m]easuring the overall effectiveness of EITs is challenging." From the IG report:
Determining the effectiveness of each EIT is important in facilitating Agency management's decision as to which techniques should be used and for how long. Measuring the overall effectiveness of EITs is challenging for a number of reasons including: (1) the Agency cannot determine with any certainty the totality of the intelligence the detainee actually possesses; (2) each detainee has different fears of and tolerance for EITs; (3) the application of the same EITs by different interrogators may have different results; and [REDACTED]
IG report: "Some participants" in CIA program judge that assessments that "detainees are withholding information are not always supported by an objective evaluation." From the IG report:
Agency officers report that reliance on analytical assessments that were unsupported by credible intelligence may have resulted in the application of EITs without justification. Some participants in the Program, particularly field interrogators, judge that CTC assessments to the effect that detainees are withholding information are not always supported by an objective evaluation of available information and the evaluation of the interrogators but are too heavily based, instead, on presumptions of what the individual might or should know.
Separate CIA reports on the intelligence detainees provided do not discuss the effectiveness of interrogation techniques. As The New York Times noted, the partially declassified CIA memos on "Khalid Shaykh Muhammad: Preeminent Source on Al-Qa'ida" and "Detainee Reporting Pivotal for the War Against Al-Qa'ida," do not contain reference "to any specific interrogation methods and do not assess their effectiveness."
Citing misleading Wash. Post article, conservative media falsely claim CIA reports prove EITs worked
Scarborough: Argument that EITs "never worked is just ... insanity." MSNBC host Joe Scarborough claimed that "[for] months there'd been lies that have been propagated that no good information was passed." Scarborough later asserted that "[w]hen The Washington Post actually started writing about this, there are a lot of people that are going to look so unbelievably stupid for the ignorant things they've been saying." Scarborough went on to state that while one may argue that EITs were "immoral," "the argument that this never worked is just -- it's insanity." [MSNBC's Morning Joe, 8/31/09]
Fox host Steve Doocy on EITs: "It worked. It kept ... us safe." Fox & Friends aired a video clip of former Vice President Dick Cheney's August 30 appearance on Fox News Sunday, in which Cheney argued that EITs, "specifically waterboarding," were what "persuaded" Mohammed "to cooperate." Doocy followed Cheney's remarks by saying, "OK, so there you go. It worked. It kept -- kept us safe." Co-host Brian Kilmeade later said: "[W]e have an inspector general that goes in there and decides what the conclusions are. This is the conclusions that Dick Cheney says this is a portion of what I wanted to release. It was released in Saturday's Washington Post." [Fox News' Fox & Friends, 8/31/09]
Wash. Post charge that Mohammed "cooperated after waterboarding" undermined by article's own claims. As Media Matters for America has noted, The Washington Post article that Scarborough and Kilmeade cited charged that Mohammed "cooperated" with the CIA "after waterboarding" and that this occurred "to an extraordinary extent, only when his spirit was broken in the month after his capture March 1, 2003, as the [CIA] inspector general's report and other documents released this week indicate." However, these claims are undermined by reporting elsewhere in the article, which notes that Mohammed gave false information during waterboarding and that the CIA inspector general who investigated the CIA's interrogation programs could not "reach definitive conclusions about the effectiveness of particular interrogation methods."
Numerous media outlets have noted that CIA reports do not prove that enhanced interrogation techniques were effective
Salon's Greenwald: It is "patently clear" that CIA reports don't back claims about effectiveness of EITs. From Glenn Greenwald's August 29 blog post on Salon.com:
That the released documents provide no support for Cheney's claims was so patently clear that many news articles contained unusually definitive statements reporting that to be so. The New York Times reported that the documents Cheney claimed proved his case "do not refer to any specific interrogation methods and do not assess their effectiveness." ABC News noted that "the visible portions of the heavily redacted reports do not indicate whether such information was obtained as a result of controversial interrogation techniques, such as waterboarding." TPM's Zachary Roth documented that "nowhere do they suggest that that information was gleaned through torture," while The Washington Independent's Spencer Ackerman detailed that, if anything, the documents prove "that non-abusive techniques actually helped elicit some of the most important information the documents cite in defending the value of the CIA's interrogations." [emphasis in original; Greenwald, 8/29/09]
ABC says reports "do not indicate whether such information was obtained as a result of controversial interrogation techniques." ABCNews.com reported that the CIA recently had released two memos that "former Vice President Dick Cheney requested earlier this year in an attempt to prove his assertion that using enhanced interrogation techniques on terror detainees saved U.S. lives." The article added that the "documents back up the Bush administration's claims that intelligence gleaned from captured terror suspects had thwarted terrorist attacks, but the visible portions of the heavily redacted reports do not indicate whether such information was obtained as a result of controversial interrogation techniques, such as waterboarding." [ABCNews.com, 8/25/09]
Newsweek: The "newly declassified material does not convincingly demonstrate" that EITs "produced ... useful information." Newsweek reported that the CIA reports show that "the CIA's interrogations of suspected terrorists provided U.S. authorities with precious inside information about Al Qaeda's leadership, structure, personnel, and operations." However, the article added that "the newly declassified material does not convincingly demonstrate" that "the agency's use of 'enhanced interrogation techniques' -- including sleep deprivation, stress positions, violent physical contact, and waterboarding" was what "produced this useful information. In fact, though two of the newly released CIA reports offer examples of the kind of details that detainees surrendered, the reports do not say what information came as a result of harsh interrogation methods and what came from conventional questioning." Newsweek also reported that "based on this evidence, it is impossible to tell whether waterboarding and other brutal methods really were more effective than nonviolent techniques in extracting credible, useful information from Abu Zubaydah or other detainees." [Newsweek, 8/25/09]
Los Angeles Times: Documents offer "little to support the argument that harsh or abusive methods played a key role." The Los Angeles Times reported that the CIA documents "are at best inconclusive" as to the EITs effectiveness and offer "little to support the argument that harsh or abusive methods played a key role." [Los Angeles Times, 8/26/09]
Transcripts
From the August 31 edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends:
BRIAN KILMEADE (co-host): In newly declassified material, evidence has shown that Khalid Shaikh Mohammed was not cooperating at all until they started the high-intensity interrogations. His spirit was broken. After his capture -- March 1, 2003 -- he told old stuff. And then after the -- after the -- the interrogation started picking up steam, he began to tell all the stuff. Here is Vice President Dick Cheney on the methods used and the results that were gotten from Khalid Shaikh Mohammed's talk.
CHENEY [video clip]: The interesting thing about these is it shows that Khalid Shaikh Mohammed and Abu Zubaydah provided the overwhelming majority of reports on Al Qaeda; that they were, as it says, pivotal in the war against Al Qaeda. The application of enhanced interrogation techniques, specifically waterboarding, especially in the case of Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, is what really persuaded him he needed to cooperate.
DOOCY: OK, so there you go. It worked. It kept -- kept us safe. That's what we've been hearing from the George W. Bush administration over the last six months or so.
KILMEADE: But Steve, I would even say this, from the CIA inspector general John Helgerson -- not from George Bush.
DOOCY: Right.
KILMEADE: This is just as the CIA said -- we have an inspector general that goes in there and decides what the conclusions are. This is the conclusions that Dick Cheney says this is a portion of what I wanted to release. It was released in Saturday's Washington Post.
DOOCY: Right.
From the August 31 edition of MSNBC's Morning Joe:
SCARBOROUGH: Pat Buchanan, John McCain saying that the CIA program didn't work. It actually created more terrorists. What say you, sir?
BUCHANAN: I think certainly John McCain is in part right when he says revelation that torture and things like this were used on prisoners damages the United States and is used as a tool of recruitment by Al Qaeda. I have no doubt about that, and I have no doubt that Abu Ghraib was very damaging and helped Al Qaeda recruit.
At the same time, Joe, I have no doubt that Vice President Cheney is also correct that these enhanced interrogation methods, threatening people with mock executions, threatening them with drills, these things -- sleep deprivation -- apparently elicited an enormous -- an enormous amount of information, from what I've read, about Al Qaeda plots, about their identity of their people in the United States, and that it was a successful program.
SCARBOROUGH: We waterboarded three people.
BUCHANAN: So I think they're both right.
SCARBOROUGH: And we waterboarded three people. Khalid Shaikh Mohammed gave us a remarkable treasure trove of intel. For months, there'd been lies that have been propagated that no good information was passed. Even Khalid Shaikh Mohammed said a couple of months ago, "Oh, I just made things up." Yeah, you made things up that led our agents to understand the entire -- the entire -- setup of Al Qaeda. And we --
BUCHANAN: You know, Joe, they got this -- this one fellow in Ohio -- sleeper agent, truck driver out there -- right away he's being arrested. Other folks are being arrested in New York. And all manner of these plots were revealed by this fellow, and eventually, when he was turned, he gets up, and he's conducting a seminar laying out all the details of it for the United States. An unbelievable treasure trove of information.
SCARBOROUGH: And he actually -- Khalid Shaikh Mohammed -- and this will come out -- we've actually talked about it here. Khalid Shaikh Mohammed would set up, after the waterboarding and everything else, things had leveled off, he would -- he would set up a -- they would give him a dry erase board, and he would conduct three-hour lectures on how Al Qaeda worked. And he would actually -- he would lecture the CIA agents.
If they started to fall asleep, and he'd be like, "This is important. This is an important part." There is so much stuff that's going to come out. When The Washington Post actually started writing about this, there are a lot of people that are going to look so unbelievably stupid for the ignorant things they've been saying over the -- if you wanted -- if you want to debate the morals of this, as I've been saying from the beginning, say we're better than this as a country.
MIKA BRZEZINSKI (co-host): Right.
SCARBOROUGH: Say it's immoral.
BRZEZINSKI: Right.
SCARBOROUGH: Say that this violates our -- make those moral arguments if you want. But, please, the argument that this never worked is just -- it's insanity.
BRZEZINSKI: Well, but I think -- I'm not sure everyone's trying to make that argument.
SCARBOROUGH: Getting intel --
BRZEZINSKI: Harold Ford Jr. --
SCARBOROUGH: -- no, most people -- can we read The Washington Post.
BRZEZINSKI: Well, I think we can get some bad information, too. So I think there's the balance of the overall effect of it that needs to be looked at. And Harold Ford Jr., wouldn't you argue that there is some value at looking back at what we have done? I know, there's going to be some [inaudible].
SCARBOROUGH: Can we read The Washington Post article before the show's over?
BRZEZINSKI: Fine.
SCARBOROUGH: If that's OK?
BRZEZINSKI: Yes.
SCARBOROUGH: Before the show's over. And, by the way, if you get bad intel, Mika, you know what you find out? You find out it's bad intel, and then you circle back. But if you get intel that there's a truck driver in Ohio -- a sleeper agent in Ohio -- and you hear this from two or three different -- you find out that actually it's good intel. And, again, the facts are out there. The truth is getting known now.
BRZEZINSKI: I'm not disputing your argument.
SCARBOROUGH: And that's why newspapers like The Washington Post are having to back up now and say, "Oh, wait a second. This did work."
No, No, "lets Threaten to Rape his wife instead"
"Hey what about the kiddies lets threaten them to"
"Hey we're Americans, that's the least we can do"
Speak truth to power.
Mr. News
Torture is sick.
Sorry, but it is satire. In "A Modest Proposal," Johnathan Swift proposed that the English should eat Irish babies. It is a famous case of satire.
No sir... what is in poor taste is that any American under any circumstance can actually stare into a camera and defend torture done in our names!
What is in poor taste... is that any American, at any time, thought it was okay to ever torture knowing that this country DOES NOT TORTURE!
While I agree with you... sorta, that Mr. News' attempt at satire was not the best idea... it does not take away what it was that he was trying to say...
That Dick Cheney and several other right-wing crackpots have actually defended torture!
As an American I am appalled at the notion that torture of any kind done by another American is acceptable if it leads to the safety of one of our cities... by going down this road WE LOSE our rights to be able to be the beacon of light, we lose our credibility, and we lose any ability to look upon the Constitution as our basis for liberty, freedom, and laws!
Perhaps if we stopped stepping on other peoples toes and telling others how to live or what kind of government they should have... we very likely would not have worry about any of our cities being attacked again!!!
Moralizing and advocating any form of torture is sick, despicable, and un-American! PERIOD. End of story!
As I read this quote from captfoster2, "As an American I am appalled at the notion that torture of any kind done by another American is acceptable if it leads to the safety of one of our cities... by going down this road WE LOSE our rights to be able to be the beacon of light, we lose our credibility, and we lose any ability to look upon the Constitution as our basis for liberty, freedom, and laws!" I had to cringe a little bit. I had to cringe at the thought that there actually exist American citizens who are so caught up in what their idea of a "Sunday School America" looks like in their mind that they don't see the forrest for the trees.
The mere fact that you said you find it unacceptable to stop a major terrorist attack on an American city that would inevitably cost hundreds if not thousands of lives absolutely astounds me. Then, to make things even more ridiculous and water-colored, you have the nerve to cite the Constitution as something that is sacred and governing!? What the crap?
There's only one issue that the Constitution gives the Federal Government full responsibility of, which is to protect the citizenry. I would even say that it provides the government to protect the citizenry AT ALL COSTS!
If you want to be "appalled by the notion" that I (and millions of others) feel absolutely no sympathy at all for jihadist terrorists by endorsing "enhanced interrogation techniques" then you go right ahead and be appalled. It's not like we (the masses of individuals living in reality) are advocating the practice of pulling out toe nails or making prisoners sleep on a bed of razor sharp nails!
Get real! We're talking about WATER BOARDING for God's sake! We're talking about sleep deprivation! We're talking about playing annoying sounds on a loud speaker for hours on end! What the heck is wrong with you? You're an absolute fool if you think we can reason with or simply talk to these types of people!
Don't even try to use the Constitution as your reason for defending your ill-minded sympathy for people who force little boys and girls to strap explosives on to their person and walk into a crowded marketplace where they'll end up killing someone's mom, dad, son, or daughter! You don't get to pick and choose which parts of the Constitution you think are morally worthy to follow or not! If you're going to cite the Constitution as the "end all, be all" then you ought to be screaming with all of your might about the obvious disregard the Obama administration is showing for the Constitution!
In the short amount of time that Obama has been president, he has managed to do things that have NEVER been done before in our nation's history. Yet, you want to cite the Constitution as your grounds of moral superiority when it comes to saving American's lives? What gives?
I won't at all be surprised if Obama one day decides to select and personally appoint a "Constitution Czar". I'll let your mind go wild thinking about the "job duties" that he would bestow upon this "Czar"!
Wake up...please? Pretty please????
That's a false Jack Bauer fantasy. Please return to reality. What you stated NEVER HAPPENED and likely NEVER WILL.
Torture is illegal. No lives were saved by torture. Don't you think Cheney would be all over the airwaves if even ONE plot had been stopped using torture?
I don't think anyone is expressing sympathy for terrorists. Not at all. We're trying to hold ourselves to a higher standard, not them.
There has been no "ticking time bomb" scenario, ala 24 that you guys like to promote. Hasn't happened. And even if it did, torture would not provide actionable intelligence, you guys forget about that part.
Bo torturing terrorism suspects, we are not providing for the protection of our people. What we're doing is inciting others to commit heinous acts against our country.
What has Obama done, in his time being President, that has "never been done before"? Please, cite some examples instead of talking out of somewhere else.
Constitution Czar, that's a good one. You do know, that we have 3 equal branches of government right? What do you think he's going to do? Tear down the document and basis for our laws that he sworn to protect? Get a grip man.
Torture is illegal. The people who committed torture are criminals.
Well, magnolia, according to Kleiny and the other cowards who choose fear and party over principles, wouldn't Obama be allowed to tear up the Consitution if it fell under the banner of protecting us "AT ALL COSTS"?
"There's only one issue that the Constitution gives the Federal Government full responsibility of, which is to protect the citizenry. I would even say that it provides the government to protect the citizenry AT ALL COSTS!" - Kleiny
Please show me where in the Constitution it lays out the idea that government is allowed to do anything "AT ALL COSTS". This is the statement of a cowardly madman who believes that anything is justifiable so long as it allows you to sleep at night. Clearly you lack the understanding to comprehend that in a free society there is never absolute security. That's the price we pay to be free. Does surrendering our freedoms fall under "AT ALL COSTS"? You also lack the knowledge to even understand that the whole point behind the writings of the founding fathers and their strong belief in separation of powers is that no leader gets to decide he is allowed to live under the "AT ALL COSTS" rule. NO ONE! The executive answers to the legislative, they are to maintain oversight. Would you justify a president declaring himself king and unable to leave office because it would endanger us if he did? The executive is supposed to be the weakest branch of government. They do not get to decide to torture people because Kleiny wets his bed every night having nightmares about terrorists.
As with all important principles, it has NOTHING to do with the terrorists. It is not about them, Kleiny. It is about US. We have principles of freedom and life and liberty and we do not surrender them out of fear. We do not surrender them even at the cost of death. I think if you spend even an hour researching the men whose ideas founded this nation you will find that death is not the worst thing that can happen to a man. Sacrificing your principles as a man and as a nation because you're so scared of "jihadist terrorists" is worse than death.
"You're an absolute fool if you think we can reason with or simply talk to these types of people!" - Kleiny
You are woefully ignorant of how an actual interrogation bears fruit. You do not torture a man to get a truthful answer. Learn your world history. Torture is used to force men to give you the answer you want or they think you want, not to get the truth. Once again, a simple concept proven over and over and over again throughout history that you seem unaware of. You are an absolute fool if you think beating prisoners gets better results of honesty in interrogations than the tried and true interrogation methods of the professionals that have been researched and studied and used for generations.
"In the short amount of time that Obama has been president, he has managed to do things that have NEVER been done before in our nation's history. Yet, you want to cite the Constitution as your grounds of moral superiority when it comes to saving American's lives? What gives?"
Please show us where Obama has done anything that could be considered unconstitutional or "NEVER done before in our nation's history" by an unbiased mind. You have devolved into partisan madness. You lack the courage to sustain your principles when the world becomes a scary place. You also lack the understanding of the role of the executive branch and the clear role of the legislative branch for oversight of the executive, specifically for such important issues as defense of our nation and the handling of prisoners of war.
Again, prisoners were murdered in our custody. They didn't die from hearing annoying sounds. We tortured them to death.
Mr. News was pointing out how SICK torture and its apologists are. Satire.
My personal opinion is that you got a little offended by someone labeling you as a sinister, yet hypocritical, arm-chair satirist. I honestly don't think it's satire if you have to explain that it was satire, too.
Don't be so touchy in the future! Just a bit of advice.
Please take a moment to read the article and then decide if Bad News is being satirical or sick.
Bad news is anonymous poster. Seymour Hersh is not. If what he reported could not be backed up with facts, I am confident the previous administration would have hanged him.
If you take issue with "Hey we're Americans, that's the least we can do", I cannot disagree with you. However, that would be ignoring the substance and nitpicking.
I was a Permanent Resident till 2004. After Abu Ghraib scandal, I decided to become an American Citizen and eventually became one. Before that, I was a citizen of a certain developing country where allegations of police torture, extra judicial killings were, if not rampant, common and I thought that should not be.
Thanks for reading, thinking.
If I'm understanding you correctly then you just elluded to the notion that President Bush had some kind of Death Star Vulcan Strangle Hold on the press and could somehow magically reach into the masses of editorial writers and have them just disappear?! Is that what you're saying?
If it is then may I ask if you've even been in this country (seriously) prior to 2009? Did you not see the daily onslaught of editorial attacks aimed at President Bush? My God...they just kept coming and coming and coming! The press (New York Times, to be exact) even decided to write classified information and publish them so that all thirteen of their readers could read it...REGARDLESS OF THE INSTANT DAMAGE IT WOULD DO TO OUR COUNTRY!!!
Wow! It would appear that "someone" needs to get their news and information from sites other than the Huffington Post, DailyKos, or Media Matters! There's a whole other (realistic) world out there just waiting for you to discover it!
Can you cite anything factually wrong with what is posted on Huffington Post? I visit the cite infrequently so I am not completely confident you will not be able to.
On the other hand, do you agree Fox News spreads misinformation (subjective) and occasianlly lies?
And here's a great speech by Gen.George S. Patton on Iraq, Iran, and the war on terrorism.
Torture DOESN'T WORK and has NEVER worked. It creates a roadblock to real intelligence gathering.
NO BETTER
Really so telling someone you going to kill his kids (and not doing it) is just as bad a cutting peoples throats and dragging them through the street.
The US has singed the Geneva conventions, which forbid torture. Any treaty signed by the US is law.
That is false. The GC in no way state that terrorists are not protected, but there are clauses to provide for special cases such as them.
"Should any doubt arise as to whether persons, having committed a belligerent act and having fallen into the hands of the enemy, belong to any of the categories enumerated in Article 4, such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal."
The Supreme Court in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld has not required that neither members of al Qaeda nor their allies, including members of the Taliban, must be granted POW status. [2] However, the Supreme Court stated that the Geneva Conventions, most notably the Third Geneva Convention and also article 3 of the Fourth Geneva Convention (requiring humane treatment) applies to all detainees in the War on Terror. In July 2004, following Hamdi v. Rumsfeld—ruling the Bush administration began using Combatant Status Review Tribunals to determine whether the detainees could be held as "enemy combatants".[78]
link
It disgusts me when idiots try to lower ourselves to the level of the terrorists. And, fmp, here's the beauty of the whole debate - torture does NOT garner intelligence.
And idiots like fairliberal/highliter just need their pound of flesh/revenge/Jack Bauer fantasy to sleep soundly at night.
It's a sickness, but one that I believe can be cured...kind of like alcoholism or pedophelia urges.
Repeat after me: Torture is illegal. Torture produces bad intelligence. Torture wastes valuable resources.
Please show me where torture is legal. Then you will have won you case. Until then, have another cup of tea.
What a completely bizarre post. I quoted the actual Supreme Court decision to back up my contention. In contrast, you rant. Yet we are the ones who don't use logic and facts?
And ALL of those forbid torture.
Can you even come close to proving that.
It's not as if this wasn't reported. It has happened.
Ten Murders in US Prisons in Afghanistan
"over 100 deaths by US torture..."
Majority of supposed terrorists in Gitmo, were not charged, convicted of anything.
Neither you nor I are qualified to make such a dumb generalization...and I highly doubt you were/are a CIA operative who can legitimize such a widespread liberal talking point.
BTW, it's not a liberal talking point, it's the opinion of psychologists, CIA agents, military officers, etc. Doesn't work. The tortured individual will say anything in order to make the torture stop.
Having said that, the point is moot. Torture is illegal.
It's not a liberal talking point, it's the truth.
Story 1
Story 2
Story 3
Story 4
Story 5
It should be, but in many right wingers' minds, the guy holding the thumb screws determines that--just like in the medieval ages. The right wing wants to bring us back to the 50's--the 1350s!
I can't believe that there are Americans that actually think that torture of any kind is okay for a Representative Democratic Republic to do!
This coming from a person who probably applauded when President Bush had a shoe thrown at him in Iraq.
This coming from a person who probably thinks that all military personnel are swine and deserve to be hated and maligned.
This coming from a person who probably protested the presence of America in Iraq and Afghanistan, but has remained remarkably quiet over the past nine months regarding the exact same issue (yeah, sweetie...we're STILL over there!).
I'm gonna say this and I hope you can imagine a big, fat smile on my face: I LOVE THE FACT THAT WE HAVE MEN AND WOMEN WHOSE JOB IT IS TO EXTRACT INFORMATION FROM JIHADIST BARBARIANS BY ANY MEANS NECESSARY! I'd sleep better at night if I knew that jihadist thugs around the world were scared to death of the thought of being captured by American soldiers! I love the thought of a jihadist going into an interrogation room with a full set of teeth, yet walking out of said room with a few missing! I not only think it is necessary, but I also think it is awesome! We're not doing to these murderers what John McCain had done to him so you've gotta forgive me for imagining you as a spineless welfarecrat with a state school education and a Volvo plastered with bumper stickers. I guess I could be wrong about you, but stereotypes exist for a reason. I'm reasonably sure you could peg me, too.
You do realize that most of the people we tortured haven't been convicted of anything. In fact, how many "barbarians" have been tried and convicted?
Only the ones who perpetrated the first WTC bombing. By the Clinton administration.
Again, show me where torture is legal. then you have a winner.
I don't give a crap about you opinion on torture. There are laws against it. Now, come on, you must have proof that torture is legal..or you wouldn't be so sure of yourself.
Just hand over the link. Then you can be the hero again.
I really love you self-righteous right-wing thugs... you amuse me! You wrote in the post above 5 paragraphs... 4 short and 1 long one...
Yes
A resounding yes (only, I was upset that the poor guy... MISSED!!)
A resounding NO! My grandpa fought in WWII, my dad Korea, my brother-in-law, the Gulf War I... and do not dare to presume that I feel that way about our military, you bastard or beotch?!?! I do however feel that today's version of Republicans are SWINE and some Democrats! In fact, so are any politician that sends our boys and girls into unnecessary wars (like Iraq!). I can understand the need to have attacked Afghanistan... Iraq did nothing to us and is why I'm still hard-core dead set against us being there!
As for our presence in Iraq! You can place your feeble mind at ease as I can assure you that I have been as vocal against our presence there the last 9 months as I had been the previous 7 1/2 years!!
Your last paragraph proves only one thing... you have zero love for America! I stand by this fully! That you can stand there and actually say that you sleep better knowing that America is willing to ignore its own laws, its Constitution, it moral high ground (assuming it has any left) tells me all I need to know about you!
It appalls me to know that you or any other American can be so ignorant to just how and why those jihadist's exist... (see my post below of the pictures) perhaps if you consider the corporate influences upon our government and delve into the history of why the Middle East hates us so much (Peter Lance's book: 1000 Years For Revenge is a good start and so is Naomi Klein's: The Shock Doctrine) you might get an idea of how seriously misplaced you anger is!
And your wrong again... I have a 13 year old Nissan with bumper stickers 'plastered' all over it!
I pegged you from your first post, Kleiny. But not because of stereotypes or even your ignorant, ill-informed, child-like rants. Because you choose fear over principles. Because you believe we can justify anything we do because we are the good guys. Because you lack the ability to understand that America is great not because we chant USA USA or God Bless America, but because our ideas are better. Our principles are sound. Because you would clearly sacrifice these principles so that you can "sleep at night". Yes, I had you pegged from the first paragraph you posted. You are a coward, Kleiny.
Yes, that's great. You produce a fictional speech to back up your claim. I guess since there were no WMDs, and the whole war was based on fiction, why not go all the way and use a cartoon character to back up your point?
And that says a lot about the first part of your post, in which you don't care if we torture Should we torture gang leaders and people like Timothy McVeigh as well?
Oh no... he had them alright...
All handed to him on a silver platter by none other than...
At the behest of...
Oops... my bad... I meant...
and...
Okay... I really mean the one on the right... but it's possible the one on the left may have had something to do with it?
Yes, I do. It is pretty clear now. He did so after the first Gulf War.
>>I assume by gang leaders you are referring to people here in America, they along with McVeigh are entitled to protection under our laws. Terrorists and unlawful combatants are not.
But McVeigh is also a terrorist, so your statement contradicts itself. If you think that McVeigh shouldn't have been tortured to get more information (as well as gang leaders) that hypothetically could have saved more lives, than why do you think foreign terrorists should be. Also, as I noted above, the US, having signed the Geneva Conventions, is bound by them, and they forbid torture. There is no such thing as "unlawful combatant" in international law; Bush simply made up a category to skirt the law.
I won't explain because I'm hoping that there might come a moment of clarity for you which will turn into an enlightening experience, but I will give you a hint...a very basic, simple hint:
there's a rathe HUGE difference between McVeigh/gang leaders and jihadist terrorists from any one of more than a dozen middle eastern countries.
Care to guess what that difference is? I know you can do it! Put that public school education to use! Or feel free to phone a friend!
kleiny, you better get your updated decoder ring from Rush or Seannie.
Again, is there legalized torture?
Yes, you won't explain because you can't. That seems to be one of the right wing's tactics in these boards lately. "I have proof--but I wont' show you, because you can look it up in google!" And "I have better logic than you, but I wont' show you because you are so dumb."
If you really had an argument, you would state it.
But like any genius, both had glaring flaws. We shouldn't be looking to either for inspiration on how to deal with prisoners.
The goal is to protect our country, and keep our people safe. If we have to play by their terrorist's rules to do so then so be it.
The ones that Beck and Hannity say we have lost.
Now, what where they???? I am sure Beck will tell me tonight at 5PM ET
You jackass! By playing down to their rules... WE ARE LETTING THEM WIN!!
Every time we torture.... every time we invade a country because we are afraid of our own shadows.... every time we undermine our own laws and Constitution... every time we terrorize the terrorists...
WE are giving them undo credibility and quite literally asking the terrorists to attack one of our cities! When will the madness stop?
We are supposed to be better.
We are supposed to be the "shining city on the hill."
By stooping to the terrorists level, ie, torture, we have lost, and given the terrorists one thing that they want. We have made ourselves look bad within the Muslim world, and our credibility has taken a hit within that said same world. For years, terrorists, and radicals have told their followers, or just regular people that listen, that America was the Great Satan, that we were going to destroy their people, rape their women, and kill their sons.
And guess what we did? We played into their hands, and did that, and much more. I always hear conservatives say how bad Hussein was by imprisoning and torturing his own people. Well, we ain't much better in that regards (although we've done less of it), because we did the same things he did.
Torture is wrong. Torture is illegal, and overall, and again, it provides intelligence that is not valid, or good.
Torture is illegal.
Torture doesn't work.
Torture is immoral.
So basically you're supporting an illegal, unproductive, immoral torture policy just because you want you Jack Bauer fantasy.
Call it EITs or torture, I dont care
It does not always work, but sometimes it does
It is immoral to let our citizens die when we could prevent it.
Find me a war in history where torture of some form was not used. If you want to argue that war itself is immoral, than that is another debate. As far as what we do once the war starts.....we do what we have to do. Period.
Torture, as we keep saying, is illegal. The forms and methods of EITs that we're talking about, is torture.
Torture, does not work (as has been said by intelligence experts and interrogators).
Find me a war when it's been acknowledged as torture being "OK". You can't.
So because we are fighting people that have no morals or values, you want us to be like them so that we might save Americans? If you can show me one incident of where torturing someone saved americans I'd be amazed.
Then maybe you'd better join the SPLC. Because the greater threat to me and my family is not some Middle East terrorists, but rather the nutjob pistol packin' teabaggers on marching orders from Beck and O'Reilly blowing up/shooting up the building I happen to be in.
Dr. Tiller. The baby killer.
Find me a war in history where torture of some form was not used.
The US never tortured (until recently). And you seem to conveniently forget that we prosecuted and EXECUTED those Japanese soldiers who waterboarded our POWs.
First, torture doesn't work. But if we use that logic, then we should also torture Timothy McVeigh and gang leaders, who would have knowledge of future attacks. Likewise, we should torture Mob leaders, who also have similar knowledge. If you are for torturing these types of people, then you are against the constitution, which strictly forbids it. If you think we should only torture foreign terrorists, then your argument makes no sense, because you would be forbidding a tool (in your own logic, that is) that could stop more deaths.
If you want to argue that the ends justify the means, then we can justify almost anything.
2. The constitution was not established to, nor does it, protect terrorists. Period. You want to argue about the mob or the gang, we can do that, but the constitution does protect them. It does NOT protect a foreign born terrorist on foreign soil. Period.
You still dont think we should not use those techniques to protect Americans. I Do.
True. Those who say it doesn't work include the actual interrogators, intelligence experts, and anyone with a brain and a moral compass who follows the rule of law.
Those who say it does work include Jack Bauer admirers, bedwetters, sadists, and un-American traitors.
No. Experts say it doesn't work.
>>The constitution was not established to, nor does it, protect terrorists. Period. You want to argue about the mob or the gang, we can do that,
The law does protect them, as I pointed out above. The USA has singed the Geneva conventions, and the US Supreme Court has affirmed that the prisoners in Guantamo are protected under section 5.
More to the point, the constitution has nothing to do with it. If you think it is okay to torture people to save lives, then you think we should torture mob leaders, gang leaders, etc. In fact, you can justify torturing anyone with the ends-justifies-the-means argument.
You failed to address the lack of logic in your point, instead using a red herring of the US constitution. Your point is completely illogical.
That statement is a classic example of begging the question. You have not even come close to establishing that "those techniques" do protect America. You assume that if you repeat your assertion, it will prove itself.
More to the point, you contradict your own assertion! If you think torture elicits information that can protect American lives, than you should be for torturing gang members and mob leaders. Since you don't seem to advocate that position, by your own logic you don't think we "should use those techniques to protect Americans"
Who said that? You assumed that, no one actually said that!
The point is that if we (America) are to be seen as the beacon of light to life and liberty or right and wrong, then we can't lower ourselves to the level of our enemies!
Look at what that kind of policy has done to Israel...
You do realize that in Iraq, Iran, hell, even North Korea there was candle light vigils across the globe in response to the 9/11 attacks. 10's of million's of Muslims were as appalled by the 9/11 attacks as we American's were! And yet, Bush/Cheney squandered all that good will by attacking Iraq and making things 100 times worse because Bush just had to be a war president!
The French paper La Monde even went so far as to say that "We are all American's now"... and look at the response of the right-wing to the French a year later simply because they were against invading Iraq.
We had the full backing of the world and could have ended any future threats by using 9/11 as a way to end terrorism... by showing the images of that day to drive it home to the world and stop the expansion of multi-national corporations from using every disaster as a money making scheme!
As I said in an earlier post... read Naomi Klein's "The Shock Doctrine"
With friends like American foreign policy, who really needs enemies?
BTW, a terrorist is anyone who uses FEAR to control the opinions and mores of a population of people. Looks like the ones who hit us on 9/11 won with you. You want us to change our moral code to be equal to that of the people who attacked us. That's sad.
Amazing how well that torture works, huh? Getting people to confess to planning to bomb a building which hadn't even been envisioned yet and getting people to confess to planning to bomb a building before one is even in custody. Amazing.
We have been training our troops using water-boarding to prepare them for this in the event they are captured.
Experts say that the key here is that a 'good' torture sequence will produce whatever the victim believes is needed to get the torture stopped - regardless of it's validity.
Rudolf Höss, Commandant of Auschwitz until 1943, in his post-war testimony
I see . .