Conservatives Start Speaking Out Against Torture

[Gunny]

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.

Sure he is. Wonder when the book comes out.

 

[WillowTree]

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 ]

So after reading this I can surmise that the methodology of the CIA and the FBI failed to prevent 9-11 and the Cole Bombing and any other number of terrorist attacks but you still want to put your faith in these tactics? Do I have this surmisezation down correctly?

 

[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

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?

Thanks for the info.

Now, I know why I don't remember it. I can't stand Dick Cheney. Don't believe a word he has ever spoken and fully believe that he is the reason George W. Bush is rated so poorly as an American President and I even voted for Bush.

I must say that I do not believe anything that they (politicians) tell me that will benefit their own careers or legacy. I have complletely lost trust in every single one of them. I hope that will change, but I am one American that has lost faith in the people that run this beautiful land.

Immie

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Why don't YOU BRING THE EVIDENCE HERE, TO THIS ARGUMENT; so as to VALIDATE YOUR CURRENT ARGUMENT WITH SOMETHING BESIDE THE IMPLICATION THAT YOU PROVIDED INCONTESTABLE EVIDENCE SOMEWHERE ELSE, thus implying your current argument rests upon that incontestable evidence.

My guess is that you, as is the habit of the proponents of the rights of terrorists, is to strip much of the information of the relevant context... But not to worry, I'm here to help ya with that...

Because I see no point in burying the articles I've posted in the middle of a thread. They are there, easy to find. Feel free to read them. I've placed links to the articles so that you can read them in their entirety.

Hey... I hear ya... then what you need to do THERE IS NOT SUBMIT THAT NONSENSE AS SUPPORTING EVIDENCE IN THIS ARGUMENT...

If it's too lame for YOU WHO ADVANCED IT, to go find it and re-submit it, it sure as hell doesn't fall to your opposition to do so...

What you're wating to do is to IMPLY WHAT YOU PROJECT AS SOLID EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF THIS ARGUMENT, without actually having submitted such...

Sorry... but such implications are BASELESS; thus invalid; thus not intellectually sound; thus the argument FAILS on the absence of a soundly reasoned basis and a valid logical construct.

 

[catzmeow]

Try looking up what ad hominem means before using it.

Argumentum Ad Hominem is an argument focused upon the PERSON of your opponent, and not their argument. Thus, when you imply that I am thinking at a "base level," it's a personal attack. i.e., ad hominem.

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 NOT subjective. The goal of torture is to dehumanize, either through physical pain, or through mental anguish. This isn't emotionalism. There are solid, pragmatic reasons NOT to torture someone, the least of which is that it is less effective than other means, and does not provide credible, actionable intelligence.

There are ethical, legal ways to interrogate prisoners. Here's an example of one way that the FBI has repeatedly used:

Working with O'Neill, Soufan was a key investigator of the bombing of the USS Cole in the Gulf of Aden in October 2002. Robert McFadden, a U.S. naval criminal investigator who also worked on the Cole bombing, says that Soufan could quote Qur'anic passages to radical jihadist prisoners, challenging them about the meaning of the prophet's words and ultimately gaining enough trust to engage them in extended conversations about their lives. "It's amazing the amount of information that came out of his interviews," says McFadden.

Soufan became a teacher for other interrogators. McFadden says that in early 2002, Soufan flew to Guantánamo to conduct a training course. He gave a powerful talk, preaching the virtues of the FBI's traditional rapport-building techniques. Not only were such methods the most effective, Soufan explained that day, they were critical to maintaining America's image in the Middle East. "The whole world is watching what we do here," Soufan said. "We're going to win or lose this war depending on how we do this." As he made these comments, about half the interrogators in the room—those from the FBI and other law-enforcement agencies—were "nodding their heads" in agreement, recalls McFadden. But the other half— military intelligence officers—sat there "with blank stares. It's like they were thinking, This is bullcrap. Their attitude was, 'You guys are cops; we don't have time for this'."

Torture is subjective.

Tell that to Ronald Reagan, who ADDED the following words to his support of the 1984 Conventions against torture:

The United States participated actively and effectively in the negotiation of the Convention. It marks a significant step in the development during this century of international measures against torture and other inhuman treatment or punishment. Ratification of the Convention by the United States will clearly express United States opposition to torture, an abhorrent practice unfortunately still prevalent in the world today.

Further, there is a reason why the military personnel were charged and convicted in a military court for prisoner abuse:

Articles 81 and 93 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (hereinafter UCMJ). Article 93 criminalizes the maltreatment of any person subject to one’s orders:

893. ART. 93. CRUELTY AND MALTREATMENT
Any person subject to this chapter who is guilty of cruelty toward, or oppression or maltreatment of, any person subject to his orders shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.
10 USC §893, UCMJ Art. 93, Uniform Code of Military Justice
#893.%20ART.%2093.%20CRUELTY%20AND%20MALTREATMENT

Article 81 makes it an added offense to conspire with others to commit a particular UCMJ offense, in the event that one of the conspirators commits an act aimed at furthering progress towards achieving the primary offense:

881. ART. 81. CONSPIRACY

Any person subject to this chapter who conspires with any other person to commit an offense under this chapter shall, if one or more of the conspirators does an act to effect the object of the conspiracy, be punished as a court-martial may direct.
10 USC §893, UCMJ Art. 81, Uniform Code of Military Justice

It's pertty black and white. There are reams of case law on the subject, as well as historical precedents about what torture is, dating back to the early 20th century.

 

[catzmeow]

Sure he is. Wonder when the book comes out.

Are you attempting to cast aspersions upon his credentials and comments? You should be aware that they have been externally validated by his peers.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Here's the biggest neglected fact about this argument: Those who have been put through torture have contended it does not work and has labeled all the denied methods as torture as well. Those who have not but administer it for whatever twisted pleasure they gain from it have told us that it works and tried to rationalize it as not being torture without giving us any real proof (as in hard evidence not just their word).

Sorry, but I would trust what McCain says over some prison guards with inflated egos.

Here's the problem with that argument; it's not fact, despite being advanced as such.

With regard to McCain, he flatly admitted that he folded under torture... and to even suggest that the US has implemented torture on the level that McCain was subjected to is the most eggregeous form of overstatement possible; well beyond the point of DISINFORMATION and AT BEST, an overt demonstration of GROSS IGNORANCE...

 

[WillowTree]

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?

Thanks for the info.

Now, I know why I don't remember it. I can't stand Dick Cheney. Don't believe a word he has ever spoken and fully believe that he is the reason George W. Bush is rated so poorly as an American President and I even voted for Bush.

I must say that I do not believe anything that they (politicians) tell me that will benefit their own careers or legacy. I have complletely lost trust in every single one of them. I hope that will change, but I am one American that has lost faith in the people that run this beautiful land.

Immie

I understand.. feel the same way,, that's why I side with Cheney this time.. they should release all the papers,, the good the bad and the ugly,, we deserve the whole story.. wonder why mr. transparent won't do it? casue he knows the truth will change minds,, that's why.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

LOL... Rust Picker... the one immutable truth about torture is that it works... One can 'resist' only to the extent of one's means... and where one is a prisoner, there is ample time to stress beyond the means of anyone to resist.

Let's define "works," shall we?

Sure... Lets...



PRESTO! See how easy that was... Now where you'll want to go from here is ground which I covered in the post, you've sourced, but intentionally chose to separate from that explanation...

Where you people are confused is on the misnomer wherein, someone is believed to have information which one does not have. What those who you CHOOSE to believe are telling you, is that once the individual tells you everything he knows, if you continue to debrief them beyond that point, they will tell you whatever they think you want to hear.

Thus, interrogation, as I have repeatedly explained to you, IS a PROCESS... wherein, intelligence pieces together information from various debriefings, and tests it against given knowns... once that test is accomplished, the individual is brought back for further interrogation to set what he said formerly against what has been learned to be known values... It's hardly a perfect system, but that's OK, because nothing is... AND IT WORKS.

However, it DOES NOT WORK insofar as that information that you've received being more accurate than information gained through other, less un-American, means of interview and interrogation. In fact, there are serious concerns that information gained under physical duress is in fact SUBSTANTIALLY LESS ACCURATE. Thus, as far as I'm concerned, it DOES NOT WORK.

Of course this species of reasoning is spurious in that it sets aside the reality that 'other' avenues of interrogation take A LOT more time... and what's more is that the presumption is that the 'other' techniques... will at some unknown point, result in the information being advanced. Which if this were, as noted above, a criminal prosecution... that would be a PERFECTLY PLAUSIBLE alternative... Person A was or was not engaged in this or that activity, we know the activity, the locations, time frame, many of the processes relevant to the activity and where we can associate that individual to that process, time line and location... PRESTO... we have the evidence needed to establish their guilt; and we're ready for trial.

But that's the spurious nature of this argument... And why is this? It is so, because the information we are seeking is TIME SENSITIVE... in that unlike a CRIMINAL PROSECUTION, we are not seeking information which establishes guilt, by the individual being questioned, for the purposes of trying that evidence in open court... for a criminal act which has already taken place... NO!

WE ARE SEEKING INFORMATION ABOUT MASS MURDERS WHICH ARE PRESENTLY BEING PLOTTED BY THE ASSOCIATION OF WHICH THE INDIVIDUAL IS A KEY ELEMENT; PLOTS WHICH ARE IN STAGES OF EXECUTION OF WHICH WE ARE NOT PRIVY...

MEANING THAT THE MASS MURDER OF INNOCENT PEOPLE HAS NOT HAPPENED YET... WE SIMPLY KNOW THAT THE INDIVIDUAL IS REASONABLY BELIEVED TO POSSESS INFORMATION WHICH WILL PROVIDE US WITH THE MEANS, THE OPPORTUNITY TO PREVENT THAT MASS MURDER FROM HAPPENING.

So TIME is of the essence and the discomfort of the individual provides the INCENTIVE for them to be forthcoming... and where they mislead us... we provide greater incentive for them to measure their well being against their veracity...

It's not terribly complex... it's just sufficiently so to confuse those who are prone to lend the benefit of the doubt to THOSE ENGAGED IN MASS MURDERER... as a result of their ignorance of human rights and the responsibilities intrinsic to such rights.

Let the record reflect that the advocates of terrorist RIGHTS, have read this argument and determined that it is best to ignore it...

Thus the opposition has failed, the debate carried by the Americans; and this despite the opinions by the Advocates for Terrorist RIGHTS, baselessly advocating to the contrary.

 

[Immanuel]

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?

Thanks for the info.

Now, I know why I don't remember it. I can't stand Dick Cheney. Don't believe a word he has ever spoken and fully believe that he is the reason George W. Bush is rated so poorly as an American President and I even voted for Bush.

I must say that I do not believe anything that they (politicians) tell me that will benefit their own careers or legacy. I have complletely lost trust in every single one of them. I hope that will change, but I am one American that has lost faith in the people that run this beautiful land.

Immie

I understand.. feel the same way,, that's why I side with Cheney this time.. they should release all the papers,, the good the bad and the ugly,, we deserve the whole story.. wonder why mr. transparent won't do it? casue he knows the truth will change minds,, that's why.

I have not been following the issue about releasing the documents. I got into this discussion when it was stated that there were no conservatives that were opposed to the torture of prisoners. I am one that was, and still am, opposed to the torture, yes, even waterboarding, of prisoners. I do not agree with the "ends justify the means" argument. I think that is nothing more than an excuse for sadistic pleasures. j/k on that last!

It was said earlier by someone, not sure who, that there is an aire of arrogance in the stance that America is better than that. I disagree. I think we should be better than that. We should be an example to the rest of the world. We have been leaders in so many things that are good in this world and this is one of those things that we should strive to lead the world in.

Immie

 

[WillowTree]

Thanks for the info.

Now, I know why I don't remember it. I can't stand Dick Cheney. Don't believe a word he has ever spoken and fully believe that he is the reason George W. Bush is rated so poorly as an American President and I even voted for Bush.

I must say that I do not believe anything that they (politicians) tell me that will benefit their own careers or legacy. I have complletely lost trust in every single one of them. I hope that will change, but I am one American that has lost faith in the people that run this beautiful land.

Immie

I understand.. feel the same way,, that's why I side with Cheney this time.. they should release all the papers,, the good the bad and the ugly,, we deserve the whole story.. wonder why mr. transparent won't do it? casue he knows the truth will change minds,, that's why.

I have not been following the issue about releasing the documents. I got into this discussion when it was stated that there were no conservatives that were opposed to the torture of prisoners. I am one that was, and still am, opposed to the torture, yes, even waterboarding, of prisoners. I do not agree with the "ends justify the means" argument. I think that is nothing more than an excuse for sadistic pleasures. j/k on that last!

It was said earlier by someone, not sure who, that there is an aire of arrogance in the stance that America is better than that. I disagree. I think we should be better than that. We should be an example to the rest of the world. We have been leaders in so many things that are good in this world and this is one of those things that we should strive to lead the world in.

Immie

It's a basic choice.. now that we positively know that the CIA and the FBI failed to protect us and the Army Field manuel to which we must now adhere will fail us; you either choose life for Americans or death for Americans..those who chose our death must be honest is saying their empathy lies with the terrorist and not with Americans..

 

[Maple]

A guilty person would not call for the release of all the information, they would be hopeful lthat no more came out. Cheney is calling for the release of ALL the infomation because it will prove his point.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

I have not been following the issue about releasing the documents. I got into this discussion when it was stated that there were no conservatives that were opposed to the torture of prisoners. I am one that was, and still am, opposed to the torture, yes, even waterboarding, of prisoners. I do not agree with the "ends justify the means" argument. ... Immie

This is FASCINATING...

So what you're saying is, that where it is reasonable to believe that someone is known MASS MURDERER, is in possession of information that would prevent an invalid, unjustifiable attack; sure to result in the maiming and killing of massive numbers of innocent people, that you do not support the means which would seek to garner this information and in so doing spare the severe bodily injury and death of innocent people?

Could explain the reasoning which your using to justify this position?

Specifically, is this a result of your position that those individuals reasonably believed to possess such information have human rights and that it's not a valid response to violate their rights, say... by inflicting discomfort and fear upon them, to induce them to be forthcoming with this information? Or perhaps some other reason?

And yes... you're being set up and YES... it's is NOT going to go well for you here, Immie...

As without regard to HOW you answer, your response will be a flat disregard for the DUTIES INTRINSIC IN YOUR HUMAN RIGHTS TO DEFEND THOSE RIGHTS FOR YOURSELF AS WELL AS YOUR NEIGHBORS... Thus you are, by your very advocacy here, demonstrating a flagrant disregard for the very BASIS upon which your own human rights rest.

But please, let's discuss it and see what if anything, we can agree upon...

 

[Immanuel]

It's a basic choice.. now that we positively know that the CIA and the FBI failed to protect us and the Army Field manuel to which we must now adhere will fail us; you either choose life for Americans or death for Americans..those who chose our death must be honest is saying their empathy lies with the terrorist and not with Americans..

I happen to disagree with this statement.

First off, I do not believe that it is an either or situation. No one can say that torturing prisoners has positively prevented any attacks. Nor can they say that doing so will continue to prevent attacks in the future.

Second, we have a fairly capable intelligence network... use it but don't abuse it.

And finally, simply because an American such as myself does not believe that torturing prisoners is what we should be doing, does not by any stretch of the imagination mean that I want terrorists to be successful in launching another attack.

A guilty person would not call for the release of all the information, they would be hopeful lthat no more came out. Cheney is calling for the release of ALL the infomation because it will prove his point.

One would hope so. However, more than one criminal mastermind have been brought to justice due to their own arrogance. Maybe he believes what he did was justified, legal and that the American people will back him on it. Then again maybe he will find out that he is wrong when those documents are released. Those who ARE guilty sometimes believe they have done nothing wrong.

Immie

 

[sealybobo]

A guilty person would not call for the release of all the information, they would be hopeful lthat no more came out. Cheney is calling for the release of ALL the infomation because it will prove his point.

You hope/assume that is his motive. Perhaps he is playing politics? My guess is there is information that the GOP could use against Obama if he released EVERYTHING and Cheney knows that Obama didn't release anything critical.

Don't you know how politics are played?

Are you really as faithful and supportive of the GOP as I am of the Dems? I'm trying to find out who is just anti liberal and who's actually a Bush/Rove/Delay/Rush/O'Reilly/Hannity Republican.

Are you a die hard GOP or have you too distanced yourself from the party. It is important to know.

 

[WillowTree]

It's a basic choice.. now that we positively know that the CIA and the FBI failed to protect us and the Army Field manuel to which we must now adhere will fail us; you either choose life for Americans or death for Americans..those who chose our death must be honest is saying their empathy lies with the terrorist and not with Americans..

I happen to disagree with this statement.

First off, I do not believe that it is an either or situation. No one can say that torturing prisoners has positively prevented any attacks. Nor can they say that doing so will continue to prevent attacks in the future.

Second, we have a fairly capable intelligence network... use it but don't abuse it.

And finally, simply because an American such as myself does not believe that torturing prisoners is what we should be doing, does not by any stretch of the imagination mean that I want terrorists to be successful in launching another attack.

A guilty person would not call for the release of all the information, they would be hopeful lthat no more came out. Cheney is calling for the release of ALL the infomation because it will prove his point.

One would hope so. However, more than one criminal mastermind have been brought to justice due to their own arrogance. Maybe he believes what he did was justified, legal and that the American people will back him on it. Then again maybe he will find out that he is wrong when those documents are released. Those who ARE guilty sometimes believe they have done nothing wrong.

Immie

certainly you are free to disagree,me and I with thee.. I think it's indisputable that the CIA and the FBI failed just at the Army field manuel will.. so to put your trust in this is foolhardy.. so it come down to the two choices I outlined.. now I think they should release the papers..I don't feel safe knowing this administration has chosen empathy with the terrorists.. not a bit.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

A guilty person would not call for the release of all the information, they would be hopeful lthat no more came out. Cheney is calling for the release of ALL the infomation because it will prove his point.

You hope/assume that is his motive. Perhaps he is playing politics?

Well the thing is that when someone is calling for the release of ALL the information... the only potential valid assumption possible is that the person believes that the information will lead a reasonable observer to conclude that his position is true.

What you're doing here is trying to discredit the person calling for TOTAL DISCLOSURE, declaring such a call to be political, while embracing the individuals who have sought only to release information which serves their stated goals...

It's a specious form of reasoning and one common to, the common fool.

My guess is there is information that the GOP could use against Obama if he released EVERYTHING and Cheney knows that Obama didn't release anything critical.

NOoooo all he released was information which even YOU, a self proclaimed "LOYAL AMERICAN" come to conlude proves the US was engaged in immoral abuse of prisoners...

Now reason is served by the certainty that if you... a would-be LOYAL AMERICAN, can take this information and come to such a conclusion... that those who are not loyal to America and who are intent upon harming America, will be exponentially MORE LIKELY to come to even MORE PRFUSELY ANTI-AMERICAN CONCLUSIONS, and as such use that information to make exponentially MORE DIFFICULT FOR AMERICANS to defend themselves from associations organized to execute Mass Murder upon Americans.

Don't you know how politics are played?

Oh man, I just ADORE SWEET IRONY~

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

It's a basic choice.. now that we positively know that the CIA and the FBI failed to protect us and the Army Field manuel to which we must now adhere will fail us; you either choose life for Americans or death for Americans..those who chose our death must be honest is saying their empathy lies with the terrorist and not with Americans..

I happen to disagree with this statement.

First off, I do not believe that it is an either or situation. No one can say that torturing prisoners has positively prevented any attacks.

Well, that is patently false... The heads of the US intelligence services going back to Tenet, have all concluded without exception that, coersive interrogation has done precisely that... your obtuse rejection of that testimony is absurd and stands as fair evidence that your argument is founded in either abject ignorance or abusive deceit...

Nor can they say that doing so will continue to prevent attacks in the future.

They say precisely that, which they CAN, because such is basic COMMON SENSE.

If those tasked with preventing attacks garner information which provides them the means to preclude those attacks by killing those tasked with carrying them out and destroying the means to do so... it's a flat certainty that coersive interrogation which garnered information which provided those tasked with stopping mass murder, to stop mass murder... that THOSE INTERROGATIONS PREVENTED ATTACKS WHICH WERE PLOTTED AND SCHEDULED IN THE FUTURE...

It should be noted that what CANNOT BE STOPPED by interrogation of ANY KIND are attacks which occurred in the past, which WERE NOT STOPPED BY VIRTUE OF THE INVALID ADVOCACY FOR THE RIGHTS OF MASS MURDERERS...

Second, we have a fairly capable intelligence network... use it but don't abuse it.

Whuh? That's so pathetically vague, it's useless... Define abuse of intelligence?

For instance, this mindless drivel you're spewing is abusing my intelligence network... was that what you were going for?

And finally, simply because an American such as myself does not believe that torturing prisoners is what we should be doing, does not by any stretch of the imagination mean that I want terrorists to be successful in launching another attack.

Well you may not advocate for the contraction of the HIV... but if you advocate for the "RIGHT" of people to engage in behavior which makes the contraction of the HIV LIKELY... then you have in effect advocated for the contraction of the HIV...

That you're unable to recognize that simple point of principle says far more about you and your means to reason that it does about anything else.

A guilty person would not call for the release of all the information, they would be hopeful lthat no more came out. Cheney is calling for the release of ALL the infomation because it will prove his point.

One would hope so. However, more than one criminal mastermind have been brought to justice due to their own arrogance. Maybe he believes what he did was justified, legal and that the American people will back him on it. Then again maybe he will find out that he is wrong when those documents are released.Immie

What the American people believe is irrelevant with regard to what was Legal... the US Justice Department issued advice that the procedures were legal; the US Commander in Chief and CHeif Executive determined that the processes were legal... that constitutes the INCONTESTABLE FACTUAL CERTAINTY that as a function fo LEGALITY... the processes were LEGAL...

With regard to morality... the processes were a MORAL OBLIGATION born in the DUTY OF ALL FREE MEN TO DEFEND THE SUSTAINABLE HUMAN RIGHTS OF THEMSELVES AND THEIR NEIGHBOR... and where an individual overtly seeks to strip another of their rights, THEY FORFIET THEIR OWN RIGHTS in so doing... and it is an immutable fact that where one INTENTIONALLY, unjustifiably, strips an individual of their LIFE, they have stripped from them of their RIGHTS... thus the techniques in question rest in PERFECTA MORAL JUSTIFICATION and the advocacy against such is anathema to the very principles on which the endowed rights of all humanity rest.

Those who ARE guilty sometimes believe they have done nothing wrong.

Well, no... Guilt is a function of statute... 'wrong' is a function of morality... now you may say that it's wrong to break the law... which is true, where the law clearly serves justice and stands on the moral imperative of righteousness. Which is to say, does the law promote the well being of the citizenry through respect and implementation of sound principle.

Such a conclusion cannot be drawn from a law which would defend those guilty of mass murder from being induced to provide information which would PREVENT THE SEVERE BODILY INJURY AND DEATH by that/those mass murderers...

What's more, it is not a valid defense that 'the law' required one to promote the well being of a person REASONABLY KNOWN TO BE INVOLVED IN MASS MURDER, in the wake of such...

For instance, the oft touted trials of the Oriental troops, post WW2, had harsh rebukes and long sentences for those in positions of authority who knew of the slaughter of innocent US troops, but failed to use their authority to prevent that slaughter... on the grounds that the slaughter was the law... or otherwise considered 'legal'. And we can be certain that where the US was subjected to such an attack and parties were discovered to have individuals which they knew reasonably SHOULD HAVE KNOWN, were in possession of information that could have prevented such, but failed to act because of the 'rights' of those mass murderers... that such an individual would be nothing less than anathema to this culture and would likely suffer prosecution for his complicity in that attack, by virtue of their lack of virtue.

 

[Immanuel]

I have not been following the issue about releasing the documents. I got into this discussion when it was stated that there were no conservatives that were opposed to the torture of prisoners. I am one that was, and still am, opposed to the torture, yes, even waterboarding, of prisoners. I do not agree with the "ends justify the means" argument. ... Immie

This is FASCINATING...

So what you're saying is, that where it is reasonable to believe that someone is known MASS MURDERER, is in possession of information that would prevent an invalid, unjustifiable attack; sure to result in the maiming and killing of massive numbers of innocent people, that you do not support the means which would seek to garner this information and in so doing spare the severe bodily injury and death of innocent people?

Could explain the reasoning which your using to justify this position?

Specifically, is this a result of your position that those individuals reasonably believed to possess such information have human rights and that it's not a valid response to violate their rights, say... by inflicting discomfort and fear upon them, to induce them to be forthcoming with this information? Or perhaps some other reason?

And yes... you're being set up and YES... it's is NOT going to go well for you here, Immie...

As without regard to HOW you answer, your response will be a flat disregard for the DUTIES INTRINSIC IN YOUR HUMAN RIGHTS TO DEFEND THOSE RIGHTS FOR YOURSELF AS WELL AS YOUR NEIGHBORS... Thus you are, by your very advocacy here, demonstrating a flagrant disregard for the very BASIS upon which your own human rights rest.

But please, let's discuss it and see what if anything, we can agree upon...

By all means let's discuss this.

I happen to attempt to stand by my principles. One of those principles is that torturing prisoners is wrong. I do not casually disregard those principles simply because the man I voted for thinks he might save some lives in the process. First and foremost, I don't believe that there is any way to know the torturee is a suspected mass murderer without a trial which our government has so conveniently prevented from happening will provide any valuable information at all.

Second, yes, I believe those individuals have human rights at least until they are proven guilty. Constitutionally we as American Citizens are protected from cruel and unusual punishment, not only before trial but after conviction as well. I will grant you that the people that are being tortured are not U.S. Citizens and have no such guarantee under our constitution. However, I believe our Constitution is based upon human rights and therefore despite the guarantee of the Constitution, I believe these human beings have human rights.

Third, simply because a politician squawks, "look at all the lives I'm saving" or "I'm doing this for your own good", doesn't mean it is the truth.

As for the potential loss of human lives, well again there is no guarantee that torturing anyone will prevent the loss of one life. Had we suspected that the 9/11 plot was underway and gotten lucky and captured some of the planners of the attack, it more than likely would have gone on anyway. If they had failed there, then they would not have failed in their next attempt. They simply would have been more careful with whom they shared the planning.

OBL is not stupid. He would have simply found another avenue for his attack. One that we could not stop and one that might potentially have been more devastating.

Torturing prisoners while it might stop an attack here or there will not stop all attacks. Only a fool would believe that it will.

I believe in the goodness that America once stood for. Only a fool would believe that we had never tortured people in other situations, but I for one do not think we should make a habit of doing so and FOR GOD'S SAKE I DO NOT BELIEVE WE SHOULD BE BRAGGING ABOUT IT!

DUTIES INTRINSIC IN YOUR HUMAN RIGHTS TO DEFEND THOSE RIGHTS FOR YOURSELF AS WELL AS YOUR NEIGHBORS

And who is my neighbor? Should I only be defending the rights of those who live to the left and right of me and the family across the street? Or should I be defending the human rights of people that only live in America? Should I be defending the rights of only Christians? Should I be defending the rights of only white people? Or should I view the entire world as my neighbor Christian, Muslim, Jew or atheist?

The ends justify the means? Do they really? Can you prove that the Muslim you are drowning actually knows anything that is valid? So you torture him and torture him and torture him until he tells you something. Then you torture the guy that he turned in. Four human beings later you are still torturing people and no attack has happened... Congratulations! You have saved the world.

Then by some stroke of bad luck, one of the bastards gets through and kills 3,000 Americans... it is my fault because I didn't support the torture of every singled damned Muslim on the face of the Earth.

I guess I'm just damned if I do and damned if I don't.

Immie

 

[sealybobo]

A guilty person would not call for the release of all the information, they would be hopeful lthat no more came out. Cheney is calling for the release of ALL the infomation because it will prove his point.

You hope/assume that is his motive. Perhaps he is playing politics?

Well the thing is that when someone is calling for the release of ALL the information... the only potential valid assumption possible is that the person believes that the information will lead a reasonable observer to conclude that his position is true.

What you're doing here is trying to discredit the person calling for TOTAL DISCLOSURE, declaring such a call to be political, while embracing the individuals who have sought only to release information which serves their stated goals...

It's a specious form of reasoning and one common to, the common fool.

My guess is there is information that the GOP could use against Obama if he released EVERYTHING and Cheney knows that Obama didn't release anything critical.

NOoooo all he released was information which even YOU, a self proclaimed "LOYAL AMERICAN" come to conlude proves the US was engaged in immoral abuse of prisoners...

Now reason is served by the certainty that if you... a would-be LOYAL AMERICAN, can take this information and come to such a conclusion... that those who are not loyal to America and who are intent upon harming America, will be exponentially MORE LIKELY to come to even MORE PRFUSELY ANTI-AMERICAN CONCLUSIONS, and as such use that information to make exponentially MORE DIFFICULT FOR AMERICANS to defend themselves from associations organized to execute Mass Murder upon Americans.

Don't you know how politics are played?

Oh man, I just ADORE SWEET IRONY~

1. Everyone already knows we were torturing. No surprise. The thing we are now learning is that Cheney and Bush approved it. Does learning that make me less safe? No. I fucking love it. We want the rest of the world to see that we realize how treasonist/illegal/traitorist the Bush regime was. Otherwise we either look like we approve of Bush or we are stupid. They must be punished. America is about rule of law. They/YOu didn't believe we would elect Obama, and you won't believe that we would prosecute Bush. We will. No matter how much the GOP says its about politics and calls us a banana republic. They broke the law. We hoped your own party woudl stand up to them but they did not.

2. And this is very important. You said "the only potential valid assumption possible"

And that is just so very very wrong. If that's the only potential valid assumption possible in your head, then you are a right wing Rush limbaugh Republcan.

And it proves you guys can't think beyond talking points. ONLY POTENTIAL VALID ASS...

Really? No other possible valid reasons?

Maybe not that you can think of, but you aren't that smart.

If you can't think of any, then you don't know how politics are played.