Conservatives Start Speaking Out Against Torture

[tigerbob]

You tend not to die from having your fingernails pulled out as well.

Must not be torture, then. I understand that being repeatedly electrocuted is rarely fatal, either.

If Al Qaeda waterboarded a U.S. Marine I would be outraged about it.

 

[Maple]

I can't beleive that we are still debating this, we are kicking a dead horse to death over this issue. While some people believe that waterboarding is torture you will never convince others that it is. There will be disagreement on this forever. I would feel it torture to throw a person in a room full of non-leathal snakes, but waterboarding, hmmmm.

The truth will come out on all of this, but the most important issue here, is that our PRESIDENT RELEASED THOSE DOCUMENTS AGAINST THE ADVISE OF 4 FORMER CIA DIRECTORS INCLUDING HIS CURRENT ONE. We are debating torture??? What about worrying about the safety of American citizens. Pictures of this so-called torture are going to be released very soon, inflaming the fanatics that want to kill us all. OUR PRESIDENT DID THIS TO APPEASE THE ALCU AND MOVE ON DOT.org. He has increased our risk as our allies will be reluctant to release information to him, because they are afraid that the move on.org and the ALCU will get ahold of this and in turn jeopardize their security and the security of their operatives in the field and the citizens of their countries. I just don't understand why people do not see the deeper issue here.

I think that their is an extreme NAIVETEVITY that persists even after 9-11. People don't TRULY comprehend that there is EVIL in this world that wants to MURDER innocent men, women and even our own children to further their domination of this world. Maybe everyone needs to refresh their memories and watch 9-11 again, see the coverage of Daniel Pearl, see the fanatics dancing and cheering in the streets after the two towers fell and remember that those FANATICS are still EVIL and still COMMITTED to DESTROYING the FREE WORLD. IT'S NOT THEM THAT'S CHANGED, IT'S US THAT HAS.

 

[KittenKoder]

You tend not to die from having your fingernails pulled out as well.

Must not be torture, then. I understand that being repeatedly electrocuted is rarely fatal, either.

If Al Qaeda waterboarded a U.S. Marine I would be outraged about it.

Aaah ... but would they give any valid or useful info for it?

 

[tigerbob]

Must not be torture, then. I understand that being repeatedly electrocuted is rarely fatal, either.

If Al Qaeda waterboarded a U.S. Marine I would be outraged about it.

Aaah ... but would they give any valid or useful info for it?

Hmmmm. Outraged or not, I do understand that in times of war, shit happens.

 

[catzmeow]

The source for this claim: John Kiriakou of the CIA.

The problems with his claim: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/28/business/media/28abc.html?_r=1

Mr. Zubaydah started to cooperate after being waterboarded for “probably 30, 35 seconds,” Mr. Kiriakou told the ABC reporter Brian Ross. “From that day on he answered every question.”

His claims — unverified at the time, but repeated by dozens of broadcasts, blogs and newspapers — have been sharply contradicted by a newly declassified Justice Department memo that said waterboarding had been used on Mr. Zubaydah “at least 83 times.”

Some critics say that the now-discredited information shared by Mr. Kiriakou and other sources heightened the public perception of waterboarding as an effective interrogation technique. “I think it was sanitized by the way it was described” in press accounts, said John Sifton, a former lawyer for Human Rights Watch, an advocacy group.

During the heated debate in 2007 over the use of waterboarding and other techniques, Mr. Kiriakou’s comments quickly ricocheted around the media. But lost in much of the coverage was the fact that Mr. Kiriakou had no firsthand knowledge of the waterboarding: He was not actually in the secret prison in Thailand where Mr. Zubaydah had been interrogated but in the C.I.A. headquarters in Northern Virginia. He learned about it only by reading accounts from the field.
On “World News,” ABC included only a caveat that Mr. Kiriakou himself “never carried out any of the waterboarding.” Still, he told ABC that the actions had “disrupted a number of attacks, maybe dozens of attacks.” A video of the interview was no longer on ABC's website.

“It works, is the bottom line,” Rush Limbaugh exclaimed on his radio show the next day. “Thirty to 35 seconds, and it works.”

Those of you who are claiming that waterboarding works...have been somewhat mislead. And, I guess in this instance, mislead is probably an inappropriately polite term. I'd say that you were lied to.

 

[catzmeow]

But by definition, it really is not.. now would I blame someone from trying to get it as a banned practice because of their feelings on it? Nope.... I am just against sensationalizing the issue to use as yet another partisan shit-storm...

By definition, it IS IN FACT TORTURE, and in fact, constitutes a war crime for which we have prosecuted other nations in the past.

So, yeah. It's torture.

 

[KittenKoder]

If Al Qaeda waterboarded a U.S. Marine I would be outraged about it.

Aaah ... but would they give any valid or useful info for it?

Hmmmm. Outraged or not, I do understand that in times of war, shit happens.

But would the US marine break and give damaging information under the pressure of torture?

 

[Just A Man]

Everyone should ask themselves this question: If Ben Laden had been captured and waterboarding him prevented the 9-11 attacks would they be for waterboarding?

If the answer is "No" then they should ask themselves if waterboarding a prisoner prevented the death of their spouse or child would they be for it? If that answer is "No" then they are truly against waterboarding.

If they answered "Yes" to either question, then they are for waterboarding.

Just be truthful to yourself

 

[catzmeow]

More on where the mistaken idea that "waterboarding works" came from:

Brian Ross spread the same falsehoods about the Khalid Sheik Mohammed interrogation - Glenn Greenwald - Salon.com

In his Roll Call column, Mort Kondrake wrote that "the highest-ranking al Qaeda operative yet captured, Sept. 11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, held out for two and a half minutes before begging to talk. The CIA claims it got valuable information from him." National Review's Rich Lowry echoed the claim: " Most terrorism suspects can't withstand waterboarding for more than 14 seconds, and KSM impressed his interrogators by holding out for more than two minutes." Another of National Review's super tough-guy warriors, Deroy Murdock, wrote: "Khalid Sheik Mohammed was silent until exposed to a few minutes of highly uncomfortable but non-lethal waterboarding, after which he babbled like a teenage girl on the telephone."

This claim that Mohammed lasted less than 3 minutes before confessing everything was repeatedly cited on CNN, MSNBC and by other news outlets and countless pundits as proof that (a) waterboarding works to save American lives; (b) it works almost immediately; and therefore (c) it is hard to call it "torture" since it only lasts for seconds. Indeed, Ross' report was cited to bolster one of the central arguments made by those who insisted that waterboarding could not be "torture" because individuals are subjected to it for such a short duration. Yet all along, Ross' report about Mohammed -- like his report about Zubaydah -- was based on nothing more than his mindless recitation of what unnamed Bush administration sources whispered to him about Mohammed's interrogation treatment, and it was false from start to finish.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Torturing prisoner is IMMORAL as well as usually being counterproductive.

It's bad enough that modern warfare excuses itself for the huge number of so called unfortunate "collatoral" damages, but to trying to rationalize torturing people is simply totally beyond the moral pale.

Well sure... I say the left is redefining torture and PRESTO... a leftist pops into demonstrate just that... (Sometimes even I am amazed at just how cooperative these people can be...)

The premise being projected above, requires the presumption that we're TORTURING PRISONERS... that those prisoners are PRESUMED INNOCENT, as is the case in Conventional war... wherein Uniformed combat troops are recognized as lawful combatants; meaning that they are operating within the REASONABLE< JUSTIFIABLE< WHOLLY ACCEPTABLE LAWS OF THEIR NATION< FIGHTING FOR THE PRESERVATION OF THAT NATION WITHIN THE SCOPE OF REASONABLE< JUSTIFIABLE< WHOLLY ACCEPTABLE>>>INTERNATIONAL LAW... they are innocent, in that they are merely advancing the war wherein the Sovereign interests of their nation is being served; and where they are in most cases, unable to decide otherwise.

When in POINT OF FACT; we are not TORTURING ANYONE... PERIOD.

The only means of even projecting the accusation is BY REDEFINING THE WORD TO INCLUDE WHAT IS DEFINED AS COERCIVE INTERROGATION; WHEREIN SIGNIFICANT DISCOMFORT IS APPLIED TO INDICE COOPERATION OF HIGH VALUE EXECUTIVES WITHIN A WHOLLY UNJUSTIFIED< ABSOLUTELY ILLEGAL AND MORALLY INVALID ASSOCATION OF MASS MURDERERS... and this FOR THE PURPOSES OF PRECLUDING TO THE EXTENT OF OUR MEANS... THE OPERATIONAL ACTIVITIES OF THAT ASSOCIATION: WHICH IS LIMITED TO NO OTHER ACTIVITY THAN THE MURDER OF MASSIVE NUMBER OF INNOCENT PEOPLE!

Which of course means that GARNERING SUCH INFORMATION IS A PERFECTLY JUSTIFIED AND WHOLLY ESSENTIAL MORAL IMPERATIVE DUE TO SUCH BEING CRITICAL TO THE SUSTAINING OF THE HUMAN RIGHTS OF THOSE INNOCENT HUMAN BEINGS.

Where our opposition is confused is in their inability to discern responsibility in those human rights and their inability to recognize that the terrorist enemy has forfeited their human rights, MEANIG THAT THEY HAVE NO HUMAN RIGHTS: because they have overtly sought to deprive other human beings of their rights...

Thus they clammer to protect the human rights, where none exist and in so doing FORFIET HUMAN RIGHTS WHERE THEY DO EXIST; it's the nature of evil... where one defines evil as deceit, trickery and the means to catastrophe.

 

[Maple]

an ideology that we are better than that persists here, we want to show the WORLD how great we are that we don't use TOUGH INTERROGATION TECHNIQUES, the problem is we may not be around after the next attack to show the world anything.

We certainly don't have a President that believes it is more important to protect Americans than it is to look good to the world. Lookin good, is everything to him, appease everyone, be popular to hell with the safety of American citizens.

 

[WillowTree]

you've made yer point, you've gotten your way.. just don't hand us no phony cries of sympathy.. take it tough. we know you are happy as hell to sacrifice each and every one of us.. we feel safe.

 

[DiamondDave]

Aaah ... but would they give any valid or useful info for it?

Hmmmm. Outraged or not, I do understand that in times of war, shit happens.

But would the US marine break and give damaging information under the pressure of torture?

Depends on their training, pain threshold, mental state, etc.... can't have a blanket answer... big difference between a fresh e-2 marine and a seasoned soldier who may have gone thru SEER training

 

[Iriemon]

The source for this claim: John Kiriakou of the CIA.

The problems with his claim: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/28/business/media/28abc.html?_r=1

Mr. Zubaydah started to cooperate after being waterboarded for “probably 30, 35 seconds,” Mr. Kiriakou told the ABC reporter Brian Ross. “From that day on he answered every question.”

His claims — unverified at the time, but repeated by dozens of broadcasts, blogs and newspapers — have been sharply contradicted by a newly declassified Justice Department memo that said waterboarding had been used on Mr. Zubaydah “at least 83 times.”

Some critics say that the now-discredited information shared by Mr. Kiriakou and other sources heightened the public perception of waterboarding as an effective interrogation technique. “I think it was sanitized by the way it was described” in press accounts, said John Sifton, a former lawyer for Human Rights Watch, an advocacy group.

During the heated debate in 2007 over the use of waterboarding and other techniques, Mr. Kiriakou’s comments quickly ricocheted around the media. But lost in much of the coverage was the fact that Mr. Kiriakou had no firsthand knowledge of the waterboarding: He was not actually in the secret prison in Thailand where Mr. Zubaydah had been interrogated but in the C.I.A. headquarters in Northern Virginia. He learned about it only by reading accounts from the field.
On “World News,” ABC included only a caveat that Mr. Kiriakou himself “never carried out any of the waterboarding.” Still, he told ABC that the actions had “disrupted a number of attacks, maybe dozens of attacks.” A video of the interview was no longer on ABC's website.

“It works, is the bottom line,” Rush Limbaugh exclaimed on his radio show the next day. “Thirty to 35 seconds, and it works.”

Those of you who are claiming that waterboarding works...have been somewhat mislead. And, I guess in this instance, mislead is probably an inappropriately polite term. I'd say that you were lied to.

And if you figure Mr. Kiriakou lied about the event of waterboarding, there's a good chance he lied about it providing any useful intel.

 

[KittenKoder]

Hmmmm. Outraged or not, I do understand that in times of war, shit happens.

But would the US marine break and give damaging information under the pressure of torture?

Depends on their training, pain threshold, mental state, etc.... can't have a blanket answer... big difference between a fresh e-2 marine and a seasoned soldier who may have gone thru SEER training

Okay ... so we'll say a well seasoned vet probably wouldn't then?

 

[WillowTree]

an ideology that we are better than that persists here, we want to show the WORLD how great we are that we don't use TOUGH INTERROGATION TECHNIQUES, the problem is we may not be around after the next attack to show the world anything.

We certainly don't have a President that believes it is more important to protect Americans than it is to look good to the world. Lookin good, is everything to him, appease everyone, be popular to hell with the safety of American citizens.

hey! we're gonna be dead and they're gonna be proud they held to their freaky little principles and they ain't gonna spam us with no phony sympathy.. see? everyone's happy

 

[editec]

Anybody trying to pass off the lie that waterboarding isn't torture is either seriously disinformed or simply condones torture.

I invite any of you to the editec compound where I will waterboard you for a few minutes.

THEN tell me it wasn't torturous.

Not a single person here trying to tell us that isn't torture will think it isn't torture ofter you go through a minute or to of the experience.

Oh yeah, one more thing?

If you waterboard people incorrectly they will die.

Why?

Because waterboarding is simply controlled drowding.

That's exactly WHY it's torture.

Because they are killing you by inches.

 

[catzmeow]

More on this subject, from the British Ambassador to Uzbekistan:

It was made plain to me in briefing in London before initial departure for Tashkent that Uzbekistan was a key ally in the War on Terror and to be treated as such. It was particularly important to the USA who valued its security cooperation and its provision of a major US airbase at Karshi-Khanabad.

As Ambassador in Uzbekistan I regularly received intelligence material released by MI6. This material was given to MI6 by the CIA, mostly originating from their Tashkent station. It was normally issued to me telegraphically by MI6 at the same time it was issued to UK ministers and officials in London.

From the start of my time as Ambassador, I was also receiving a continual stream of information about widespread torture of suspected political or religious dissidents in Tashkent. This was taking place on a phenomenal scale. In early 2003 a report by the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture, in the preparation of which my Embassy much assisted, described torture in Uzbekistan as “routine and systemic”.

The horror and staggering extent of torture in Uzbekistan is well documented and I have been informed by the Chair is not in the purview of the Joint Committee on Human Rights. But what follows goes directly to the question of UK non-compliance with the UN Convention Against Torture.

In gathering evidence from victims of torture, we built a consistent picture of the narrative which the torturers were seeking to validate from confessions under torture. They sought confessions which linked domestic opposition to President Karimov with Al-Qaida and Osama Bin Laden; they sought to exaggerate the strength of the terrorist threat in Central Asia.

People arrested on all sorts of pretexts – (I recall one involved in a dispute over ownership of a garage plot) suddenly found themselves tortured into confessing to membership of both the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan (IMU) and Al-Qaida. They were also made to confess to attending Al-Qaida training camps in Tajikistan and Afghanistan. In an echo of Stalin’s security services from which the Uzbek SNB had an unbroken institutional descent, they were given long lists of names of people they had to confess were also in IMU and Al-Qaida.It became obvious to me after just a few weeks that the CIA material from Uzbekistan was giving precisely the same narrative being extracted by the Uzbek torturers – and that the CIA “intelligence” was giving information far from the truth.

I was immediately concerned that British ministers and officials were being unknowingly exposed to material derived from torture, and therefore were acting illegally.

http://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2009/03/trying_again_my.html

This is what we did. This is who we have become.

Read it, and weep.

 

[WillowTree]

who are you trying to convince,?, hasn't the decision been made? all's left now is to live or die with it..

 

[WillowTree]

who are you trying to convince,? the decision has been made,, we live or die with it..it's all on you guys,, I feel safe..