Conservatives Start Speaking Out Against Torture

[xsited1]

 

[catzmeow]

Well, you are wrong. That is a naive point of view. The topic is not black and white because you can't even define "torture," and its as subjective as it gets.

Torture was defined in the 1940s, it was expanded upon in the 1960s, and it's definition remains consistent.

It is people on the far right who are attempting to IGNORE the historic definition of torture, and activities that have historically comprised torture, such as waterboarding.

It is black and white.

 

[catzmeow]

Nothing fallacious about my argument at all. Don't try and act like you just joined this board today and nobody's ever read any of your posts before.

My argument is quite logical while yours appeals only to YOUR definition and YOUR emotions as evidence by all your "moral outrage."

Stop your fucking whining. If you're going to argue like a leftwingnut, you're going to get hammered like one.

Your post was completely illogical, and I'm not whining. I'm pointing out the obvious. If it's good for the gander, it's good for the goose, Gunny.

 

[WillowTree]

she is a left wingnut,, why does she want to deny it? to torture us obviously!

 

[WillowTree]

What are the other methods? Why won't you list them?????? come on,, you know so much that isn't so I want some one to tell us what the other methods are.. how can one make a rational decision without all the pertinent information???

I don't think it is adequate to simply list them here. Suffice it to say that I consider the FBI's tactics in this regard to be better, more ethical, more professional, and more effective than those of the CIA. Here is some of what the FBI has accomplished in the past 10 years -- WITHOUT ENHANCED INTERROGATION.

Ali Soufan

well don't list them then, give me some examples,, some real life scenarios that would have prevented 9-11,, the CIA and the FBI were both operating in Sept of 2001 weren't they???

 

[Gunny]

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?

You'd have to ask Gunny or RGS about that. I have no idea how much operational information is generally made available to troops in the field. I guess to a degree it depends on rank as well.

Rank and file troops are not often subject to torture for information. They don't know enough about anything to make it worth the effort. If they are tortured, it's usually for other reasons.

While there are exceptions to the rule, most anyone can be broken given enough duress, whether physical or psychological. That is why after the Korean War the Code of Conduct was established. Prior to that, it was cut and dried-- just as the braindead ones see torture as a black and white only issue -- if you break you're a traitor.

Now, it is "to resist to the best of my ability ....".

 

[catzmeow]

And suddenly the media is YOUR friend? GMAFB.

I'm not sure who you think you're talking to on this one. I've ALWAYS rejected both far right and far left sources and repeatedly asked people for mainstream, credible media sources. I'm also not sure why you think I'm some kind of shill for the media. I read an immense variety of sources, from the far left to the far right, and I have never subscribed to one extremist, insular perspective.

You're the one acting as if this is some kind of revelation.

The revelation is in the release of documentation substanting that these illegal (by our own federal laws) acts were widespread on the part of the CIA and condoned at the highest levels by leaders of BOTH PARTIES. This is not, and should not be, a partisan issue.

At what base level do you think?

Ad hominem.

Perhaps you should believe with such blind faith in US government propaganda that teaches you we're the friggin' Boy Scouts of Nations.

Another ad hominem.

I expect us to follow our laws. Nothing more, nothing less. We are a republic, founded on the basis of the rule of law. We simply cannot tolerate government officials acting outside of the law.

 

[Immanuel]

You've been told that waterboarding did prevent one in LA you have been educated and your decision has been made.

I'm not sure when or by whom I was supposedly told that they had prevented an attack in LA, but if it came out of the mouth of a politician (regardless of party), I know why I didn't remember it-- 99.97% or more of everything that comes out of their mouths is utter Bullshit.

Refresh my memory if you can find a link please... if you have not already done so. I did see that Ravi has asked for a link, but that is where I stopped reading the thread before I asked the question.

Immie

 

[WillowTree]

What are the other methods? Why won't you list them?????? come on,, you know so much that isn't so I want some one to tell us what the other methods are.. how can one make a rational decision without all the pertinent information???

I don't think it is adequate to simply list them here. Suffice it to say that I consider the FBI's tactics in this regard to be better, more ethical, more professional, and more effective than those of the CIA. Here is some of what the FBI has accomplished in the past 10 years -- WITHOUT ENHANCED INTERROGATION.

Ali Soufan

well don't list them then, give me some examples,, some real life scenarios that would have prevented 9-11,, the CIA and the FBI were both operating in Sept of 2001 weren't they???

bumped

 

[Gunny]

I'm not shoving anything. I expected this non sequitur, just not from you. I don't see anyone advocating torture. I see a LOT of people spouting their party lines, and some people arguing over what they define as "torture."

Apparently, only people with the superior morality of the Judeo Christian ethics are able to discern the moral dubiousness of torture tactics.

Again, define torture.

Your strawman superimposes a dishonest, out-of-context meaning to something I stated which clearly says nothing of the sort.

Try again.

 

[Gunny]

I've posted solid evidence in this thread of every claim I've made, along with links to credible mainstream publications. Guess you didn't bother to read them.

And suddenly the media is YOUR friend? GMAFB. You're the one acting as if this is some kind of revelation. At what base level do you think? Perhaps you should believe with such blind faith in US government propaganda that teaches you we're the friggin' Boy Scouts of Nations.

Then why do you believe that Russia poisoned Ukrainian opposition leader Viktor Yushchenko but you find it so hard to believe Cheney is the criminal behind the Antrax?

You're a brainwashed American who is projecting on catzmeow.

Now if you'll only wake up to the fact that Bush/Cheney let/allowed/wanted 9-11 to happen so they could launch their war for profit.

Or are we the "boyscouts of nations" and that's rediculous?

Dude, go find another thread. This one's got enough misinformation without your tinfoil bullshit.

 

[WillowTree]

You've been told that waterboarding did prevent one in LA you have been educated and your decision has been made.

I'm not sure when or by whom I was supposedly told that they had prevented an attack in LA, but if it came out of the mouth of a politician (regardless of party), I know why I didn't remember it-- 99.97% or more of everything that comes out of their mouths is utter Bullshit.

Refresh my memory if you can find a link please... if you have not already done so. I did see that Ravi has asked for a link, but that is where I stopped reading the thread before I asked the question.

Immie

IIRC it was Cheney,, that's why he's asked that the results of the interrorgations be released. Now if Cheney is lying it will easily be proven by obamalama being "transparent" yes?

 

[catzmeow]

well don't list them then, give me some examples,, some real life scenarios that would have prevented 9-11,, the CIA and the FBI were both operating in Sept of 2001 weren't they???

I don't believe that torturing suspects would have prevented 9/11. However, in terms of gaining actionable intelligence information, the tactics utilized by the FBI, specifically Ali Soufan, obtained more intel than did the torture activities of the CIA.

However, since you've asked for a specific example, here is one way in which the CIA could have been more effective:

Based on information obtained during the investigation of the USS Cole bombing (see Late October-Late November 2000), the FBI asks the CIA for information about al-Qaeda leader Khallad bin Attash and a possible al-Qaeda meeting in Southeast Asia in early 2000, but the CIA withholds the information. The request is sent by FBI Director Louis Freeh on behalf of agent Ali Soufan, who is working on the Cole investigation. Soufan began to suspect such a meeting may have taken place when he learned that two of the operatives involved in the bombing had taken money out of Yemen to give to bin Attash in Thailand before the attack (see January 13, 2000), making him think the money may have been intended for a bigger plot. The CIA is highly aware of the January 2000 al-Qaeda summit in Malaysia (see January 5-8, 2000), which was considered so important that CIA Director George Tenet and other CIA leaders were repeatedly briefed about it (see January 6-9, 2000). The CIA has photos of bin Attash and al-Quso attending the meeting (see January 5-8, 2000 and Shortly After), which took place only a few days before al-Quso’s meeting with bin Attash in Thailand. Yet the CIA does not respond to Soufan’s clearly stated request. Author Lawrence Wright will later comment, “The fact that the CIA withheld information about the mastermind of the Cole bombing and the meeting in Malaysia, when directly asked by the FBI, amount to obstruction of justice in the death of seventeen American sailors [who were killed in the Cole bombing].” Although he was not told one of the 9/11 hijackers had a US visa, Freeh was briefed on the Malaysia summit when it took place (see January 6, 2000), but apparently he does not tell Soufan what he knows, and Soufan remains unaware that any kind of al-Qaeda meeting in Southeast Asia even occurred. [Wright, 2006, pp. 328-9; New Yorker, 7/10/2006 ]

 

[catzmeow]

Your strawman superimposes a dishonest, out-of-context meaning to something I stated which clearly says nothing of the sort.

Try again.

That was in fact the implied meaning of your statement. Sorry you're now backing away from it.

 

[sealybobo]

And suddenly the media is YOUR friend? GMAFB. You're the one acting as if this is some kind of revelation. At what base level do you think? Perhaps you should believe with such blind faith in US government propaganda that teaches you we're the friggin' Boy Scouts of Nations.

Then why do you believe that Russia poisoned Ukrainian opposition leader Viktor Yushchenko but you find it so hard to believe Cheney is the criminal behind the Antrax?

You're a brainwashed American who is projecting on catzmeow.

Now if you'll only wake up to the fact that Bush/Cheney let/allowed/wanted 9-11 to happen so they could launch their war for profit.

Or are we the "boyscouts of nations" and that's rediculous?

Dude, go find another thread. This one's got enough misinformation without your tinfoil bullshit.

Does that comparison bother you? You can't even fathom that Cheney might have done something so criminal, even though they lied us into a war that cost thousands of American lives.

Wake up. I'm out of here!

 

[Gunny]

And suddenly the media is YOUR friend? GMAFB.

I'm not sure who you think you're talking to on this one. I've ALWAYS rejected both far right and far left sources and repeatedly asked people for mainstream, credible media sources. I'm also not sure why you think I'm some kind of shill for the media. I read an immense variety of sources, from the far left to the far right, and I have never subscribed to one extremist, insular perspective.

You're the one acting as if this is some kind of revelation.

The revelation is in the release of documentation substanting that these illegal (by our own federal laws) acts were widespread on the part of the CIA and condoned at the highest levels by leaders of BOTH PARTIES. This is not, and should not be, a partisan issue.

At what base level do you think?

Ad hominem.

Perhaps you should believe with such blind faith in US government propaganda that teaches you we're the friggin' Boy Scouts of Nations.

Another ad hominem.

I expect us to follow our laws. Nothing more, nothing less. We are a republic, founded on the basis of the rule of law. We simply cannot tolerate government officials acting outside of the law.

Try looking up what ad hominem means before using it.

The simple fact is, again, this is an argument that your brand of extremism and your opposition has created out of nothing but knee-jerk, emotional reations based solely on YOUR definition of torture and nothing more.

Torture is subjective. It is not black and white when the dividing line between torture and coercion exists. Too bad for you and your emotional sensationalism.

 

[WillowTree]

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/22/us/politics/22blair.html?_r=1








ASHINGTON – President Obama’s national intelligence director told colleagues in a private memo last week that the harsh interrogation techniques banned by the White House did produce significant information that helped the nation in its struggle with terrorists.
Skip to next paragraph
Multimedia
Admiral Blair’s MemosInteractive Feature
Admiral Blair’s Memos
Related
In Adopting Harsh Tactics, No Look at Past Use (April 22, 2009)
Obama Won’t Bar Inquiry, or Penalty, on Interrogations (April 22, 2009)
Report Gives New Detail on Approval of Brutal Techniques (April 22, 2009)
Blog
The Caucus
The Caucus

The latest on President Obama, the new administration and other news from Washington and around the nation. Join the discussion.

* More Politics News

“High value information came from interrogations in which those methods were used and provided a deeper understanding of the al Qa’ida organization that was attacking this country,” Adm. Dennis C. Blair, the intelligence director, wrote in a memo to his staff last Thursday.

Admiral Blair sent his memo on the same day the administration publicly released secret Bush administration legal memos authorizing the use of interrogation methods that the Obama White House has deemed to be illegal torture. Among other things, the Bush administration memos revealed that two captured Qaeda operatives were subjected to a form of near-drowning known as waterboarding a total of 266 times.

Admiral Blair’s assessment that the interrogation methods did produce important information was deleted from a condensed version of his memo released to the media last Thursday. Also deleted was a line in which he empathized with his predecessors who originally approved some of the harsh tactics after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

 

[Gunny]

Your strawman superimposes a dishonest, out-of-context meaning to something I stated which clearly says nothing of the sort.

Try again.

That was in fact the implied meaning of your statement. Sorry you're now backing away from it.

I'm backing away from nothing. It was not the implied meaning of my statement. You had to read into it and see something that is not there to come to your conclusion.

Go find sealy. You aren't smart enough to play word games with me.

 

[catzmeow]

what are the other means?

‘We Could Have Done This the Right Way’
How Ali Soufan, an FBI agent, got Abu Zubaydah to talk without torture.

Michael Isikoff
NEWSWEEK
From the magazine issue dated May 4, 2009
The arguments at the CIA safe house were loud and intense in the spring of 2002. Inside, a high-value terror suspect, Abu Zubaydah, was handcuffed to a gurney. He had been wounded during his capture in Pakistan and still had bullet fragments in his stomach, leg and groin. Agency operatives were aiming to crack him with rough and unorthodox interrogation tactics—including stripping him nude, turning down the temperature and bombarding him with loud music. But one impassioned young FBI agent wanted nothing to do with it. He tried to stop them.

The agent, Ali Soufan, was known as one of the bureau's top experts on Al Qaeda. He also had a reputation as a shrewd interrogator who could work fluently in both English and Arabic. Soufan yelled at one CIA contractor and told him that what he was doing was wrong, ineffective and an affront to American values. At one point, Soufan discovered a dark wooden "confinement box" that the contractor had built for Abu Zubaydah. It looked, Soufan recalls, "like a coffin." The mercurial agent erupted in anger, got on a secure phone line and called Pasquale D'Amuro, then the FBI assistant director for counterterrorism. "I swear to God," he shouted, "I'm going to arrest these guys!"

D'Amuro and other officials were alarmed at what they heard from Soufan. They fretted about the political consequences of abusive interrogations and the Washington blowback they thought was inevitable, say two high-ranking FBI sources who asked not to be identified discussing internal matters. According to a later Justice Department inspector general's report, D'Amuro warned FBI Director Bob Mueller that such activities would eventually be investigated. "Someday, people are going to be sitting in front of green felt tables having to testify about all of this," D'Amuro said, according to one of the sources.
Mueller ordered Soufan and a second FBI agent home. He then directed that bureau personnel no longer participate in CIA interrogations. In the corridors of the White House, Justice Department and U.S. intelligence agencies, heated debates ensued. Three months later, on Aug. 1, 2002, Justice lawyers issued a chilling memo blessing everything the CIA contractors had proposed—including waterboarding, or simulated drowning, a ghoulish technique that was administered to Abu Zubaydah 83 times.

This was a decisive moment in the campaign against Al Qaeda—the point at which, in the eyes of many critics, the Bush administration took a fateful step away from the rule of law. The administration, believing it faced an extraordinary threat that justified extreme measures, shifted toward what former vice president Dick Cheney once grimly called "the dark side." But the debates that began in that spring of 2002 never really ended.

Last week Soufan, 37, now a security consultant who spends most of his time in the Middle East, decided to tell the story of his involvement in the Abu Zubaydah interrogations publicly for the first time. In an op-ed in The New York Times and in a series of exclusive interviews with NEWSWEEK, Soufan described how he, together with FBI colleague Steve Gaudin, began the interrogation of Abu Zubaydah. They nursed his wounds, gained his confidence and got the terror suspect talking. They extracted crucial intelligence—including the identity of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed as the architect of 9/11 and the dirty-bomb plot of Jose Padilla—before CIA contractors even began their aggressive tactics.

"I've kept my mouth shut about all this for seven years," Soufan says. But now, with the declassification of Justice memos and the public assertions by Cheney and others that "enhanced" techniques worked, Soufan feels compelled to speak out. "I was in the middle of this, and it's not true that these [aggressive] techniques were effective," he says. "We were able to get the information about Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in a couple of days. We didn't have to do any of this [torture]. We could have done this the right way."

Soufan's assertion was buttressed by Philip Zelikow, the former executive director of the 9/11 Commission, who last week called Soufan "one of the most impressive intelligence agents—from any agency" that the panel encountered. After joining the Bush administration in 2005, Zelikow argued against the enhanced-interrogation techniques. He wrote a memo questioning the legal justification for the methods—advice he says the White House ordered destroyed.

Ali Soufan, former agent with the FBI, is a HERO.

 

[Iriemon]

http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/75259-torture-works.html

What happened to that thread? That was an important one.

No it wasn't and FTR, it wasn't me. However, I can assume I'm not the only staff member here tired of seeing thread after thread after thread on the same topic.

[Deleted, sent via pm]