What Did They Know? When Did They Know It?
By Pejman Yousefzadeh Posted in Congressional Knowledge | interrogation | National Security | Waterboarding — Comments (108) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
I happen to think that waterboarding should not be used as an interrogation device for many of the reasons listed here. Even if we put aside any and all moral objections to the practice, when you have an interrogation technique that induces "hysterics on the board," you have an unreliable interrogation technique. After all, how much would you trust information from someone who has gone into hysterics--especially with the national security of the United States on the line?
So I can certainly understand why the issue of waterboarding causes people to be passionate in their arguments and advocacy. What I cannot understand, however, is how the same people who denounce waterboarding, once were utterly and completely silent about the moral qualms that they may have had--and indeed, showed few moral qualms--when they were briefed on the issue.
Read on . . .
In September 2002, four members of Congress met in secret for a first look at a unique CIA program designed to wring vital information from reticent terrorism suspects in U.S. custody. For more than an hour, the bipartisan group, which included current House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), was given a virtual tour of the CIA's overseas detention sites and the harsh techniques interrogators had devised to try to make their prisoners talk.
Among the techniques described, said two officials present, was waterboarding, a practice that years later would be condemned as torture by Democrats and some Republicans on Capitol Hill. But on that day, no objections were raised. Instead, at least two lawmakers in the room asked the CIA to push harder, two U.S. officials said.
"The briefer was specifically asked if the methods were tough enough," said a U.S. official who witnessed the exchange.
Congressional leaders from both parties would later seize on waterboarding as a symbol of the worst excesses of the Bush administration's counterterrorism effort. The CIA last week admitted that videotape of an interrogation of one of the waterboarded detainees was destroyed in 2005 against the advice of Justice Department and White House officials, provoking allegations that its actions were illegal and the destruction was a coverup.
Yet long before "waterboarding" entered the public discourse, the CIA gave key legislative overseers about 30 private briefings, some of which included descriptions of that technique and other harsh interrogation methods, according to interviews with multiple U.S. officials with firsthand knowledge.
With one known exception, no formal objections were raised by the lawmakers briefed about the harsh methods during the two years in which waterboarding was employed, from 2002 to 2003, said Democrats and Republicans with direct knowledge of the matter. The lawmakers who held oversight roles during the period included Pelosi and Rep. Jane Harman (D-Calif.) and Sens. Bob Graham (D-Fla.) and John D. Rockefeller IV (D-W.Va.), as well as Rep. Porter J. Goss (R-Fla.) and Sen. Pat Roberts (R-Kan).
Individual lawmakers' recollections of the early briefings varied dramatically, but officials present during the meetings described the reaction as mostly quiet acquiescence, if not outright support. "Among those being briefed, there was a pretty full understanding of what the CIA was doing," said Goss, who chaired the House intelligence committee from 1997 to 2004 and then served as CIA director from 2004 to 2006. "And the reaction in the room was not just approval, but encouragement."
So this is all very interesting indeed. And it now begs the question: Who amongst those now denouncing the Administration for allegedly using waterboarding as an interrogation technique was demonstrating "outright support" for the technique back when they were first briefed about the issue? Oh, the story says that at the time of the briefing, there was deep concern about another imminent terrorist attack, but the Bush Administration was at least equally concerned and no one has given them a free pass on the issue of torture despite the existence of that concern. And while notes may not have been taken, the briefings were described as "detailed and graphic," so one pretty much had to be a vegetable not to understand what was going on. Even if the briefings were vague on the specifics of waterboarding, all of the reporting on the issue after the fact should have prompted at least a few of these latter-day critics of the practice to come out, admit that they were briefed on the issue back in 2002 and say something along the lines of "at the time, I didn't have a full awareness of what waterboarding was, now I do, I'm appalled, blah blah blah." Thus far, we haven't even gotten that and if we do, it will only be because this story has now come out.
And of course, many of the Democrats who had been briefed on the issue of waterboarding--and who showed "outright support" for the practice--were the same ones who not only castigated the Administration for its alleged use of the practice and who demanded that Michael Mukasey render a quasi-legal decision during his confirmation hearings on the acceptability of waterboarding. The mind reels. We have the following weak tea from the office of Speaker Nancy Pelosi:
Pelosi declined to comment directly on her reaction to the classified briefings. But a congressional source familiar with Pelosi's position on the matter said the California lawmaker did recall discussions about enhanced interrogation. The source said Pelosi recalls that techniques described by the CIA were still in the planning stage -- they had been designed and cleared with agency lawyers but not yet put in practice -- and acknowledged that Pelosi did not raise objections at the time.
Where there's smoke, there's fire. This is one of the lamest attempts to deny knowledge of any controversial policy I have come across in a long time. Just what was Pelosi thinking? Did she believe that it was okay to remain silent simply because waterboarding allegedly had not been practiced at the time? And again, now that waterboarding has allegedly been practiced, why hasn't Pelosi come out with an admission that she was briefed on the issue and a mea culpa stating that she should have objected to the practice at the time? Consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds, to be sure, but that doesn't mean that consistency is never a virtue.
And then we have this, from the former ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, Jane Harman:
Harman, who replaced Pelosi as the committee's top Democrat in January 2003, disclosed Friday that she filed a classified letter to the CIA in February of that year as an official protest about the interrogation program. Harman said she had been prevented from publicly discussing the letter or the CIA's program because of strict rules of secrecy.
"When you serve on intelligence committee you sign a second oath -- one of secrecy," she said. "I was briefed, but the information was closely held to just the Gang of Four. I was not free to disclose anything."
You know something? I am somewhat sympathetic to this. But the oath of secrecy does not entail an oath to not work against the implementation of a policy one finds offensive. Other than filing an official protest, what did Harman do to scuttle the practice of waterboarding behind the scenes? What did Pelosi do?
Anyone? Bueller? Bueller?
Say this for John McCain. At least he understands when consistency might be a virtue:
Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), a former Vietnam War prisoner who is seeking the GOP presidential nomination, took an early interest in the program even though he was not a member of the intelligence committee, and spoke out against waterboarding in private conversations with White House officials in late 2005 before denouncing it publicly.
I have a lot of problems with McCain's policy platform on various issues, but when it comes to national security matters, he has been utterly principled and honorable. The passage above speaks very well of his sense of intellectual curiosity and his sense of virtue.
As for the rest of the people discussed in the story: Meh. The next time they say anything about the issue of waterboarding, this story should come up and they should be made to answer certain questions. They got some 'splainin' to do.
What Did They Know? When Did They Know It? 108 Comments (0 topical, 108 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
Because I know it'll just make me angry, but I wanted to take issue with your second paragraph.
If you don't think that drowning (which is what waterboarding is) is painful, then you have no idea what you're talking about.
Waterboarding is not drowning. But it is painful. And if you did it long enough it might lead to death or torture. Torture requires prolonged pain - check out the definition.
After all, slapping a person once is painful, but no one would call it torture. However, slapping a person a hundred times, until that person bleeds from multiple wounds, is certainly torture.
PS: If discussions make you angry, Slade, perhaps you shouldn't engage in them.
Simulates drowning. And the reasons for the pain are the same (inhalation of water.)
Waterboarding isn't something that's done for, say, five minutes, either. It's generally a prolonged thing.
No water enters the lungs during waterboarding. However, that is not true of water torture. They are two entirely different techniques. If done correctly, waterboarding does not risk the life of the subject, because "Dead men tell no tales."
The average subject will break in less than one minute under waterboarding. Terrorist mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was an exception, and according to CIA sources, he lasted two and one-half minutes before he broke.
"Pain" is incorrect unless you mean "psychological pain," but that is a stretch. The correct terminology is "panic."
***
“Well, the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they are ignorant, but that they know so much that isn't so.” – Ronald Reagan
If a bomb is ticking and somebody might know, then I can handle torture. But... I still want some accountability. I want someone to make the call and have them sign their name on the dotted line. That way, they can get credit for the success (or failure). We need principled leaders who stand up for their decisions. Pelosi et al want it both ways. They don't want to make tough decisions and criticize those who do. I want someone who will make the tough decisions... AND suffer the consequences if they are wrong (or reap the rewards if their right).
“Republicans believe every day is the Fourth of July, but the Democrats believe every day is April 15.”
-Ronald Reagan
"I want someone to make the call and have them sign their name on the dotted line. That way, they can get credit for the success (or failure)."
You haven't been paying attention, because it doesn't work that way. Even after success the second-guessing begins quickly about such topics as, "Couldn't the information have been obtained using other means?" and "That was just a fanciful plan put together by the Three Stooges, not worth using extreme measures on."
There would be no credit for success, only an eventual Senate investigation into "torture."
And what would constitute "failure"? The discovery that there was nothing to be afraid of?
We have to trust the people we elect to be the custodians of the information we don't want our enemies to know. And I'm not talking about the entire Congress or Administration. Only a small subset of either or both.
The idea of a paper trail would only work if there was a Democrat leader at the end of it. Then you can be sure it would never be published.
The "Third Worst Person in the World" and aiming higher.
P.
Are you selective in your condemnation of tools which are used to defend this country?
Are nuclear arms something that should be abolished?
Are chemical weapons?
Neutron bombs, really just another form of nukes?
Waterboarding, harsh interrogation techniques, including forced listening to the collected works of Celine Dion are fine by me. Just as long as there is accountability for how as another tool used to defend this country they are employed, when they are employed and given proper command oversight. PFC Jones does not get to say, gee I think I'll waterboard Adul today, but General Jones who has been delegated the authority to use the technique by the Commander in chief of the armed forces of this country making this decision is fine by me.
Our enemies do not play by the Geneva convention, nor culturally do they give a darn about what we think, why should we as a country ever remove a tool from the hands of those who defend us? If they believe the tool does not work, they won't use it ans therefore the argument is moot.
______________________________________
Proud member of the Barry Goldwater wing of the party !
If I come out against waterboarding, then surely I must come out against nuclear weapons and neutron bombs. I mean, the connection is just so obvious.
Come on.
"At times one remains faithful to a cause only because its opponents do not cease to be insipid." --Friedrich Nietzsche
Are you an experienced interrogator? Have you interrogated---successfully---high-value targets such as Khaleid Sheikh Muhammed? Have you, ever, gleaned time-sensitive information from a trained, resistant interrogation subject?
And, if waterboarding is as "unreliable" as you proclaim it to be, then why has our intelligence community used it? Do you think our intelligence professionals waterboard because they're incompetent? Cruel? (Pejman, if you think that the CIA and other US agencies employ sadists, now is your time to place yourself on record and say so.)
And, is your Malcom Nance the same Malcom Nance who was the subject of an interview, by Captain Ed Morrissey, of "Mike," a SERE instructor and advanced combat medic? This interview, in which Mike had some choice comments about the quality of Nance's opinion?
Mike refuses to confirm or deny any specific practices used in SERE school either now or in the past. "If I did, it could be a breach of operational security," Mike told me. "Giving the intimate details of any interrogation techniques that we simulate on our own people, or use on an enemy combatant that has knowledge of other terrorists or plots to kill innocent people, is sedition, in my opinion." Mike emphasized this point several times during our conversation. These questions should be asked in secure forums in order to set policy. Having debates over the finer points of interrogation techniques in open settings "only benefits those we may need to interrogate."
smagar's comment: Thanks, Malcom. Did you miss the day they taught OPSEC in the military?
However, he did take exception to one point of Nance's column, the one that I had found most impactful. Nance wrote:
In the media, waterboarding is called "simulated drowning," but that's a misnomer. It does not simulate drowning, as the lungs are actually filling with water. There is no way to simulate that. The victim is drowning.
Unless you have been strapped down to the board, have endured the agonizing feeling of the water overpowering your gag reflex, and then feel your throat open and allow pint after pint of water to involuntarily fill your lungs, you will not know the meaning of the word.
(All emphasis in the following paragraphs is added).
Mike's secondary specialty in the SEAL force is as an advanced combat medic. Without getting into specifics on his experiences, Mike strongly disputes Nance's exaggerations of waterboarding. There is a word for people who have "pint after pint of water" filling their lungs: dead. "In fact," according to Mike, "they would be very, very dead. By definition, anyone who has drowned is in fact dead.
A large percentage of true drownings do not involve ANY water entering the lungs because the epiglottis closes off the air passages as water enters the throat. People who die immediately from being immersed in water actually die of suffocation, not water entering their lungs. Not only that, many people who survive a near-drowning who do have even small amounts of water that slip by the epiglottis and enter their lungs can die later of fluid shifts and pneumonia.
I can assure you that we do not use any technique that involves true suffocation or aspiration of water into the lungs. One cannot get questions to answers from people who suffocate or have water fill their lungs in any interrogation technique, which would render that technique more than a little self-defeating. Dead men tell no tales -- and also make rather poor soldiers."
Pejman, have you considered that, maybe, you're relying on the Scott Beauchamp of SERE veterans as your expert on this interrogation technique?
"Who will stand/On either hand/And guard this bridge with me?" (Macaulay)
Why should we give yours any weight? Or why should we give weight to "Mike's" opinion?
Appeal to authority is not the best tactic on these interwebs, and appeal to anonymous authority is even worse. Plenty of people with experience in this area have gone on the record to say that waterboarding is no more effective than its (lawful) alternatives. Get someone on the record with a contrary view. Or present a logical argument in support of your view.
For we have a peculiar power of thinking before we act, and of acting, too, whereas other men are courageous from ignorance but hesitate upon reflection.
von
Sense your banning standard seems to be how awful something is, what's next, banning bullets because they leave such awful holes in people?
All war is terrible, and all use of force if you are the looser in a war will most likely be punished by the victor. In the case of Muslim extremists, shoe bombers, 9/11 terrorists, I'm sure they will be impressed by your agitprop for the use of what you consider lawful means to combat their efforts. Who knows, maybe these wonderful folks will give you some special form of personal destruction that is not too painful.
Rome was once safe when the world knew that the personal safety of citizens of Rome was inviolable. Funny how Rome fell when people got worried about what was lawful and humane when it came to enemies.
______________________________________
Proud member of the Barry Goldwater wing of the party !
No one talked or is talking about outlawing bullets, nuclear weapons or neutron bombs. Seriously, you are better than this.
"At times one remains faithful to a cause only because its opponents do not cease to be insipid." --Friedrich Nietzsche
http://www.google.com/search?q=waterboarding+effectiveness&hl=en&client=...
http://people.howstuffworks.com/water-boarding1.htm
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110010815
So I think we can take waterboarding as effective but not always so.
This is pretty much true of any interrogation technique. They will work when they do, and sometimes they won't.
The harm that waterbording does is classed as psychological torture. I suppose we could arrange a bad marriage for them but it might take too long to get the information.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
Waterboarding is classed as psychological torture.
Which makes it a cause for divorce in most of the united states.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
in support of your view."
The entire explanation of the process is a "logical argument." The explication of the situation is part of the argument.
The techniques, whatever they are, are not used routinely. They are used rarely, in cases of extreme need. I cases where the need for some answer is necessary, and where without them no answer will be granted.
We're still hung up on the Democrat vision of the Inquisition in Guantanamo. "Answer the way we want or feel the pain of Hell, infidel." That isn't why we interrogate.
"Plenty of people with experience in this area have gone on the record to say that waterboarding is no more effective than its (lawful) alternatives."
Others, such as George Tenet, disagree.
I agree it's not nice, but I don't know what its alternatives are, either. Maybe they aren't nice, too. Do you know? Why should we be giving people that we know are trying to kill us the advantage of knowing just where we draw the line? Why do we have to say anything more than "We don't kill prisoners on purpose, and we don't inflict permanent bodily injury, either."
Let them worry about the qualifying adjectives and phrases.
The "Third Worst Person in the World" and aiming higher.
Why should we give yours any weight?
If I'd written a diary stating opinions on waterboarding, I could see why you'd be asking this question. But, seeing as (a)it was Pejman who wrote the post and (b) I never claimed to be an authority on interrogations, I think you're asking the question above simply to be combative.
But, seeing as we're on the subject, what evidence do you have that Pejman speaks with authority when he opines on what interrogation techniques do and don't work? Lay it on us, fella!
Or why should we give weight to "Mike's" opinion?
Well, I consider Ed Morrissey to be a reliable and trustworthy source. He think's Mike's credible. And, Mike claims to be a SERE subject matter expert, and a medic. And, to me, his critique of Nance's critique of waterboarding sounds like Mike knows what he's talking about. So, that's why I think Mike deserves the benefit of the doubt here. Unless, of course, you simply wish to be argumentative----in which case I doubt Mike would impress you, even if he were to raise the dead.
Appeal to authority is not the best tactic on these interwebs, and appeal to anonymous authority is even worse.
Emphasis added.
Clandestine intelligence & operations professionals don't make a habit of going on the record. "Mike" spelled out why he didn't go on the record. If his explanation didn't move you, I submit that's your problem, not his.
Plenty of people with experience in this area have gone on the record to say that waterboarding is no more effective than its (lawful) alternatives.
Here's the part where you insert the names of/links to just a few of the "plenty." Go ahead---convince us. Cite some killer sources. I triple dog dare you.
Get someone on the record with a contrary view. Or present a logical argument in support of your view.
von, as your opinion of what is and isn't a "logical argument" is of no concern to me--as is, I suspect, your opinion on most anything else---I'll pass.
"Who will stand/On either hand/And guard this bridge with me?" (Macaulay)
Are you an experienced interrogator? Have you interrogated---successfully---high-value targets such as Khaleid Sheikh Muhammed? Have you, ever, gleaned time-sensitive information from a trained, resistant interrogation subject?
This is right up there with "why should you be allowed to speak about issues of war and peace given the fact that you haven't gone to sign up to join the military." And here I thought that we were against that kind of argument. Alas, you just chose to employ precisely the same kind of logic. With precisely the same kind of unimpressive results.
Additionally, if my link concerning waterboarding does not convince you, try this one. Note the following passage:
According to those who have studied waterboarding's effects, it can cause severe psychological trauma, such as panic attacks, for years.
Again, how reliable is information from someone who has gone into hysterics? Forget the morality of the issue. Just concentrate on the reliability of the information. If someone launches into a panic attack, how much credence will you give what he/she tells you? How much should you?
"At times one remains faithful to a cause only because its opponents do not cease to be insipid." --Friedrich Nietzsche
This is right up there with "why should you be allowed to speak about issues of war and peace given the fact that you haven't gone to sign up to join the military." And here I thought that we were against that kind of argument. Alas, you just chose to employ precisely the same kind of logic. With precisely the same kind of unimpressive results.
Forgive me for pointing out this irritating detail, but your front page story said that waterboarding is unreliable. I question your standing to assert such a thing. You reply by getting sniffy. I'm starting to suspect that you really don't know what you're talking about here.
Again, how reliable is information from someone who has gone into hysterics? Forget the morality of the issue. Just concentrate on the reliability of the information.
If professional interrogators, such as those who interrogated KSM, chose to use the technique, I suspect there's something to it. Why else would they use it?
Pejman, I asked you if you think American interrogators are sadists. You responded with arrogance. Now, if interrogators use a technique that they suspect will provide faulty information, then why use said technique? Because they enjoy inflicting pain?
Care to answer? Or, would you prefer to sniff further?
Additionally, if my link concerning waterboarding does not convince you
The link to the article on Malcom Nance? Why do you put so much stock in Nance? Seeing as I think Captain Ed is credible, why would I think that Nance is? Captain Ed apparently doesn't think much of Nance.
try this one. Note the following passage:
According to those who have studied waterboarding's effects, it can cause severe psychological trauma, such as panic attacks, for years.
Ah, you're trying to change the subject, Pejman. You were initially arguing that waterboarding is unreliable. Now, you respond to me by asserting waterboarding is cruel. How about a little consistency in argument, whaddya say?
Let me cut to the chase: I think you've no clue what you're talking about. I think you're blowing gas.
Prove me wrong.
"Who will stand/On either hand/And guard this bridge with me?" (Macaulay)
Your argument relies on the same logical fallacies as does the "chickenhawk" argument. I am sorry if you can't see that but if not, I can't help you. Your comments constitute a blatant appeal to authority and I provided the back up for my arguments. Feel free to take them or leave them but don't tell me that I have to be a professional interrogator to put up my post the way I did. I wasn't even remotely arrogant--rather, I called you out for using the logical fallacy that you did and I will continue to do so. It may upset your tender little sensibilities but facts are facts, no matter how much they might upset you. Seems to me that you are the one acting the martyr. I'm sure it must make you feel good but the persuasion value is inversely proportional to your sense of righteous indignation and overwrought rage.
Additionally, you can't read. From the outset, I called waterboarding unreliable because it induces hysteria. In the WaPo link, I found yet another attestation to that fact from a JAG officer. I didn't bring that passage out to show that waterboarding is cruel. I brought it out to prove my point that waterboarding induces hysteria and that information from hysterics is unreliable. My point can't be any clearer and if you yourself stopped "blowing gas"--oh, how guilty you are of the very thing you accuse me of--you might understand that.
"At times one remains faithful to a cause only because its opponents do not cease to be insipid." --Friedrich Nietzsche
Sorry if it hurts you for me to point that out. And, you can stop with your pity party:
but don't tell me that I have to be a professional interrogator to put up my post the way I did.
You can post whatever you want. NOW who's using a strawman argument? I never said you couldn't post---I said you might want to think twice about posting a declarative statement ("waterboarding is unrelable") if you OBVIOUSLY have no experience/credibility upon which to base said statement. But hey, do what makes you feel good, man.
I called you out for using the logical fallacy that you did and I will continue to do so.
Pejman, if doing so fulfils you, be my guest. Consider it my Christmas present to you.
From the outset, I called waterboarding unreliable because it induces hysteria.
The fact that REAL interrogators have used it in the past on high-value targets casts doubt on your assessment of waterboarding---an assessment based, it seems, on no real experience in the matter.
Pejman, one--more---time, do you think American interrogators are sadists? For, why else would they use a patently unreliable interrogation technique, one that (in your "expert" opinion) is so likely to elicit untrustworthy information?
If you oppose waterboarding because you think it's too cruel, then say so. That's a perfectly honorable position to take. But, you're asserting it isn't reliable, and therefore isn't of value. My response is:
a) Evidence exists to the contrary, that it IS of value
b) Your sources are unconvincing
c) BOY, are you thin-skinned! Surprising to see in a front-pager.
If you can't stand the heat...
"Who will stand/On either hand/And guard this bridge with me?" (Macaulay)
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
Pejman, one--more---time, do you think American interrogators are sadists? For, why else would they use a patently unreliable interrogation technique, one that (in your "expert" opinion) is so likely to elicit untrustworthy information?
Because when it does return useful information, it is the kind of information that saves lives. See Cheney's one percent doctrine. The reliability of information, the amount of effort involved, the questionableness of the method, these become less important if the value of the information is great enough ("low probability, high impact").
Given the way you argue, one would have thought you were a troll that signed up three minutes ago instead of a longstanding member from three years ago. Let's take your fatuous nonsense one bit at a time.
Sorry if it hurts you for me to point that out. And, you can stop with your pity party.
All snark (and bad snark at that) and no argument. Typical and utterly unimpressive.
You can post whatever you want. NOW who's using a strawman argument? I never said you couldn't post---I said you might want to think twice about posting a declarative statement ("waterboarding is unrelable") if you OBVIOUSLY have no experience/credibility upon which to base said statement. But hey, do what makes you feel good, man.
Another appeal to authority. Another logical fallacy. Pitiful. Why don't you read about your chronic error here for starters, assuming that you have the intellectual curiosity to do so. Incidentally, I don't recall you stating that you were or are a professional interrogator so I can just as easily doubt your credentials in writing your comment. See how that works? As for the rest of your "comment": All snark (and bad snark at that) and no argument. Typical and utterly unimpressive. I sense a trend here.
blockquote>Pejman, if doing so fulfils you, be my guest. Consider it my Christmas present to you.
All snark (and bad snark at that) and no argument. Typical and utterly unimpressive.
The fact that REAL interrogators have used it in the past on high-value targets casts doubt on your assessment of waterboarding---an assessment based, it seems, on no real experience in the matter.
Just because someone does something in the course of carrying out their professional duties does not mean that action is the right action to take. It takes only five seconds to figure that out and the scary part is that you actually seek to make an argument here. Congratulations, Sparky. I think. In any event, I cited sources familiar with interrogation techniques and qualified to speak on the subject to make the contrary assertion. There are plenty more out there. Google some time. You'll find them.
Pejman, one--more---time, do you think American interrogators are sadists? For, why else would they use a patently unreliable interrogation technique, one that (in your "expert" opinion) is so likely to elicit untrustworthy information?
I don't think American interrogators are sadists. I just think waterboarding is wrong and unreliable. I never wrote anything about American interrogators being sadists, nor did I imply it in the slightest. My disagreement is with policy, not people. Learn to read.
If you oppose waterboarding because you think it's too cruel, then say so. That's a perfectly honorable position to take. But, you're asserting it isn't reliable, and therefore isn't of value. My response is:a) Evidence exists to the contrary, that it IS of value
b) Your sources are unconvincing
Want to believe that? Fine with me. But (a) you have a habit of disagreeing while being disagreeable--a lousy trait to be sure and (b) you repeatedly committed a logical fallacy in making your arguments. Then when I called you out you went on a tear about me being an "arrogant martyr" which makes your accusation of me being thin-skinned oh-so-precious. Something about a pot and a kettle comes to mind.
If you can't stand the heat...
I guess it's only fitting that we end with this. My response? You guessed it! All snark (and bad snark at that) and no argument. Typical and utterly unimpressive.
"At times one remains faithful to a cause only because its opponents do not cease to be insipid." --Friedrich Nietzsche
"KSM lasted the longest under waterboarding, about a minute and a half, but once he broke, it never had to be used again," said a former CIA official familiar with KSM's case.
George Tenant and others in the CIA said it is effective. They have said it is only been used on 3 people. That does not include scores of our military and even reporters that have voluntarily done it for the experience.
They also said it SAVED LIVES. What if it stopped a nuclear weapon detonation? This cannot be examined in a vacuum. In that case, you will always say this technique, and most every other one, should never be used.
So, why would you take something "off the table" that has been effective? For God's sake, we don't take dropping nuclear weapons on millions of civilians, "off the table".
Second, what do you suggest instead? Is the "belly slap" torture? How about the "cold cell" or "sleep deprivation"? How about cable TV deprivation?
There are some things that should not be in the public discourse. This is one of them. Intelligence gathering can be an ugly, but necessary, business. There should be oversight, just as there was in 2002 when even Nancy Pelosi and Porter Rockefeller were accepting of the practice. Then it becomes public; then it becomes political; then it becomes a disaster. Then the CIA takes it underground and destroys tapes and other evidence.
--------------------
Vista really sucks!
At the beginning of your article, you said---didn't speculate, said---that waterboarding is unreliable.
Even if we put aside any and all moral objections to the practice, when you have an interrogation technique that induces "hysterics on the board," you have an unreliable interrogation technique.
That kind of careless assertion---an assertion that, I am now confident, you've not supported nearly well enough---makes it harder on our soldiers who are fighting this war. I'll explain.
FYI, I am an Army veteran and I work at an Army branch schoolhouse---those are my creds for what I'm about to say.
If waterboarding is a cruel interrogation technique that isn't reliable, then it stands to reason that (a) professional interrogators and (b) decent human beings wouldn't use it. But America has used it in the GWOT. So, doesn't that lead someone to speculate that Americans are being cruel simply for cruelty's sake?
Personally, I don't want the students I teach to have to patrol streets in Iraq and Afghanistan where the locals can read the works of American writers---or hear them quoted on al Jazeera---that make it sound as if we are a nation prone to cruelty. That creates misperceptions. Misperception that inflame popular anger, and make people more willing to resort to/condone violence. And, misperceptions that makes it harder, much harder for the young lieutenants and sergeants to win the hearts and minds necessary to win this GWOT.
Pejman, you have a right and a privledge to write what you want. The fact that you are a Redstate frontpager speaks to the high quality of your overall body of work. But, all Americans---and (IMO) especially those whose words have worldwide reach---have a responsibility to consider the consequences of their actions.
IMO, your article treats the subject of waterboarding carelessly. You stated your opinion that waterboarding is unreliable, as if it was an accepted fact. Then, you cited Malcom Nance, a source whose credibility and professionalism has been called into question. That's all an al Jazeera propagandist---er, reporter----or anti-American imam in a Ramadi mosque needs. Look! Read this article. From an AMERICAN writer! The American people say that their own CIA is cruel!!! And now, the soldiers at the nearby base want YOU to cooperate with THEM???
Sloppy writing like this, Pejman, makes it harder for our troops in harms' way, by potentially poisoning the environment in which they must live, work, hopefully succeed and even more hopefully survive.
I think you've let them down.
I hereby acknowledge that the tone of my initial reply to you was a bit rough. So, I'm probably the one who got this "discussion" off on a wrong foot. Please accept my regrets, on that point.
"Who will stand/On either hand/And guard this bridge with me?" (Macaulay)
At the beginning of your article, you said---didn't speculate, said---that waterboarding is unreliable.
Even if we put aside any and all moral objections to the practice, when you have an interrogation technique that induces "hysterics on the board," you have an unreliable interrogation technique.
That kind of careless assertion---an assertion that, I am now confident, you've not supported nearly well enough---makes it harder on our soldiers who are fighting this war. I'll explain.
FYI, I am an Army veteran and I work at an Army branch schoolhouse---those are my creds for what I'm about to say.
If waterboarding is a cruel interrogation technique that isn't reliable, then it stands to reason that (a) professional interrogators and (b) decent human beings wouldn't use it. But America has used it in the GWOT. So, doesn't that lead someone to speculate that Americans are being cruel simply for cruelty's sake?
Personally, I don't want the students I teach to have to patrol streets in Iraq and Afghanistan where the locals can read the works of American writers---or hear them quoted on al Jazeera---that make it sound as if we are a nation prone to cruelty. That creates misperceptions. Misperception that inflame popular anger, and make people more willing to resort to/condone violence. And, misperceptions that makes it harder, much harder for the young lieutenants and sergeants to win the hearts and minds necessary to win this GWOT.
Pejman, you have a right and a privledge to write what you want. The fact that you are a Redstate frontpager speaks to the high quality of your overall body of work. But, all Americans---and (IMO) especially those whose words have worldwide reach---have a responsibility to consider the consequences of their actions.
IMO, your article treats the subject of waterboarding carelessly. You stated your opinion that waterboarding is unreliable, as if it was an accepted fact. Then, you cited Malcom Nance, a source whose credibility and professionalism has been called into question. That's all an al Jazeera propagandist---er, reporter----or anti-American imam in a Ramadi mosque needs. Look! Read this article. From an AMERICAN writer! The American people say that their own CIA is cruel!!! And now, the soldiers at the nearby base want YOU to cooperate with THEM???
Sloppy writing like this, Pejman, makes it harder for our troops in harms' way, by potentially poisoning the environment in which they must live, work, hopefully succeed and even more hopefully survive.
I think you've let them down.
I hereby acknowledge that the tone of my initial reply to you was a bit rough. So, I'm probably the one who got this "discussion" off on a wrong foot. Please accept my regrets, on that point.
"Who will stand/On either hand/And guard this bridge with me?" (Macaulay)
One of these days, I'll figure these computer things out. :(
"Who will stand/On either hand/And guard this bridge with me?" (Macaulay)
According to the former agent, waterboarding of terror suspect Abu Zubaydah him to talk in less than 35 seconds. The technique, which critics say is torture, probably disrupted "dozens" of planned al-Qaida attacks, said John Kiriakou, a leader of the team that captured Abu Zubaydah, a major al-Qaida figure.
Emphasis added. It's paragraph 7 of the article.
In the end, I think I'll go with John Kiriakou's opinion of waterboarding's utility and reliability over yours.
"Who will stand/On either hand/And guard this bridge with me?" (Macaulay)
under the heading "Waterboarding is not a simulation" contains this quote, Unless you have been strapped down to the board, have endured the agonizing feeling of the water overpowering your gag reflex, and then feel your throat open and allow pint after pint of water to involuntarily fill your lungs, you will not know the meaning of the word.
This, in my opinion, represents the same type of "appeal to authority" you are objecting to in other posts.
There have been several instances in which posters to RedState, who have experienced water boarding during training exercises, argue against the above claim that I have quoted.
Even though I lack the experience of having personally undergone water boarding, I'll go out on a limb and say that it probably does constitute a form of torture. My New Shorter Oxford Dictionary defines torture in broad terms, however.
Another part of the argument has to do with water boarding being an effective tool for gathering intelligence information. To the best of my knowledge, water boarding has been used only a few times in the last several years. It is known that its use was successful during the interrogation of Khalid Sheik Mohammed. While I do not disagree with your claim that the technique can produce hysterics, in some cases, that lead to unreliable information, I can still point to the results of the KSM interrogation methods as being reason enough to continue to use water boarding as a means of saving innocent lives.
As for any "authority" I may have, I can only say that I have been on the ground as a soldier and understand, in a real sense, this debate.
But I have to agree with smagar on this one. I for one am quite comfortable with the risk of giving terrorists panic attacks for years if that's what we need to do to break them so they'll tell us what we need to know in order to save American lives. It's not like we take what they give us after being broken as the Word of God or anything; it all gets analyzed and crosschecked and all that.
You'll have to come up with a much better argument than you have so far to convince me.
---
Finrod's First Law of Bandwidth:
A picture may be worth a thousand words, but it takes the bandwidth of ten thousand.
For we have a peculiar power of thinking before we act, and of acting, too, whereas other men are courageous from ignorance but hesitate upon reflection.
Then why do people DIE from it? As some have.
I'm sorry, I can't believe we are even discussing the idea of torture. But maybe that's just me.
I agree the Dems are playing games with this, it upsets me as much as it does you. But the simple fact of the matter is, that it's the Republicans that started it. Specifically, the Bush administration.
It's the Bush administration that started using torture, condoning torture and authorizing and wanting to use torture. And waterboarding is torture. So is raping 14 year olds and many of the other things that this country was doing at Abu Ghraib. There are tapes and YouTubes out there showing that this is true.
I really suggest that all here read "Confessions of an Economic Hit Man" if you want some insight into why these people are our "enemies". It's not because they hate freedom. It's because we're ruining their countries for our own gain.
"Listening to the collected works of Celine Dion" hahah that's funny. I want to tell you I think that's funny before I get banned again for disagreeing with the general premise of this site, which is that we should be allowed, as Americans, to pillage other countries and torture and kill their people for our own gain.
Our "enemies" are just desperate people that have been totally screwed over by us. Ban me if you will for saying so, but it's true.
That said, who do you vote for? Democrats? Just the same as Republicans. Independents? Yeah, if even one had a chance of winning. Ron Paul? I like him a lot, even though I think he's a Ross Perot wannabe. And by the way, Ross Perot was right about everything.
Greens? hahah........Dennis Kucinich? double haha. Rudi?
Three wives and mistress scandal, (not that I care, the reason I don't like him is because he's the same kind of Rumsfeldian nutcase that would like to start WWIII), other Republican candidates? Man, I don't know.
I'm a Democrat, if you haven't guessed by now. Hilly? same NAFTA BS as Bill............Obama? hmmmmmmmmm.........channelling Jesse Jackson.........Edwards? I like him best of all, which is why I'm going to get booted.
You all have a great Christmas, and I hope they let me stay in to talk to you sometimes.
Dolly
Trust me, it's torture just listening to you.
Nyaa, we're not gonna let you stay. We're fighting over the presidential nomination of our party; boiling oil to pour on Miss Nancy and Mister Harry; plus kicking our usual quota of grannies to the curb and choosing which children to starve as part of our Republican outreach.
Which means we don't really have time to exchange talking points with you. You seem to be a nice person and all that, but you're in the way. Sorry.
Drink Good Coffee. You can sleep when you're dead.
If you are going to come in here spouting liberal talking points and "known facts" the least you could do is back that up with some evidence (like your assertion that we killed people through waterboarding, or your claims that American soldiers are systematically raping 14 year olds).
to pillage other countries and torture and kill their people for our own gain.
What pillage are we receiving from Iraq? What are we "gaining? in plunder"
I'm sorry, I can't believe we are even discussing the idea of torture.
Considering that we are completely within out rights to hold on the spot trials, and then execute them, I wonder the same thing.
Our "enemies" are just desperate people that have been totally screwed over by us.
In that case, we have been screwed with by our enemies long enough, and after years of attacks and declarations of war, culminating with 9/11, we shouldn't be held accountable for anything we do, right? Or does your logic only work one way?
Speaking of logic, I love it when liberals claim that all Republicans specifically are evil (as you did above) and then when confronted with the truth about Democrats (like you would have if you had read the article) you claim that they are all corrupt and all the same (like you just did above) in a lame attempt at rationalizing their behavior.
You all have a great Christmas, and I hope they let me stay in to talk to you sometimes.
I enjoy having dissuasions with educated, informed people I may or may not agree with. I have nothing but contempt for the ignorant, no matter what their beliefs. Guess which category you fall into?
Evil prevails only when good men do nothing.
for saying unpopular things.
You get banned for saying stupid, uninteresting, pointless things, in a stupid, uninteresting, pointless way.
Playing fast and loose with facts doesn't help, either.
But that's just my opinion.
The "Third Worst Person in the World" and aiming higher.
side would you consider that wrong? If so, how so?
We've screwed all over them?? You wouldn't happen to be on Harry Reid's staff would you?
After you take your pheno and the self hate subsides some you may consider not taking it out on your country and the normal people on this site.
And stop reading the NY Times before it's too late.
"a man's admiration for absolute government is proportinate to the contempt he feels for those around him". Tocqueville
And 14 year olds weren't raped at Abu Ghraib. And -- hate to burst your bubble -- but George W. Bush's given name wasn't "Beelzebub."
Perhaps that has happened, but I don't recall that being reported unless it occurred in Viet Nam when our men were waterboarded. If that's not it, do share what you know. Concerning torture: I am not even remotely knowledgable about what has been done in the past, by our government representatives, in this regard. However, I find it incredibly disengenuous of you to suggest that torture started with the Bush Administration. I would suggest, and again, I'm no expert, that torture has been part of the intelligence community bag of tricks for many years before the Bush Administration. Please don't use that age old guilt trip the Dems are well versed in, that everything bad began with Bush. I'm sure historian will be glad to add a few more names to the villains of the West, and I'm sure you could too.
Waterboarding is often confused with "water torture", which is an entirely different technique. To my knowledge, waterboarding has never killed anyone. It is also safer and less, let's say, distastful than the other technique.
I am not an interogation expert. I have been waterboarded, and feel no shame relating that (in a training scenario) I told the instructors everything I felt they wanted to know. I probably didn't last 20 seconds. (I've had the misfortune of being waterboarded twice. Both times were in training).
I can relate that I had no physical or mental after effects either. But like I said, I'm certainly not an expert on how effective it is. I imagine our military and intell services wouldn't want to use it unless they felt it worked. We all know the story of Khalid (the 9/11 "mastermind"). He broke in less than two minutes, but he broke. Folks were surprised he lasted that long.
But my main point is that the proceedure shouldn't be confused with "water torture". Given Dolly's tone and some other false assumptions in her little screed I doubt she cares about the difference at any rate.
Also, I think folks should back of on Pej. I disagree with him too (on waterboarding being a torture), but that wasn't the point of his story. Pej is talking about the hypocracy of the dems, something we should all be able to agree on. The statement made en passent about his dislike of waterboarding was only to illustrate that he isn't being a hypocrit like the dems, and to focus on that small part of his srticle is to completely miss the point.
"Greater is an army of sheep led by a lion, than an army of lions led by a sheep" - Defoe
I certainly don't. I mean, I don't advocate doing it for sadistic pleasure, but if someone thinks it might even be mildly interesting or useful what some particular terrorist might say under the gun (or under the water) so to speak then I don't really have a problem with it.
These people do far worse and have broken multiple planks of the Geneva Conventions. Even if someone from al Qaeda had ever signed it or if we operated under the theory that if they at least abided by the Geneva Conventions themselves, we could commence under the theory that they are a party by presumption and practice - THEY STILL WOULDN'T be entitled to Geneva Conventions for having been in BREACH of the contract.
We didn't win the Revolutionary War by strictly adhering to the modicum of acceptable warfare at the time. The British were hurt in part because they did. I don't think that we should make that same mistake in fighting insurgent terrorists.
During the Vietnam War, members of the armed forces were court martialed for waterboarding prisoners. The Dept. of Defense considers this practice to be torture and prohibits its use. If any videos indicated that U.S. servicemen were involved in waterboarding, they would be prosecuted under the Uniform Code of Military Justice.
Bank on the lie. It's what you'll be hearing from the House and Senate Democratic Caucuses soon enough.
I think there is more than enough confusion to go around. I wish I could find the links at the moment, but I do recall reading some information a few months back that there is at least one professor teaching his JAG lawyers that waterBOARDING is torture and that anyone in the MILITARY should be prosecuted for it. Not sure if it went so far as to say they HAD been prosecuted.
I do recall rebutting at the time that his interpretation made no sense, because that meant we were torturing soldiers as part of training which would still be a violation of the law and therefore needed to be prosecuted under the UCMJ and if lawyer in JAG was aware of such action, they were in violation of their oath if they didn't prosecute it.
the WaPo story on what was known about "torture" is at this very moment eating liberal brain cells, already a precious and diminishing commodity. Add in their prior knowledge of the NSA wiretap program and they hardly have an arthritic leg to stand on. Poor dollyworld, note eloquence above, is an example. The self delusion machinery is about to explode, the facade of moral superiority is crumbling, outrage, the lifeblood of liberalism, is being tested to the limits, and right about now they can only be saved by revelations of a new Republican pseudo-scandal.
Quick, save a liberal, feed them news about the coming recession, the mortgage crisis, people being thrown into the gutters because of George Bush. Give a liberal something they can smile about.
"a man's admiration for absolute government is proportinate to the contempt he feels for those around him". Tocqueville
If you are going to torture a terrorist, you have to do it secretly. You certainly don't let the news media find out. If a person is called upon to obey an unlawful order for patriotic reasons, he should be given a written authorization with a signature from a high ranking official which includes a guarantee that neither his act or his name will ever be disclosed and he has complete immunity from all prosecution under federal law. If this wasn't done, and details are released to the public, the federal government screwed up and somebody has to be accountable.
I am sure that unlawful orders have been given in past wars with persons obeying or not obeying them. But, if they do, they are entitled to secrecy. It is a crime if we know about it.
In the Vietnam case, two U.S. soldiers were photographed by news media in the act of waterboarding. The publicity caused the Pentagon to court martial them.
...LISTEN. (a) You haven't backed up a single thing you've said. (b) -- this is far more important -- as I said above, "waterboarding" and water TORTURE are two completely different practices. You are either conflating the two because you are ignorant or a liar. Which is it?
Answer me, please.
I am in the company of several generals and admirals about the definition of waterboarding. You are entitled to disagree with them. I am so hurt because Jeff Almighty is calling me bad names (whiny, shrill, liar, ignorant). Your name calling is based on your inability to handle a disagreement without resorting personal attacks. If you don't like my comments, feel free to ignore them. I will reciprocate and ignore you.
"During the Vietnam War, members of the armed forces were court martialed for waterboarding prisoners."
You still have shown no proof of this. And even if it is true, it doesn't matter (see below).
"The Dept. of Defense considers this practice to be torture and prohibits its use. If any videos indicated that U.S. servicemen were involved in waterboarding, they would be prosecuted under the Uniform Code of Military Justice...I am in the company of several generals and admirals about the definition of waterboarding."
Yes, the Defense Department doesn't like waterboarding. And they might consider it torture (but this makes no sense, since they use it to train their troops - you wouldn't use cattle prods to the genitals to train your troops to resist/experience the technique). I admit that McCain and the generals agree with them. I admit that the UCMJ allows for the prosecution of military men using waterboarding. And perhaps it is even true that people have been court martialed for this (but you still haven't provided any proof).
But, so what? None of this matters. My points you objected to are that 1) waterboarding is not torture, and 2) that we should use it in certain situations. I know many people disagree with those statements. But those guys are just wrong. I respect military men for defending us, but this doesn't mean they are all knowing and always right. (BTW, usually, it is the left that insists that all arguments must come to an end when a military man agrees with the leftist argument.) They are wrong here; probably because they are men of honor, who object to the use of (admitedly) nasty methods.
I don't.
Waterboarding is not torture, for the reasons I mentioned above. And it should be used, in the situation I mentioned above.
Any requirement that "If a person is called upon to obey an unlawful order for patriotic reasons, he should be given a written authorization with a signature from a high ranking official which includes a guarantee that neither his act or his name will ever be disclosed and he has complete immunity from all prosecution under federal law" would be very stupid indeed.
Maybe I'm just out of the loop, but I'm unaware of any provision of the UCMJ or any US statute that gives permission to obey an unlawful order if you get a signed permission slip from the person giving the order. All such a paper would do is provide a paper trail to the person giving the order, which is, I presume, what you really want.
I say to you what I would say to John McCain. Why make a behavior "illegal" if you also say that it should be allowed under certain circumstances, unless you also list all the circumstances where it is either allowed or prohibited? Like the rules covering abortion, for example.
And the rules don't need to be made public, either. They only need to be made available for interrogators to follow.
But be prepared for the Law of Unintended Consequences to rear its ugly head the first time coercive techniques are not used because of the law. Say, several thousand (or hundred thousand) dead/or and disabled.
The "Third Worst Person in the World" and aiming higher.
Please be more specific about what you think is "crud?"
...you're going to Time Out for 24 hours or until I remember to let you back on the site.
Your choice, but your argument against being ignorant is looking weaker the more it appears you can't read OR process rational thoughts.
Your wild a** claims are crud, I'd use another word but this is a family site for the most part.
If you insist on talking about things that you obviously are observing from a position of having your head up your anal cavity, provide some links to back up your crud. Otherwise you're just an idiot with idiotic views that you can't backup with facts.
______________________________________
Proud member of the Barry Goldwater wing of the party !
Even if we put aside any and all moral objections to the practice....
What I cannot understand, however, is how the same people who denounce waterboarding, once were utterly and completely silent about the moral qualms that they may have had--and indeed, showed few moral qualms....
Forget the morality of the issue....
It's quite simple really. Today's Democratic Party does not operate on any moral basis - their sole determination is whether they think the position they take today makes George Bush look bad or not. The same Democrats who were silent about waterboarding yesterday and are screaming against it today would see no problem if there were a terrorist attack tomorrow to criticize Bush for not using it more.
What's good for the goose is good for the gander.
Every technique that we approve to be used on "foreign combatants" is a technique that we approve to be used on our own soldiers if they are captured.
I don't know about you but I don't like the idea that our soldiers might be water boarded...
So in your mind there are only two choices, waterboarding or death?
Let me put it to you another way. If we make up the rules as we go along, why shouldn't our enemy also do that?
Paraphrasing... You said, "We can't waterboard, else they'll do it to us." I said: "Gee, they don't seem to have a problem beheading our guys even though I can't seem to find any cases where we've done that."
Either we follow the rules or we don't. If we don't then we have no moral grounds to demand that others do. We aren't the only ones who can play word games like calling individuals "enemy combatants."
You started off here by saying either we follow the rules or we don't. As I said in another post, I have no problem with that argument. But then you morph back over to the "we can't do it so they won't" argument, which makes no sense. Did the Bataan death march result from some death march we had? Did the Hanoi Hilton or other atrocities result from anything done in the south? I don't recall a Saigon Sheraton. Did hanging captured prisoners from a bridge; multilating, dismembering, and burning bodies; or beheading journalists and other prisoners result in response to similar actions on our part? NO. So your argument that we need to avoid it so the other guys do too doesn't hold any water (slight pun intended). The bad guys are going to do whatever they are going to do regardless of what we do = we need to decide our own rules.
I can understand people being opposed to waterboarding because they think it's below us or too barbaric or whatever. Fine. But the "we can't because they'll do it to us" argument doesn't make sense to me, since we've seen for 60+ years that our enemies have no problem doing 100x worse to our prisoners than anything we do to theirs.
We tortured by proxy. We simply turned over our prisoners to the South Vietnamese who then among other things, threw them out of helicopters. So you tell me, how did that work out for us?
You may thank the Democrats for teaching the world that there was a yellow stripe across our collective belly. I do every time I vote.
-----------
We are all heroes, you and Boo and I. Hamsters and rangers everywhere, rejoice!
there was a measurable probability that our refraining from waterboarding their guys caused them to refrain from waterboarding our guys. Since there isn't [insert Family Feud buzzer sound here].
Are you saying we let others decide our morality? That if they are evil we'll be evil too? Grant you on paper it does sound "fair" but we are asking our soldiers to sacrifice their moral standings. Makes you wonder just who is the enemy...
How about if we outlaw war, disband the military and just treat everybody like we'd like to be treated.
Problem solved, huh?
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
You want U.S. policy to go by your wuss pacifist 'let's all just play nice' faux morality.
You have already judged waterboarding to be immoral. But in this crowd on RedState, you are alone.
Stare decisis is fo' suckas -- Feddie
Humans are nasty, grubby animals, and if their moral values conflict with yours, your choice is to acquiesce to their actions -- something no responsible State should or would do -- or smack them in the nose until they acquiesce to yours.
I'd rather that, say, China was worried about losing Shanghai, if they should do something violative of a treaty between the U.S. and the PRC and thereby torture me, than that they'd get a sternly worded communique. Most folks would, I suppose.
-----------
We are all heroes, you and Boo and I. Hamsters and rangers everywhere, rejoice!
There were some interesting revelations made recently from former interrogators during WW2, who claimed they got their information through playing games such as chess and various other ways of "buttering prisoners up."
For the sake of argument, if it were true that this method produced better results than torture (or whatever you want to call it), would you endorse it? Would you be so disgusted at the thought of coddling terrorists, that you would ignore its possible benefits? Would the icky feelings it produces prevent you from making the pragmatic choice of shelving torture?
I truly believe that many pro-torture folks, whether or not they admit it, feel that these people are evil (which many may be) and thus deserve to be hurt and punished. They let this color their opinion on torture, even though the point should be about getting information. I also suspect there is a greater amount of racism toward Arabs in general among the pro-torture camp. How else can one explain the unwillingness not to extend the same rights we extend to other human beings or even prisoners of war in the past? In other words, if an Arab gets falsely imprisoned and tortured, who cares, after all they are just Arabs.
I imagine one of the reasons the interrogators of WW2 were able to play chess and whatnot with the prisoners is because on some level they respected them on some level as fellow officers -- also white, probably educated, and more culturally similar as Europeans. Of course, dehumanizing the enemy is a natural part of war, but it can go too far.
That's how it appears to me, though my liberal views probably appear just as absurd to you.
I can see it now
Innterogator: P-K4
Z: Picks up bishop notices its pointy and tries to ram it in the interogator's eye.
What next, My Dinner with Osama ?
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
I'd let you try to explain precisely what ethical/moral value system [rated "nonevil"] would let one legitimize killing homosexuals, secularists, assertive women, apostates, and other such dangerous criminals, but you've spent too much time peddling your trash on this site as it is. They're just not real to you, are they, polyglycoat?
Get the Hell off of my website, filthmonger.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
What I see is there are some amongst us who really want to "hurt" the enemy and torture is just one way they can do it. In study after study they have found torture to be an unreliable means of obtaining information. Yet this administration has embraced it in a manner that could be considered gung-ho. Even if you could show them undeniable proof that other means of interrogation work better I doubt very much it will change their minds.
Simply put, they want to be bad. Further they want everyone else to pay the price for it...years from now, when we are involved in other engagements, our enemies will laugh at us and righteously point out that we set the standards.
Good to have another
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
so you really aren't a liberal are you? Just kidding....
If there are "soft" approaches that have a chance of working we should certainly be pursuing them. Hard to believe anyone could feel otherwise. I appreciate your comment about a gut feel of taking some pleasure out of these guys suffering a bit, but it seems like the fact that waterboarding has apparently only been used on three people shows that there has been a good deal of restraint, notwithstanding that a few people took certain liberties such as at Abu Ghraib.
I can see where you’re coming from in the lack of reciprocal behavior. Our enemies will certainly not play by the international rules. But hasn’t that always been the case? I believe McCain can tell you that the VC didn’t reciprocate our humane treatment of their POW’s. We treated our prisoners in a humane fashion because that’s WHO WE ARE. Reciprocation is nice, and that’s why we signed the Geneva convention, but it isn’t the sole reason why torture is against official US policy.
As for the “Torture Saves Lives” argument, I’ll just ask, if that is a justification to torture a suspected terrorist, why ISN’T the same justification valid with respect to a Russian/German/Vietcong/Korean soldier that we capture? Say we capture high ranking soldier from “Country X” with whom we are at war. Isn’t there a good possibility that he knows where troops are massing? Where the enemies next attack will be? Couldn’t we save lives, thousands of lives, by torturing him and getting that intelligence? These treaties are meant to applied during war time, which is by definition a time of great urgency where lives hang in the balance. Why have anti-torture treaties in the first place if you get to ignore when you think it’s urgent? Just a question to consider.
and let me add, I couldn't agree more with the initial poster. The false surprise of the Democrats, who knew very well what was going on, makes me want to vomit.
The current administration does three things well, declare half of what goes on secret, declares the other half covered under presidential privilege and the rest is headed for the shredder. Yet you believe that the "democrats" knew!
Even today the administration refuses to turn over to congressional committees documentation of what went on and is still going on.
Source Gillespie's assertion is undercut by the chairman of the Intelligence Committee, who complained earlier this month about the administration's ongoing refusal to turn over all of its documents on the CIA's interrogation methods to congressional overseers.
Seriously, just about every week we see new stories of documents the administration refuses to turn over to Congress. Yet you are claiming that the democrats knew??? How did they know, psychics?
That liberal rag The Washington Post wrote:
"In September 2002, four members of Congress met in secret for a first look at a unique CIA program designed to wring vital information from reticent terrorism suspects in U.S. custody. For more than an hour, the bipartisan group, which included current House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), was given a virtual tour of the CIA's overseas detention sites and the harsh techniques interrogators had devised to try to make their prisoners talk.
Among the techniques described, said two officials present, was waterboarding, a practice that years later would be condemned as torture by Democrats..."
You won't find me defending Bush on much, and I don't think I'm doing it here. I'm merely pointing out my disdain for the faux shock of Pelosi and co.
"We treated our prisoners in a humane fashion because that’s WHO WE ARE."
I do not believe that's the case. Beheading, Hooding, and Waterboarding: CIA Torture in Vietnam, Latin America, and Iraq. Now you tell me. How did we do in Vietnam, Latin America and Iraq?
Seems that we lost didn't we!!! Can it be said that we only made them madder at us?
We only lose at these things when Democrats yank the rug out from under us.
-----------
We are all heroes, you and Boo and I. Hamsters and rangers everywhere, rejoice!
"We only lose at these things when Democrats yank the rug out from under us."
Which one family was involved in running all three engagements?
HINT: A four letter word.
OK, kid, faux-outrage over interrogation techniques is one thing; bizarre conspiracy theories are best left for other sites. Go find one.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
We pass the more amusing ones around.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
And my outrage isn't over torture. It is over the fact that mindless blood thirsty individuals are acting in my name in a manner that can only be considered evil.
This is my country too and it doesn't belong solely to those who practice morality of the lowest common denominator.
What does America mean to you; that we are no better than the enemies we face?
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
I recommend this to you
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1571/is_27_15/ai_55283467
Its from when the human rights organizations weren't controlled by the criminals.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
They only screech about our supposed moral failings when they're seriously worried that their own will come to light, in the end. Sorry, kid, but you picked the wrong side... and we both know it.
Now shoo.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
with just four letters. It comes out "Kndy."
The "Third Worst Person in the World" and aiming higher.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
"...but it seems like the fact that waterboarding has apparently only been used on three people..."
Are you saying that because all those tapes have been destroyed?
Those tapes were made in 2002 and five years later we just learned they were destroyed in 2005. Don't you get the feeling that you don't know what you're talking about because you are not being told the truth?
that I should have added to my old "technical changes I'd like to see at RedState" blog. An "Ignore button" would be wonderful to have...
The Unofficial RedState FAQ
“You are not only responsible for what you say, but also for what you do not say. ” - Martin Luther
Once again, the Dems have shown how despicably partisan they are on the war on terror.
Waterboarding is not torture; it is not severe and extended pain, as torture is defined in the US code. It is not the rack, or the iron maiden, or beating a man till he bleeds, etc. It is basically a trick. (If it lasts for a long time, however, it can be torture. But we don't do that.) We use waterboarding on our own servicemen; does this mean that our own armed forces torture our own servicemen to teach them how to handle it? Do they also use the iron maiden on these guys for the same reason? Please.
But what was truly despicable about Dem reactions to waterboarding was their grandstanding during the Mukasey vote. They lobbied for the guy, and then asked him a question they knew he could not answer - is waterboarding torture? Even if Mukasey thinks it is torture, by saying it, as the incoming AG, he guaranteed that the left wing extremists could successfully sue our agents who waterboarded KSM (and the two others) for damages, and might even lead to criminal charges. This was something he couldn't do; they knew it, but asked him anyway. Despicable.
BTW, we have only used this procedure on three guys, all of whom were already known (prior to the waterboarding) to be guilty as sin. I have no problem with this, under these conditions. Obviously, if we are unsure of their guilt, we should not use waterboarding. (It is a CID, after all.) In fact, I strongly suspect that this is not problematic for the American people either. I have never heard any normal person say otherwise.
PS: Considering the games the Dems play on this, I think the Republicans should use this against them. There was a vote on waterboarding in the 109th Congress. GOP candidates should challenge every Democratic who voted to outlaw waterboarding because it was torture 1) do you think KSM should get an apology and damages for it, and 2) are the American servicemen who use waterboarding on their fellows torturers, and if not, why not?