Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder: No charges against CIA officials for torture - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Cynthetiq · 04-16-2009, 12:54 PM

Quote:

View: No charges against CIA officials for waterboarding
Source: Usatoday
posted with the TFP thread generator

No charges against CIA officials for waterboarding
No charges against CIA officials for waterboarding
WASHINGTON (AP) — Seeking to move beyond what he calls a "a dark and painful chapter in our history," President Obama said Thursday that CIA officials who used harsh interrogation tactics during the Bush administration will not be prosecuted.

The government released four memos in which Bush-era lawyers approved in often graphic detail tough interrogation methods used against 28 terror suspects. The rough tactics range from waterboarding — simulated drowning — to keeping suspects naked and withholding solid food.

Even as they exposed new details of the interrogation program, Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder, offered the first definitive assurance that those CIA officials are in the clear, as long as their actions were in line with the legal advice at the time.

PREVIOUS COVERAGE: Holder: 'Waterboarding is torture'
ON DEADLINE: Obama won't prosecute CIA for waterboarding
EARLIER ON DEADLINE: Senate votes to ban waterboarding

Obama said the nation must protect the identity of CIA contractors and employees "as vigilantly as they protect our security."

"We have been through a dark and painful chapter in our history," the president said. "But at a time of great challenges and disturbing disunity, nothing will be gained by spending our time and energy laying blame for the past."

Holder told the CIA that the government would provide free legal representation to CIA employees in any legal proceeding or congressional investigation related to the program and would repay any financial judgment.

"It would be unfair to prosecute dedicated men and women working to protect America for conduct that was sanctioned in advance by the Justice Department," Holder said.

The CIA has acknowledged using waterboarding, a form of simulated drowning, on three high-level terror detainees in 2002 and 2003, with the permission of the White House and the Justice Department. Former CIA Director Michael Hayden said waterboarding has not been used since, but some human rights groups have urged Obama to hold CIA employees accountable for what they, and many Obama officials and others around the world, say was torture.

Further, the statements accompanied the Justice Department's release of four significant Bush-era legal opinions governing — in graphic and extensive detail — the interrogation of 14 high-value terror detainees using harsh techniques beyond waterboarding, the officials said. One of the memos was produced by the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel in August 2002, the other three in 2005.

The memos, released to meet a court-approved deadline in a lawsuit against the government in New York by the American Civil Liberties Union, detail the dozen harsh techniques approved for use by CIA interrogators, the officials said. One memo also specifically authorized a method for combining multiple techniques, a practice human rights advocates argue crosses the line into torture even if any individual methods does not.

The Obama administration last month released nine legal memos, and probably will release more as the lawsuit proceeds. But the four released Thursday represent the fullest, and now complete, accounting by the government of the methods authorized and used, the officials said.

Those include keeping detainees naked for long periods, keeping them in a painful standing position for long periods, and depriving them of solid food. Other tactics included using a plastic neck collar to slam detainees into walls, keeping the detainee's cell cold for long periods, and beating and kicking the detainee. Sleep-deprivation, prolonged shackling, and threats to a detainee's family were also used.

Among the things not allowed in the memos were allowing a prisoner's body temperature or caloric intake to fall below a certain level, because either could cause permanent damage, said senior administration officials. They discussed the memos on condition of anonymity to more fully describe the president's decision-making process.

The ACLU suit has sought to use the Freedom of Information Act to shed light on the treatment of prisoners — even though the Bush administration eventually abandoned many of the legal conclusions and the Obama administration has gone further to actively dismantle much of President George W. Bush's anti-terror program.

Obama has ordered the CIA's secret overseas prisons known as "black sites" closed and ended so-called "extraordinary renditions" of terrorism suspects if there is any reason to believe the third country would torture them. He has also restricted CIA questioners to only those interrogation methods and protocols approved for use by the U.S. military until a complete review of the program is conducted.

Also Thursday, Holder formally revoked every legal opinion or memo issued during Bush's presidency that justified interrogation programs.

The documents have been the subject of a long, fierce debate in and outside government over how much officials should say.

The Bush administration held the view that the president had the authority to claim broad powers that could not be checked by Congress or the courts in order to keep Americans safe. Obama and Holder, among others, have said that the use of such unchecked powers has actually made Americans less safe, by increasing anti-U.S. sentiment, endangering American troops when captured and handing terrorists a recruiting tool.

"Enlisting our values in the protection of our people makes us stronger and more secure," Obama said in his statement.

Even so, the officials described the president's process of deciding how much to release in response to the suit as very difficult. Over four weeks, there were intense debates involving the president, Cabinet members, lower-level officials and even former administration officials.

Obama was concerned that releasing the information could endanger ongoing operations, American personnel or U.S. relationships with foreign intelligence services. CIA officials, in particular, needed reassuring, the officials said.

But in the end, the view of the Justice Department prevailed, that the FOIA law required the release and that the government would be forced to do so by the court if it didn't do so itself, the officials said.

A critic of the policies on torture hailed the release of the documents, but questioned the decision not to prosecute.

"Releasing the torture memos was a good step toward restoring America's credibility as a nation that doesn't torture, but the president is dead wrong to say that nothing will be gained by laying blame for what happened in the past," said Stacy Sullivan of Human Rights Watch. "Prosecuting violations of the law is not about laying blame for the past, it's about ensuring that those crimes don't happen again."

In his statement, Obama said he was reassured about the potential national security implications by the fact that much of the information contained had already been widely publicized — including some of it by Bush himself — and by the fact that the program itself no longer exists.

He said "exceptional circumstances surround these memos and require their release" and does not change his determination to keep other intelligence operations secret and information about them classified.

But, said Obama, "Withholding these memos would only serve to deny facts that have been in the public domain for some time. This could contribute to an inaccurate accounting of the past, and fuel erroneous and inflammatory assumptions about actions taken by the United States."

Those assurances are not likely to innoculate Obama against criticism from conservatives. Last month, Vice President Cheney said, for instance, that Obama's decisions to revoke Bush-era terrorist detainee policies will "raise the risk to the American people of another attack."

So President Obama is not going to pursue the illegal actions of the CIA. I'm not surprised by this, which again, I'll say flat out, I'm fine with torture, just like I'm fine with war. So for me, I don't find this outrageous or that the program no longer exists that it won't happen again in the future.

Was this the right move for President Obama? Should he have done something differently?

KirStang · 04-16-2009, 01:04 PM

Well,

For one, consider the media field day that would occur if they went ahead with prosecution...

dippin · 04-16-2009, 01:10 PM

I think torture is always wrong, and it has generally been established that while torture is "great" for extracting false confessions, it is of extremely limited use to gain actual intelligence.

That said, this news is expected. And in any case, if prosecution was to ever come about, it should be against the people who wrote the new guidelines and their rationale.

roachboy · 04-16-2009, 01:38 PM

1.

this would get into an extremely ugly area pretty quickly if there was a move against people who carried out torture--you'd end up with versions of the nuremburg defense---whaddya mean? i was just following orders.
i would expect that the political and institutional damage that would have been done was seen as outweighing the upside of positioning the united states as a country that actually does not torture because, you know, geneva convention, basic human rights--all that stuff which only really matters when adhering to them is a problem. when there's no pressure, when there's no crisis, it means nothing---well not nothing, but rather it is easy to adhere to such conventions and principles when there's no pressure from within not to.

and we all know that war crimes only happen in the context of regimes that loose wars. loosing a war is therefore the real crime.

so i think this decision is in principle kinda foul.

2.

at the same time, in pragmatic terms, i think the obama administration's systematic dismantling of the bush people's policy logic and legal framework that enabled this to happen is obviously a good thing. and the public repudiations of the policy a good thing.

but that isn't really the question.

=======

reframe.

if i may, i 'd like to try to open out the questions in the op a bit. this is complicated.

(a) *should* it in fact be the case that war crimes--crimes against humanity--are only actionable if a political regime looses a war.
what does that mean?
that there are no crimes against humanity possible by a "legitimate" regime?
but if it's functionally impossible to prosecute war crimes carried out by "legitimate"regimes, doesn't that amount to saying that there are no war crimes possible unless a regime looses a war?

and again--that means the real crime in our o-so-ethical global order is losing a war.
you want an example---think about the travesty that was the trail of saddam hussein.
now i'm not in any way arguing that he was not a brutal dictator--but think of the farce his trial was.
what clearer demonstration could you have that the crime really was loosing and the war crimes prosecution is in fact a mechanism used by those who win to break the political power of the regime they fought?

that seems fucked up.
doesn't it seem so to you?

what does that make a war crime?

o but it gets better:

(b) war crimes---crimes against humanity--are of an order that the legitimacy of a political regime that enacts them SHOULD be placed into serious question.

members of the political class within a given nation-state in a position like, say, obama's, find themselves trying to maintain the legitimacy of the system as a whole in significant measure because they occupy positions of power by virtue of it.

so they have no interest in triggering the kind of questions about legitimacy that would follow by prosecuting war crimes--torture is a war crime, extraorindary rendition arguably so, much of the treatment of prisoners arguably so, the separation of detainee from prisoner of war arguably so.

the reason that the legitimacy of a political regime that carries out such actions is placed in question fundamentally by any prosecution is simply that a political order in a modern state dovetails with a professional apparatus that is not politically appointed, that is permanent--the functionaries---and the prosecution of war crimes necessarily implicates not only the political leadership but the permanent apparatus of the state. there is something about the way things are done in the states IN GENERAL that is a Problem.

this seems to be the position the obama administration is basically arguing above--they aren't talking about state legitimacy though (why would they?)--instead they couch the argument in continuity of "national security"--but that's bullshit, really. but if you think about it, that they'd do this is expedient: why invite the questions that your actions are designed to avoid?

but this leads to a Problem.

(c) if that is the situation of, say, the obama administration (here as an example)--that they simultaneously want to condemn the practices of the bush people, dismantle their local conditions of possibility---but they also want to block basic questions as to the legitimacy of the political order itself which they now control...and if this is in general the position of ANY nation-state government---and this would be the basis for the argument that war crimes are only carried out by regimes that loose wars.

but there's another way to see this.
doesn't it follow that a national-level legal system, which is intertwined with the national-level legal system--is NOT in a position to make decisions about war crimes prosecutions?

should this be a question for the international war crimes tribunal to decide on?

if there were crimes against humanity, where is the iwct?

it's a tricky set of problems.
i'm not sure i've outlined them in the best way, but as i see it, there we are.

Willravel · 04-16-2009, 01:51 PM

It's a shame that there wasn't some famous international trail that established precedent when it came to following illegal orders.

Charlatan · 04-16-2009, 04:21 PM

Ultimately, if this sort of prosecution (persecution) were to proceed it would lead right to the top (i.e. the I was just following orders always moves uphill).

I don't think *any* US administration is interested in pursuing that line of enquiry.

Derwood · 04-16-2009, 06:58 PM

I always thought that this was a pipe dream. Never was going to happen

SecretMethod70 · 04-16-2009, 07:16 PM

There's also some talk that the intelligence community would revolt against the Obama administration if it pursued prosecution.

Personally, I'm fine with taking this line of inquiry as high as it goes, and making it known whenever anyone puts national security at risk because of it (such as the intelligence community not cooperating with the Obama administration).

I realize that's too much to ask for most politicians though, so I can't get too outraged over this. Still disappointed though.

robot_parade · 04-16-2009, 07:37 PM

Willravel: Nuremberg only happened because Germany lost the war. Can you name a time where a similar thing happened without such a huge disparity of power? Watergate is close, I admit, but for whatever reasons, the public outrage just isn't there this time.

Regarding the question of immunity to CIA agents...I can understand why he did it...if he started a witch hunt within the CIA, he'd be in seriously deep shit. He would never get any loyalty from the CIA. That could be a huge problem.

And, while I agree that 'following orders' isn't an excuse for illegal behavior, I'd almost be ok with it if those giving the orders (Cheney, Bush), were actually prosecuted. Unfortunately, I can't see that happening.

roachboy · 04-17-2009, 03:39 AM

i dont know if you saw these, but in case not and you're curious, here's a link to a the memos regarding torture that the obama administration released yesterday.
they're a sobering read.

Read the torture memos released by Barack Obama | World news | guardian.co.uk

aceventura3 · 04-17-2009, 07:50 AM

I am not surprised no legal action is going to be taken against CIA officials who acted within the administrations' interpretation of the law. The root problem here is with the vague legal definition of torture that allows broad interpretation. The business of war and enemy interrogation is not pretty and in my view those in the business of doing the work to keep us safe want to be as effective as possible staying within the law. Whether we like it or can even stomach reading the memos, I think it was appropriate for the administration to issue more specific parameters for the men and women doing the work. I would hope that the current administration has already done the same thing if they disagree with the previous administrations interpretation of the law. And four years from now we can again act all grossed out and self righteous when we read those memos, because at the margins there will always be something average people will have a problem with, and that is why average people are not put in situations requiring exceptional ability or exceptional tolerance to perform certain tasks.

Slims · 04-17-2009, 08:07 AM

Mirriam-Websters definition of Torture:

1 a: anguish of body or mind : agony b: something that causes agony or pain
2: the infliction of intense pain (as from burning, crushing, or wounding) to punish, coerce, or afford sadistic pleasure
3: distortion or overrefinement of a meaning or an argument

I don't see how getting slapped counts as intense pain or agony. Ditto with everything else in the memo.

I think the interrogators were right to follow the directives/decisions from the Justice Department Lawyers. They were making detainees uncomfortable, but were not inflicting intense pain or anguish.

You can argue that what was done was not right, but I fail to see how the behavior meets the criteria for torture. To suggest that it does lessens the sacrifices of those who really are tortured...broken limbs, crushed bodies, etc.

And am I missing something in the Geneva conventions which makes them apply to non-signatories?

---------- Post added at 12:07 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:01 PM ----------

Also, I can tell you 100% that the military inflicts worse 'torture' on some of it's own troops during training.

If the methods outlined in the memos count as torture and are inexcusable under any circumstances, then the Military is going to have to explain why it is "torturing" rather than "training" soldiers.

And don't give me any nonsense about consent, because I promise you that no soldier is going to say "yeah, go ahead and slap the shit out of me."

dippin · 04-17-2009, 11:58 AM

I think it is amazing the lengths of moral relativism people go to in order to justify torture.

First, there was nothing "ambiguous" about what was being done here. This wasn't a good faith effort to determine the limits of the law, but a bad faith effort to subvert them.

The Bush administration had no problems calling the same things the US did torture when it was other nations doing it the exact same things.

And one must be either exercising selective reading or not have read at all to think that the only torture that was going on was slapping.

Waterboarding, slapping, sensory deprivation, sleep deprivation, smashing heads against walls, stress positions, confinement in boxes, etc. are not just "slaps." There are over 100 recorded cases of detainees dying under interrogation, as well as several more cases of individuals being driven insane because of that, including American citizen Jose Padilla.

And even those very close to the interrogations admit that very little, if any, relevant intelligence came of it. If there is one thing these memos make clear is that the whole "ticking time bomb" scenario is false.

QuasiMondo · 04-17-2009, 12:13 PM

I'm satisfied with the Justice Dept's decision not to prosecute.

This isn't the Nuremberg scenario where these agents were just following orders. They're not going to be tried by an international tribunal, so the question of whether they're following orders is the incorrect one. It really comes down to this: Does it make sense for the Justice Department to retroactively prosecute these agents for doing things that this very same Justice Dept said was legal? Never mind the intelligence community revolting against the Administration, you'd have to deal with an already angry public who has now lost faith in a Justice Department who would prosecute individuals for doing things they said was perfectly legal.

The circus would surely be in town then.

Slims · 04-17-2009, 12:19 PM

What?

Dude, there is no moral relativism involved. It's a legal issue and only a legal issue. Torture is, by definition extremely painful (or it wouldn't be torture). The methods listed in that memo just dont' fit that bill. If detainees were actually being tortured beyond the treatment authorized then that is another issue. As for the number of detainees who have 'died' in custody, remember that many of them were already sick or wounded before they were picked up and are often on their way out the door already.

Some of those detainees who were "Tortured" were the primary producers of Intel on Al-Qaeda for quite some time. Those tactics were employed BECAUSE they were effective and were constantly refined and re-verified.

I can understand the argument that it wasn't right and shouldn't have been done I disagree, but it is absolutely a legitimate argument. I can even understand an argument saying the tactics should have been interpreted as illegal. What I don't understand is an argument which circumvents the issue by either pointing at people who were actually tortured (illegally) and/or misrepresents the effectiveness of the methods employed with absolutely no first hand (or even second or third) information whatsoever and no data (because none has been released, intelligence being one of those 'secret' type things) to support your claim.

dippin · 04-17-2009, 12:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Slims

What?

Dude, there is no moral relativism involved. It's a legal issue and only a legal issue. Torture is, by definition extremely painful (or it wouldn't be torture). The methods listed in that memo just dont' fit that bill. If detainees were actually being tortured beyond the treatment authorized then that is another issue. As for the number of detainees who have 'died' in custody, remember that many of them were already sick or wounded before they were picked up and are often on their way out the door already. Several times we almost had a detainee die on us....In particular one from congestive heart failure, another due to a massive hernia, and a third who was gut-shot. In each instance we were more worried about their health and how it would be perceived politically if a detainee died in our custody than we were in the intelligence they could provide.

Some of those detainees who were "Tortured" were the primary producers of Intel on Al-Qaeda for quite some time. Those tactics were employed BECAUSE they were effective and were constantly refined and re-verified. I have seen how well some of them can work when properly applied.

I can understand the argument that it wasn't right and shouldn't have been done I disagree, but it is absolutely a legitimate argument. I can even understand an argument saying the tactics should have been interpreted as illegal. What I don't understand is an argument which circumvents the issue by either pointing at people who were actually tortured (illegally) and/or misrepresents the effectiveness of the methods employed with absolutely no first hand (or even second or third) information whatsoever and no data (because none has been released, intelligence being one of those 'secret' type things) to support your claim.

Torture is not by definition "extremely painful." It can just as easily be about mental anguish, like with sleep deprivation, extended sensory deprivation, fake executions.

And the legal "rationale" used to approve these techniques is extremely weak, as anyone who has read them knows.

And the argument that only someone who has immediate knowledge of these situations can discuss them is total Bullshit with a capital B, and circular to boot. "We can torture because we know what we learned, but I can't tell you, so we will keep doing without anyone's interference."

But in any case, there have been numerous memos released about how people were actually saying that their ability to gather intelligence had been compromised due to the mental state of the detainee.

And in any case, just look at the numbers of people release and deemed not of interest after undergoing such treatment. So we know several innocent people were tortured, and yet this is all ok?

Slims · 04-17-2009, 12:51 PM

Ok, I don't recall reading anything which authorized fake executions.

Second, "Mental Anguish" is torture? Really?

Sleep deprivation not to exceed 48 hours isn't torture or college students cramming for a test wouldn't do it on a regular basis.

They are not slamming heads into a wall.

Sensory Deprivation is torture? I guess we should make sure they have HBO.

The food deprivation consisted of a tasteless but nutritionally complete liquid diet, not starvation.

It is my understanding that our government is only required to look out for the most basic needs of a detainee...he doesn't have to like the food he is given, it doesn't have to be on a regular schedule, he can be uncomfortable so long as he is not harmed. Those memos lay out exactly how far the CIA was able to go before they stepped over that line.

I know what you are saying about the mental state of the detainee...If the Afghans roll someone up and then rape him over and over again for a week before giving him to you then yeah, he is probably not going to be very usefull. But if you make someone drink a protein shake instead of eat a stake dinner I doubt he is going to be mentally 'broken' and useless. Also, if you administer corrections and whatnot willy-nilly and don't reward good behavior/punish bad, etc. then you make someone who is simply traumatized rather than cooperative. Also, the memo's require a psychologist to be present during all such interrogations to monitor and ensure that the methods are productive rather than counterproductive....Sounds to me like they were already addressing the issue you are worried about.

Edit: last thing. I was not implying that you were not free to discuss the issue. But rather that you were drawing conclusions you knew nothing about. Saying an interrogation method is ineffective when you don't even know how the method is employed is silly. It's like saying fast cars always kill people because you read about a NASCAR wreck. What I was saying about the information is that you would only have heard about the failures...there is no reason to keep that a secret. The people who rolled over as a result of these tactics and are giving good information would not be mentioned, even at the expense of making the method look like a failure. So even if the program were wildly successful beyond anyones imagination, the few people who did not provide information would be all the public is likely to ever learn about.

roachboy · 04-17-2009, 01:49 PM

waterboarding is torture. there's not a whole lot of debate about that. sleep deprivation etc.---alot of these actions were developed in order to circumvent restrictions on torture. slapping etc--it's hard to say: taken in isolation, probably not; seen in the context of a systematic desensitization of the interrogators to limits that should have been placed on their actions, they're a problem.

i hear gordon liddy making the same kind of arguments outlined above concerning some of these actions--o pshaw they're not really torture according to some arbitrary manly man notion of what "real pain" is. and his move was the same as what you see above--isolate "slapping"and ask well, is that torture?

fact is that the bush administration attempted to fashion a legal rationale which circumvented international conventions of the treatment of prisoners to which the united states is a signatory; the bush administration attempted to fashion the narrowest possible interpretation of torture in order to justify actions in the name of----well what, really?---it's been known for a very long time that what torture is good at eliciting is whatever information will make the torture stop--that has nothing to do with accurate information--this is self-evident---look at the history of the french in algeria for fucks sake. the only way torture worked in that case was that is was applied to a huge population regardless of legal standing and was aimed at eliciting extremely narrow types of information and the accuracy of that information really wasn't important because it just fed back into the same operation. and in the end, this tactic not only did not work, but it was fundamental to political changes that caused the french to loose the war in algeria. it's a fools game.

anyway, there are problems with prosecuting bush administration officials for the policy-but i fundamentally do not think that the government of the united states is in a position to determine what actions of the previous version of the same government were and were not war crimes.
i think this should be tried by an international tribunal.
otherwise, it is functionally the case that a government that does not loose a war can do any fucking thing it decides is justified, and that the ONLY crime really is losing a war.
that, folks, is fucked up.

most of the factors folk have elicited to either be cool with or justify the obama administration's decision not to prosecute i already used as arguments against the idea that a national government is in a position to functionally prosecute itself for this kind of action.

and the question of what is and is not torture really is not for a messageboard debate to decide.
it's for a court.
there should be prosecution.

but i think the people who are responsible for the policy should be the ones facing charges. starting with rumsfeld.

Willravel · 04-17-2009, 02:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cynthetiq

I'm not surprised by this, which again, I'll say flat out, I'm fine with torture, just like I'm fine with war.

People who are fine with torture are people who don't understand torture.

Baraka_Guru · 04-17-2009, 03:37 PM

Other than pretty much agreeing with most of what roachboy has laid out of late, I want to say that the use of torture is an indication of a problematic moral failure. Within the context of war, it obliterates any possibility of "just" warfare.

Once you cross the line of bypassing human dignity, you have bypassed all hope for fighting for the greater good. If you cannot uphold your own values, it becomes unclear as to what exactly you're fighting for.

If America is okay with torture, it can be little better than many of the brutal dictatorships we've seen come and go. What else will we see as a means to an end?

I don't understand your Constitution to the letter, but I'd be rather surprised to learn that this kind of behaviour doesn't go against such an important document. That it does is indicative of a serious omission on the part of the framers and those involved in the amendments.

dippin · 04-17-2009, 06:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Slims

Ok, I don't recall reading anything which authorized fake executions.

Second, "Mental Anguish" is torture? Really?

Sleep deprivation not to exceed 48 hours isn't torture or college students cramming for a test wouldn't do it on a regular basis.

They are not slamming heads into a wall.

Sensory Deprivation is torture? I guess we should make sure they have HBO.

The food deprivation consisted of a tasteless but nutritionally complete liquid diet, not starvation.

It is my understanding that our government is only required to look out for the most basic needs of a detainee...he doesn't have to like the food he is given, it doesn't have to be on a regular schedule, he can be uncomfortable so long as he is not harmed. Those memos lay out exactly how far the CIA was able to go before they stepped over that line.

I know what you are saying about the mental state of the detainee...If the Afghans roll someone up and then rape him over and over again for a week before giving him to you then yeah, he is probably not going to be very usefull. But if you make someone drink a protein shake instead of eat a stake dinner I doubt he is going to be mentally 'broken' and useless. Also, if you administer corrections and whatnot willy-nilly and don't reward good behavior/punish bad, etc. then you make someone who is simply traumatized rather than cooperative. Also, the memo's require a psychologist to be present during all such interrogations to monitor and ensure that the methods are productive rather than counterproductive....Sounds to me like they were already addressing the issue you are worried about.

Edit: last thing. I was not implying that you were not free to discuss the issue. But rather that you were drawing conclusions you knew nothing about. Saying an interrogation method is ineffective when you don't even know how the method is employed is silly. It's like saying fast cars always kill people because you read about a NASCAR wreck. What I was saying about the information is that you would only have heard about the failures...there is no reason to keep that a secret. The people who rolled over as a result of these tactics and are giving good information would not be mentioned, even at the expense of making the method look like a failure. So even if the program were wildly successful beyond anyones imagination, the few people who did not provide information would be all the public is likely to ever learn about.

This is all bullshit, with all due respect.

Yes, "mental anguish" in all scare quotes you want, is torture. I guess you haven't read any of the released info on the mental condition of several of the detainees in GITMO, but hey, apparently literally driving someone insane is not torture.

And you either didn't read the memos or is intentionally trying to mislead. The memos authorize sleep deprivation up to 264 hours.

And sensory deprivation for months at a time is really just "going without HBO?"

The fact that you insist that "Im drawing conclusions I know nothing about" even as you distinctively mislead (intentionally or not) regarding the content of the memos that outline the methods of torture employed by the CIA is ironic to say the least. And your silence about stress positions, waterboarding, "walling" and other outlined techniques is telling.

And as far as the mental state of the tortured, it's not speculation on my part, it's based on the released information regarding Abu Zubaydah, Jose Padilla and others.

You keep talking as if you have some sort of insider knowledge that invalidates everything that has been publicly released, but unless you are a CIA agent with sufficient clearance to a- confirm the authenticity of whatever intelligence you've come across, and b- know the detailed state of those being tortured by the CIA, you really don't have any more insight than anyone else who's read the available reports.

And the memos currently released are exercises in extreme manipulation of the law to justify torture under current agreements. So much so that they cite as precedent decisions regarding building codes, but fail to mention the most basic precedent: that Japanese soldiers and officers were prosecuted and found guilty of torture for waterboarding during WWII.

And as far as personal experience with torture, I have an uncle who became an extreme schizophrenic and eventually was killed after he was extensively tortured by one of the puppet regimes in Latin America for being a student union leader, so don't assume whatever little experience you have is somehow unique and superior.

Cynthetiq · 04-17-2009, 06:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dippin

And as far as personal experience with torture, I have an uncle who became an extreme schizophrenic and eventually was killed after he was extensively tortured by one of the puppet regimes in Latin America for being a student union leader, so don't assume whatever little experience you have is somehow unique and superior.

I'm sorry to hear that. My uncle was tortured, drained of blood to transfuse to wounded Japanese soldiers, beheaded, and tossed into a mass grave. This happened because he was an insurgent providing information to the rebels and Americans during the occupation of the Philippines by the Japanese.

Still doesn't affect my choice of finding torture acceptable. I don't condone it, won't do it, but it is part of the range of what happens when humans war with each other. I don't find killing acceptable either, but yet somehow that's part of what happens in war. It's not like it is a football or baseball game. To believe that war can be civilized or pussified is some manner is folly. War isn't pleasant. It isn't flowery. It isn't nice. It sucks and there is a lot at stake.

dippin · 04-17-2009, 07:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cynthetiq

I'm sorry to hear that. My uncle was tortured, drained of blood to transfuse to wounded Japanese soldiers, beheaded, and tossed into a mass grave. This happened because he was an insurgent providing information to the rebels and Americans during the occupation of the Philippines by the Japanese.

Still doesn't affect my choice of finding torture acceptable. I don't condone it, won't do it, but it is part of the range of what happens when humans war with each other. I don't find killing acceptable either, but yet somehow that's part of what happens in war. It's not like it is a football or baseball game. To believe that war can be civilized or pussified is some manner is folly. War isn't pleasant. It isn't flowery. It isn't nice. It sucks and there is a lot at stake.

Sorry about your uncle as well.

The reason I mentioned that was not to try to "score" points and make people suddenly against torture, but because of the specific reason that Slims keeps claiming that somehow I shouldn't say anything here because somehow I know nothing of torture and its applications and consequences.

Slims · 04-17-2009, 08:22 PM

Ok, to be clear, I am not claiming to be CIA or anything similar.

I miss spoke about the sleep deprivation. It was my understanding that such incidents didn't last more than 48 hours straight, though they may be part of a longer cycle. The memo indicates different, however.

With regards to the waterboarding, the Japanese would routinely 'waterboard' our servicemen until they were unconscious. They would then revive them and repeat the process. The procedure that was OK'd by the Justice Dept. only allows for breathing to be 'somewhat' impeded for 20-40 seconds at a time in order to induce panic without actually drowning the person. Big difference, IMHO.

Jose Padilla was evaluated by a court-appointed psychologist who concluded he was and remains mentally competent...he was trying to play the crazy card so he wouldn't go to PMITA prison. Didn't work.

Abu Zubaydah was shot prior to his capture and appeared to be either mentally unstable to begin with or very cunning. How exactly did interrogators cripple him mentally? Seems to me like most of the trauma he experienced was during his capture rather than his interrogations.

As far as my "telling silence:" I mentioned walling when I stated that they are not banging the detainees head against a wall, as you stated. I never bothered to mention waterboarding as that is nothing but a panic inducer and hasnt' been authorized for use in a way that would actually cause any pain or damage. Am I really supposed to get upset because the CIA told a prisoner to lean against a wall and 'dont' move'?

Yes, I am equating sensory deprivation to missing HBO. Both these asshats were involved in attacks against either the United States or it's citizens. They also knew other people who were still on the loose and active. I have very little regard for their feelings. I think we should have (and we did) safeguard their physical well being, but they do not have to like their time in our prisons, feel comfortable, or be happy.

I already conceded the Memo's were on what appeared (to my non-lawyer eyes) to be weak legal justification. However, our country routinely stretches the law to the limit and it is not a crime to do so. Standing up in court and stating "I obeyed the letter of the law if not the spirit" is still a valid defense. The prosecution does not get a "Well we really meant for the law to mean this" rebuttal because it is completely irrelevant.

If you think we should coddle detainees more than we already do then fine, pass a law requiring us to do so. But don't storm after people who were acting in good faith to carry out what were (at least at the time) legal interrogations.

And the Memo's are not 'extreme manipulations to justify torture' as you state. Rather, they are a clarification on exactly what can be done without breaking the law by torturing someone. Big difference, like it or not.

---------- Post added at 12:15 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:09 AM ----------

Edit:

I have not implied that I have super secret access to anything.

What I have implied is that due to the nature of the beast you are only going to hear details about the people who were dead ends. Those who rolled over and gave up everything are not going to be talked about because the information they provided is likely involved in current ongoing operations.

My point was that you are only seeing the negative because the CIA is unable to come forward and mount an adequate defense and is not about to provide further information on the exact details of the interrogations.

You also mentioned in a very adamant way that the techniques outlined were unreliable and couldn't be trusted. That is also something which I would trust the judgment of the intelligence professionals over yours. I don't know why they felt these particular techniques would be effective, but they probably had good reasons.

Granted, straight up pulling fingernails is counterproductive for the obvious reason that the detainee will say anything to make the pain stop. Likewise if you are overly nice they have no incentive to talk. You have to provide interrogators with options in the middle for complex individuals with valuable information.

Lastly, your uncle is irrelevant with respect to the discussion.

---------- Post added at 12:22 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:15 AM ----------

Oh, and I didn't mention SERE specifically because I didn't want to be the guy who drags it into the discussion, but going back over the memos it is made quite clear that these techniques have been used on soldiers for years with no adverse effects.

Willravel · 04-17-2009, 08:39 PM

What constitutes torture shouldn't be up for debate.

Quote:

Originally Posted by United Nations Convention Against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment

...'torture' means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.

http://www.hrweb.org/legal/cat.html

Of course waterboarding is torture. It causes severe pain (unless you've had it done to you, you can't say it isn't "severe"), both physical and mental, and is intentionally inflicted to obtain information or to intimidate/coerce. It is torture. If you don't believe it is, ask yourself if police officers should be allowed to waterboard suspects. If you're anywhere near normal and haven't lost your very last connection with reality, you'll conclude that the police should not waterboard, therefore there's no reason the military or any other government or civilian individual or organization should be allowed to do it legally.

Torture is illegal. Torture is immoral. Torture cannot provide reliable results. Again, people who are fine with torture are people who don't understand torture.

And really, the "shit happens" take doesn't make any sense. Are you also fine with genocide? Rape? Child slavery? All of those other horrific things that are a "part of the range of what happens when humans war with each other"? "I'm fine with torture" really isn't even callous. It's quite literally indefensible.

Slims · 04-17-2009, 08:43 PM

Will, the police shouldn't be allowed to drop bombs on the houses of suspected criminals...The Military can and should when it is at War.

Water boarding does not involved pain, only panic. The Memo tells me so.

Also, I have passed out underwater several times, once in a full blown panic as I was trying to get back to the surface and could not. I can honestly say I was not in pain.

Cynthetiq · 04-17-2009, 09:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Willravel

What constitutes torture shouldn't be up for debate.

UN Convention Against Torture

Of course waterboarding is torture. It causes severe pain (unless you've had it done to you, you can't say it isn't "severe"), both physical and mental, and is intentionally inflicted to obtain information or to intimidate/coerce. It is torture. If you don't believe it is, ask yourself if police officers should be allowed to waterboard suspects. If you're anywhere near normal and haven't lost your very last connection with reality, you'll conclude that the police should not waterboard, therefore there's no reason the military or any other government or civilian individual or organization should be allowed to do it legally.

Torture is illegal. Torture is immoral. Torture cannot provide reliable results. Again, people who are fine with torture are people who don't understand torture.

And really, the "shit happens" take doesn't make any sense. Are you also fine with genocide? Rape? Child slavery? All of those other horrific things that are a "part of the range of what happens when humans war with each other"? "I'm fine with torture" really isn't even callous. It's quite literally indefensible.

that's where you are mistaken Will. You'd like the world to be this flowery, zen, no trouble, utopia, I see it as it is, realistic.

I'm not happy that genocide happens, but there's damn little I can do about it. I can't stop it or prevent it from happening in the world. I can not support it. I can decry it. I can tell people that I don't like it. I can tell my government and other governments that it shouldn't be done. But I cannot stop it anymore than I can stop people from dying.

Because I see it in that manner, I believe it to be part of the ying and yang of the world. No great joy without great sorrow.

Willravel · 04-17-2009, 09:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Slims

Will, the police shouldn't be allowed to drop bombs on the houses of suspected criminals...The Military can and should when it is at War.

The US has not been "at war" since the 1940s. We have an authorization to use military force, but nowhere does that allow the torture of detainees, who are (in theory) waiting to be tried. The detainees are the same as a suspect being held by the police in that they've been captured but not tried or convicted. Until the person has been found guilty, it is not in line with established American principles present in our laws to punish them in any way.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Slims

Water boarding does not involved pain, only panic. The Memo tells me so.

If you'd like to be waterboarded under controlled conditions, I've done it twice now and had it done to me once.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Slims

Also, I have passed out underwater several times, once in a full blown panic as I was trying to get back to the surface and could not. I can honestly say I was not in pain.

You suffered. Suffering is mental pain. Mental pain is covered under the legal definition of torture.

Still, looking back, while waterboarding is intended to simulate drowning, it's much, much more disorienting, closer to being forced to drown upside down. It's a fairly unique experience. I'm serious when I say you need to experience it to judge it.

In case you're wondering, you need to put a plank of some kind into a bathtub, with the plank laying flat at the nozzle end and elevated at the opposite end. Lay down with your head under the nozzle, and have your arms and legs securely bound. Have someone you trust cover your eyes with duct tape and, as quickly as he can, wrap your face with cellophane and then pour several gallons of water on your chin heading downwards toward the drain. This should last 15-30 seconds. Because of the danger in the situation, you need to work out a signal of some kind that tells them to stop, and someone needs to be able to release you very quickly. I'd also suggest having someone trained in CPR on site just in case.

---------- Post added at 10:18 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:14 PM ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cynthetiq

that's where you are mistaken Will. You'd like the world to be this flowery, zen, no trouble, utopia, I see it as it is, realistic.

The world doesn't require torture for any reason whatsoever. It serves no function other than to inflict extreme pain. It has nothing at all to do with your erroneous idea that because the world is unfixable we shouldn't bother. From a purely pragmatic viewpoint, torture should not exist.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cynthetiq

I'm not happy that genocide happens, but there's damn little I can do about it. I can't stop it or prevent it from happening in the world. I can not support it. I can decry it. I can tell people that I don't like it. I can tell my government and other governments that it shouldn't be done. But I cannot stop it anymore than I can stop people from dying.

You don't decry it. You passively support it in making statements like "I'm fine with torture". You're not fine with torture even by your own words. You don't like it. You're not happy that it happens. I'll understand if your position is "I can't do anything to stop it", but that's not the same thing as "I'm fine with torture". I'm unable to do anything about AIDS in Africa, but I'm not even close to being fine with it.

dippin · 04-17-2009, 09:26 PM

And yet you still belittle whatever is described. As if the only alternative to torture is to put people on the four seasons all expenses paid...

Sensory deprivation included being kept in the absolute dark for months at a time, and using blacked out goggles whenever the prisoner had to be moved elsewhere.

With regards to waterboarding "just for a few seconds," once again you've shown you haven't even read the memos.

The memos have said that for a very long time waterboarding exceeded all limits established.

And I don't need to pass a law to ban torture. The US has already signed and ratified the treaties that ban them.

And whatever "good faith" the actual CIA interrogators had, the same certainly cannot be said about those who crafted these memos. Here is part of the "legal justification" provided by Steven Bradbury:

"By its terms, Article 16 [of the United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment of Punishment] is limited to conduct within "territory under [United States] jurisdiction. We conclude that territory under United States jurisdiction includes, at most, areas over which the United States exercises at least de facto authority as the government. Based on CIA assurances, we understand that the interrogations do not take place in any such areas."

In other words: it's torture, but it's not really happening in the US...

Keep in mind, the point is not whether these things would get a conviction in a court of law, but I don't see how ANYONE can deny it's torture. Even the memos don't try to deny it, and simply try to find a loophole applicable. So if even you admit that the former administration had to "stretch the law" to make its torture program conform in some way with the treaties the US had ratified, I think that my point is made: that this wasn't a good faith effort to determine what they could do, but a bad faith effort to find all technicalities to make torture legal, and that things that even these people consider torture took place, and that it was significantly more than "slaps."

As far as the mental state of the prisoners:

Jose Padilla might not have been considered incompetent to stand trial, but his sentence took into account the "extensive mental anguish" he was suffering.

Zubaydah might have been already insane before, but that is not certain, and in any case it is clear by now that the Bush administration willingly overestimated the intelligence obtained from him, and especially the role of torture in obtaining that information. According to the released memos, the people who interrogated him thought they had everything they could have from him but were ordered to torture by people at the CIA headquarters! As the memo states"“although the on-scene interrogation team judged Zubaydah to be compliant, elements within C.I.A. headquarters still believed he was withholding information.”"

And then we have Al Qahtani, which according to the FBI ""was evidencing behavior consistent with extreme psychological trauma" due to torture.

And Omar Khadr, who now exhibits "delusions and hallucinations, suicidal behaviour and intense paranoia" and from whom the only known piece of intelligence obtained was the fingering of an innocent Canadian as a member of Al Qaeda, who then was sent to Syria and tortured for a year.

And the whole "ticking time bomb" scenario is shown as patently false, as the memos talk about the limits of torturing someone who has been under custody for 2, 3 years.

---------- Post added at 09:26 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:21 PM ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by Slims

Will, the police shouldn't be allowed to drop bombs on the houses of suspected criminals...The Military can and should when it is at War.

Water boarding does not involved pain, only panic. The Memo tells me so.

Also, I have passed out underwater several times, once in a full blown panic as I was trying to get back to the surface and could not. I can honestly say I was not in pain.

The definition of torture is not bound by pain. As we've covered already, even the US has prosecuted the Japanese for waterboarding. There is a very good reason why the declaration against torture uses "pain OR suffering."

And the memos also explicitly say that the goal of waterboarding is for the subject to feel his life is in imminent danger, and that he could die from it.

The memos even admits that some of the techniques described there were described by the state department as torture when other nations did it.

Heck, it was a staple of Khmer Rouge torture practices...

pan6467 · 04-17-2009, 10:45 PM

It's funny that the majority of people who wanted Bush and co. tried for war crimes seem to be ok or silent about this. Why Obama could have offered immunity, kept secret their identity through some plea deals some of the agents that would testify the orders came from above.

Just more hypocrisy.

dippin · 04-17-2009, 10:53 PM

Where is this majority of people who wanted Bush tried but are ok with "this?"

This thing where every political thread gets derailed by someone who comes up with "Obama worshipers this," "majority of Obama supporters that" without ever identifying who these mythical creatures with such blatant double standards are is getting tiresome.

Cynthetiq · 04-17-2009, 11:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Willravel

The US has not been "at war" since the 1940s. We have an authorization to use military force, but nowhere does that allow the torture of detainees, who are (in theory) waiting to be tried. The detainees are the same as a suspect being held by the police in that they've been captured but not tried or convicted. Until the person has been found guilty, it is not in line with established American principles present in our laws to punish them in any way.

If you'd like to be waterboarded under controlled conditions, I've done it twice now and had it done to me once.

You suffered. Suffering is mental pain. Mental pain is covered under the legal definition of torture.

Still, looking back, while waterboarding is intended to simulate drowning, it's much, much more disorienting, closer to being forced to drown upside down. It's a fairly unique experience. I'm serious when I say you need to experience it to judge it.

In case you're wondering, you need to put a plank of some kind into a bathtub, with the plank laying flat at the nozzle end and elevated at the opposite end. Lay down with your head under the nozzle, and have your arms and legs securely bound. Have someone you trust cover your eyes with duct tape and, as quickly as he can, wrap your face with cellophane and then pour several gallons of water on your chin heading downwards toward the drain. This should last 15-30 seconds. Because of the danger in the situation, you need to work out a signal of some kind that tells them to stop, and someone needs to be able to release you very quickly. I'd also suggest having someone trained in CPR on site just in case.

---------- Post added at 10:18 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:14 PM ----------

The world doesn't require torture for any reason whatsoever. It serves no function other than to inflict extreme pain. It has nothing at all to do with your erroneous idea that because the world is unfixable we shouldn't bother. From a purely pragmatic viewpoint, torture should not exist.

You don't decry it. You passively support it in making statements like "I'm fine with torture". You're not fine with torture even by your own words. You don't like it. You're not happy that it happens. I'll understand if your position is "I can't do anything to stop it", but that's not the same thing as "I'm fine with torture". I'm unable to do anything about AIDS in Africa, but I'm not even close to being fine with it.

It doesn't? You don't think that cruelty is a viable part of the range of humanity?

You only want the good to exist. I don't. I need to see the bad to appreciate the good. I need to know that there is evil and bad out there. I get to see examples of it every day.

I don't do ANY of those things I listed because the net effect is the same as me shaking my fist in the air. It don't change the song, it don't change the dance. People have been killing, maiming, and torturing each other since they learned how to pick up rocks and bash in skulls. It will continue after the dust of my bones blow into the winds.

So while you sit and be all aghast and abhorred by it all, I'll sit and enjoy my life as it's the one that I was lucky to have the die cast for.

Willravel · 04-18-2009, 08:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cynthetiq

It doesn't? You don't think that cruelty is a viable part of the range of humanity?

"Viable"? That means capable of working successfully. Torture cannot succeed in the way those who use it want to succeed; it cannot yield reliable results. So no, it's not viable in any way.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cynthetiq

You only want the good to exist. I don't. I need to see the bad to appreciate the good. I need to know that there is evil and bad out there. I get to see examples of it every day.

I don't know what fortune cookie, yin-yang world you live in, but the rest of us generally struggle to make the world a better place. We wouldn't do that if the universe was magically maintaining some bizarre equilibrium between good and bad. You sound like a comic book villain. "You need me, Batman! Your good can only exist if my evil gives it meaning! HAHAHhahahahahAHAHH!!"

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cynthetiq

I don't do ANY of those things I listed because the net effect is the same as me shaking my fist in the air. It don't change the song, it don't change the dance.

Don't pretend like you're not involved. Your and my tax dollars go to fund a corrupt intelligence community that kidnaps, holds without trial, and tortures. You and every other person that passively accepts or even condones torture are partially responsible.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cynthetiq

People have been killing, maiming, and torturing each other since they learned how to pick up rocks and bash in skulls. It will continue after the dust of my bones blow into the winds.

You're not arguing for your statement. You didn't say "I can't do shit about it", you said "I'm fine with torture". Defend the latter statement.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cynthetiq

So while you sit and be all aghast and abhorred by it all, I'll sit and enjoy my life as it's the one that I was lucky to have the die cast for.

Ignorance may be bliss, but you're aware of what's happening. You're not ignorant of torture or rendition. You are in a position to cast at least some judgment on it, and your verdict is that you're fine with it. That position is indefensible.

Cynthetiq · 04-18-2009, 09:04 AM

My tax dollars fund a multitude of things that you and I know NOTHING about. Our consumer dollars go to fund multitudes of things that you and I know nothing about.

See, you want me to do something that I don't have to do. I don't have to argue for it. I don't have to defend the statement. I just have to state it. I say that torture is fine.

In fact, you need to do something more than I do. You need to accept that my opinion is valid and acceptable.

roachboy · 04-18-2009, 09:19 AM

cyn--how about we make this into a bit more formal a game for a minute? just play along. it's fun at least for the duration of this post. maybe.

only if you restrict the argument to the fact that you can say it. ethically condoning torture seems pretty close to reprehensible. and this is an area wherein ethical and political considerations intertwine in a wholesale fashion.

so let's assume that is the case--your arguments, cyn, are essentially of two types: expediency and utility. expediency doesn't hold up real well in a space where ethical and poltical arguments are tangled, so i assume that in order to make that argument you presuppose that you can hold the two apart. see what i mean? so you'd ave to move on to argue that torture can be understood as a problem that does NOT involve an ethical dimension. but if you make that move, you repeat something of the position of the bush administration--which is a problematic position to find yourself backed into i would think given that i don't have the sense you were heading in that direction.

the utility argument can be made on ethical grounds--it's a classic ends justify the means statement, really. the main counter to that is that torture practices are not and cannot be justified on utility grounds because of the nature of the information they tend to elicit. you'd have to be in a position to argue that's not the case in respose. there'd be no ducking the question either--and if you can't make that argument work, your position collapses. because the counter-argument really is that not only can torture not be justified as a legitimate practice, and not only can it not be justified as an interrogation procedure, but that its use is COUNTERPRODUCTIVE on utilitarian grounds because it's consequences call into question the legitimacy of the political order that employs torture.

want an example? think about the political turmoil that surrounded the end of the 4th republic and setting up of the 5th republic in france.
de gaulle found himself entirely boxed in by the political shit-storm that followed from books like henri alleg's that outlined the french military's systematic use of torture on the algerian population. his solution was basically to concede the conflict to the fln---that in turn triggered a radical rightwing counter-revolution from the oas. the political damage done by the fact that the french state used torture--and that it got out--was extraorindary. and later, in books like gangrene, the fact that for some prisoners the torture would happen in paris, in the same building that the gestapo had used to torture suspected resistance members---it's not good.

so there's a history that militates pretty strongly against any utility arguments, and without a utility argument, i think you're position is in serious trouble.

i run this stuff out because i really don't see a way to justify the use of torture at all, anywhere, ever.

this is why i am as irritated as i am that the decision about whether to prosecute rests with the obama administration and not with an international tribunal, frankly.
i already ran out the arguments for such a tribunal...

anyway--your move.

dlish · 04-18-2009, 09:49 AM

just in todays news..

the story is a few pages long..here is page 1

in short, i believe medical professionals should remain partial irrespective of who's the employer

but when the governments paying the bills, who's going to say no?

also, heres a link to one of the torture memos in question. http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/se...ture_Memo1.pdf

Quote:

Psychologists? work at CIA prisons denounced - Washington Post- msnbc.com

Psychologists’ work at CIA prisons denounced
Role in harsh treatment draws condemnation from medical ethicists

WASHINGTON - When the CIA began what it called an "increased pressure phase" with captured terrorist suspect Abu Zubaida in the summer of 2002, its first step was to limit the detainee's human contact to just two people. One was the CIA interrogator, the other a psychologist.

During the extraordinary weeks that followed, it was the psychologist who apparently played the more critical role. According to newly released Justice Department documents, the psychologist provided ideas, practical advice and even legal justification for interrogation methods that would break Abu Zubaida, physically and mentally. Extreme sleep deprivation, waterboarding, the use of insects to provoke fear — all were deemed acceptable, in part because the psychologist said so.

"No severe mental pain or suffering would have been inflicted," a Justice Department lawyer said in a 2002 memo explaining why waterboarding, or simulated drowning, should not be considered torture

The role of health professionals as described in the documents has prompted a renewed outcry from ethicists who say the conduct of psychologists and supervising physicians violated basic standards of their professions.

Their names are among the few details censored in the long-concealed Bush administration memos released on Thursday, but the documents show a steady stream of psychologists, physicians and other health officials who both kept detainees alive and actively participated in designing the interrogation program and monitoring its implementation. Their presence also enabled the government to argue that the interrogations did not include torture.

'Broke the law'
Most of the psychologists were contract employees of the CIA, according to intelligence officials familiar with the program.

"The health professionals involved in the CIA program broke the law and shame the bedrock ethical traditions of medicine and psychology," said Frank Donaghue, chief executive of Physicians for Human Rights, an international advocacy group made up of physicians opposed to torture. "All psychologists and physicians found to be involved in the torture of detainees must lose their license and never be allowed to practice again."

The CIA declined to comment yesterday on the role played by health professionals in the agency's self-described "enhanced interrogation program," which operated from 2002 to 2006 in various secret prisons overseas.

"The fact remains that CIA's detention and interrogation effort was authorized and approved by our government," CIA Director Leon Panetta said Thursday in a statement to employees. The Obama administration and its top intelligence leaders have banned harsh interrogations while also strongly opposing investigations or penalties for employees who were following their government's orders.

The CIA dispatched personnel from its Office of Medical Services to each secret prison and evaluated medical professionals involved in interrogations "to make sure they could stand up, psychologically handle it," according to a former CIA official.

The alleged actions of medical professionals in the secret prisons are viewed as particularly troubling by an array of groups, including the American Medical Association and the International Committee of the Red Cross.

AMA policies state that physicians "must not be present when torture is used or threatened." The guidelines allow doctors to treat detainees only "if doing so is in their [detainees'] best interest" and not merely to monitor their health "so that torture can begin or continue." The American Psychological Association has condemned any participation by its members in interrogations involving torture, but critics of the organization faulted it for failing to censure members involved in harsh interrogation.

The ICRC, which conducted the first independent interviews of CIA detainees in 2006, said the prisoners were told they would not be killed during interrogations, though one was warned that he would be brought to "the verge of death and back again," according to a confidential ICRC report leaked to the New York Review of Books last month.

"The interrogation process is contrary to international law and the participation of health personnel in such a process is contrary to international standards of medical ethics," the ICRC report concluded.

The newly released Justice Department memos place medical officials at the scene of the earliest CIA interrogations. At least one psychologist was present — and others were frequently consulted — during the interrogation of Abu Zubaida, the nom de guerre of Zayn al-Abidin Muhammed Hussein, a Palestinian who was captured by CIA and Pakistani intelligence officers in March 2002, the Justice documents state.

An Aug. 1, 2002, memo said the CIA relied on its "on-site psychologists" for help in designing an interrogation program for Abu Zubaida and ultimately came up with a list of 10 methods drawn from a U.S. military training program known as Survival, Evasion, Resistance and Escape, or SERE. That program, used to help prepare pilots endure torture in the event they are captured, is loosely based on techniques that were used by the Communist Chinese to torture American prisoners of war.

pan6467 · 04-18-2009, 10:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dippin

Where is this majority of people who wanted Bush tried but are ok with "this?"

This thing where every political thread gets derailed by someone who comes up with "Obama worshipers this," "majority of Obama supporters that" without ever identifying who these mythical creatures with such blatant double standards are is getting tiresome.

I just don't like mentioning names because unless they directly mention mine, it's not a pissing game. I'm just trying to show the hypocrisy.

I never once say, it's a majority of Dems or a majority of GOP ers.I simply put forth the question and to me it is a viable one. There were people screaming for Bush's trial as a war criminal because of Gitmo and so on, yet when Obama has the chance and gives a free pass or in the case of warrantless wiretaps grabs the power and extends it, some (and to me it seems here, the vocal majority) the people decrying Bush for doing such things seem to be ok or making excuses or giving Obama a pass on those things.

To me, if you say it was wrong for one, you should be equal in your disgust and criticisms.... if you aren't you are a hypocrite.

Willravel · 04-18-2009, 10:25 AM

Who's making excuses for Obama? Can you cite something or someone?

pan6467 · 04-18-2009, 10:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Willravel

Who's making excuses for Obama? Can you cite something or someone?

Let's start with ignoring Obama keeping the wiretaps.... NY Times talks about how evil they were under Bush but after reading the article, I fail to see where they mention Obama has kept them going. I don't know printing an article how W abused the program but not mentioning Obama is doing the same thing, kinda seems to me as ignoring the problem/whitewashing etc... no matter what it is it is in a form, IMHO, a way to let Obama off the hook for the same for the same abuses they yell W was taking.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/16/us...iretaps&st=cse

As I am getting ready for work I took the easy one first, I will gladly after work or tomorrow show they verbal/written excuses for Obama.

roachboy · 04-18-2009, 10:57 AM

goddamn it, pan.

no-one's ignored the ongoing wiretap thing in the real world--maybe in your own private world things are different--but at this point, your private world really isn't that interesting.

so how about you try to figure a way to interact with thread so that every interaction is not the same as any other?
this cookie cutter shit is getting old.

04-16-2009, 01:38 PM	#4 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	1. this would get into an extremely ugly area pretty quickly if there was a move against people who carried out torture--you'd end up with versions of the nuremburg defense---whaddya mean? i was just following orders. i would expect that the political and institutional damage that would have been done was seen as outweighing the upside of positioning the united states as a country that actually does not torture because, you know, geneva convention, basic human rights--all that stuff which only really matters when adhering to them is a problem. when there's no pressure, when there's no crisis, it means nothing---well not nothing, but rather it is easy to adhere to such conventions and principles when there's no pressure from within not to. and we all know that war crimes only happen in the context of regimes that loose wars. loosing a war is therefore the real crime. so i think this decision is in principle kinda foul. 2. at the same time, in pragmatic terms, i think the obama administration's systematic dismantling of the bush people's policy logic and legal framework that enabled this to happen is obviously a good thing. and the public repudiations of the policy a good thing. but that isn't really the question. ======= reframe. if i may, i 'd like to try to open out the questions in the op a bit. this is complicated. (a) should it in fact be the case that war crimes--crimes against humanity--are only actionable if a political regime looses a war. what does that mean? that there are no crimes against humanity possible by a "legitimate" regime? but if it's functionally impossible to prosecute war crimes carried out by "legitimate"regimes, doesn't that amount to saying that there are no war crimes possible unless a regime looses a war? and again--that means the real crime in our o-so-ethical global order is losing a war. you want an example---think about the travesty that was the trail of saddam hussein. now i'm not in any way arguing that he was not a brutal dictator--but think of the farce his trial was. what clearer demonstration could you have that the crime really was loosing and the war crimes prosecution is in fact a mechanism used by those who win to break the political power of the regime they fought? that seems fucked up. doesn't it seem so to you? what does that make a war crime? o but it gets better: (b) war crimes---crimes against humanity--are of an order that the legitimacy of a political regime that enacts them SHOULD be placed into serious question. members of the political class within a given nation-state in a position like, say, obama's, find themselves trying to maintain the legitimacy of the system as a whole in significant measure because they occupy positions of power by virtue of it. so they have no interest in triggering the kind of questions about legitimacy that would follow by prosecuting war crimes--torture is a war crime, extraorindary rendition arguably so, much of the treatment of prisoners arguably so, the separation of detainee from prisoner of war arguably so. the reason that the legitimacy of a political regime that carries out such actions is placed in question fundamentally by any prosecution is simply that a political order in a modern state dovetails with a professional apparatus that is not politically appointed, that is permanent--the functionaries---and the prosecution of war crimes necessarily implicates not only the political leadership but the permanent apparatus of the state. there is something about the way things are done in the states IN GENERAL that is a Problem. this seems to be the position the obama administration is basically arguing above--they aren't talking about state legitimacy though (why would they?)--instead they couch the argument in continuity of "national security"--but that's bullshit, really. but if you think about it, that they'd do this is expedient: why invite the questions that your actions are designed to avoid? but this leads to a Problem. (c) if that is the situation of, say, the obama administration (here as an example)--that they simultaneously want to condemn the practices of the bush people, dismantle their local conditions of possibility---but they also want to block basic questions as to the legitimacy of the political order itself which they now control...and if this is in general the position of ANY nation-state government---and this would be the basis for the argument that war crimes are only carried out by regimes that loose wars. but there's another way to see this. doesn't it follow that a national-level legal system, which is intertwined with the national-level legal system--is NOT in a position to make decisions about war crimes prosecutions? should this be a question for the international war crimes tribunal to decide on? if there were crimes against humanity, where is the iwct? it's a tricky set of problems. i'm not sure i've outlined them in the best way, but as i see it, there we are. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite Last edited by roachboy; 04-16-2009 at 01:49 PM..

04-16-2009, 04:21 PM	#6 (permalink)
Charlatan Getting it. Super Moderator Location: Lion City	Ultimately, if this sort of prosecution (persecution) were to proceed it would lead right to the top (i.e. the I was just following orders always moves uphill). I don't think any US administration is interested in pursuing that line of enquiry. __________________ "My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars." - Old Man Luedecke

04-16-2009, 07:16 PM	#8 (permalink)
SecretMethod70 Human Administrator Location: Chicago	There's also some talk that the intelligence community would revolt against the Obama administration if it pursued prosecution. Personally, I'm fine with taking this line of inquiry as high as it goes, and making it known whenever anyone puts national security at risk because of it (such as the intelligence community not cooperating with the Obama administration). I realize that's too much to ask for most politicians though, so I can't get too outraged over this. Still disappointed though. __________________ Le temps détruit tout "Musicians are the carriers and communicators of spirit in the most immediate sense." - Kurt Elling

04-17-2009, 03:39 AM	#10 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	i dont know if you saw these, but in case not and you're curious, here's a link to a the memos regarding torture that the obama administration released yesterday. they're a sobering read. Read the torture memos released by Barack Obama \| World news \| guardian.co.uk __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

04-17-2009, 07:50 AM	#11 (permalink)
aceventura3 Junkie Location: Ventura County	I am not surprised no legal action is going to be taken against CIA officials who acted within the administrations' interpretation of the law. The root problem here is with the vague legal definition of torture that allows broad interpretation. The business of war and enemy interrogation is not pretty and in my view those in the business of doing the work to keep us safe want to be as effective as possible staying within the law. Whether we like it or can even stomach reading the memos, I think it was appropriate for the administration to issue more specific parameters for the men and women doing the work. I would hope that the current administration has already done the same thing if they disagree with the previous administrations interpretation of the law. And four years from now we can again act all grossed out and self righteous when we read those memos, because at the margins there will always be something average people will have a problem with, and that is why average people are not put in situations requiring exceptional ability or exceptional tolerance to perform certain tasks. __________________ "Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch." "It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion." "If you live among wolves you have to act like one." "A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

04-16-2009, 01:04 PM	#2 (permalink)
KirStang Future Bureaucrat	Well, For one, consider the media field day that would occur if they went ahead with prosecution...

04-16-2009, 01:10 PM	#3 (permalink)
dippin Crazy, indeed Location: the ether	I think torture is always wrong, and it has generally been established that while torture is "great" for extracting false confessions, it is of extremely limited use to gain actual intelligence. That said, this news is expected. And in any case, if prosecution was to ever come about, it should be against the people who wrote the new guidelines and their rationale.

04-16-2009, 01:51 PM	#5 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	It's a shame that there wasn't some famous international trail that established precedent when it came to following illegal orders.

04-16-2009, 06:58 PM	#7 (permalink)
Derwood Who You Crappin? Location: Everywhere and Nowhere	I always thought that this was a pipe dream. Never was going to happen

04-16-2009, 07:37 PM	#9 (permalink)
robot_parade Junkie Location: San Antonio, TX	Willravel: Nuremberg only happened because Germany lost the war. Can you name a time where a similar thing happened without such a huge disparity of power? Watergate is close, I admit, but for whatever reasons, the public outrage just isn't there this time. Regarding the question of immunity to CIA agents...I can understand why he did it...if he started a witch hunt within the CIA, he'd be in seriously deep shit. He would never get any loyalty from the CIA. That could be a huge problem. And, while I agree that 'following orders' isn't an excuse for illegal behavior, I'd almost be ok with it if those giving the orders (Cheney, Bush), were actually prosecuted. Unfortunately, I can't see that happening.

04-17-2009, 08:07 AM	#12 (permalink)
Slims Eccentric insomniac Location: North Carolina	Mirriam-Websters definition of Torture: 1 a: anguish of body or mind : agony b: something that causes agony or pain 2: the infliction of intense pain (as from burning, crushing, or wounding) to punish, coerce, or afford sadistic pleasure 3: distortion or overrefinement of a meaning or an argument I don't see how getting slapped counts as intense pain or agony. Ditto with everything else in the memo. I think the interrogators were right to follow the directives/decisions from the Justice Department Lawyers. They were making detainees uncomfortable, but were not inflicting intense pain or anguish. You can argue that what was done was not right, but I fail to see how the behavior meets the criteria for torture. To suggest that it does lessens the sacrifices of those who really are tortured...broken limbs, crushed bodies, etc. And am I missing something in the Geneva conventions which makes them apply to non-signatories? ---------- Post added at 12:07 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:01 PM ---------- Also, I can tell you 100% that the military inflicts worse 'torture' on some of it's own troops during training. If the methods outlined in the memos count as torture and are inexcusable under any circumstances, then the Military is going to have to explain why it is "torturing" rather than "training" soldiers. And don't give me any nonsense about consent, because I promise you that no soldier is going to say "yeah, go ahead and slap the shit out of me." __________________ "Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery." - Winston Churchill "All men dream: but not equally. Those who dream by night in the dusty recesses of their minds wake in the day to find that it was vanity: but the dreamers of the day are dangerous men, for they may act out their dream with open eyes, to make it possible." Seven Pillars of Wisdom, T.E. Lawrence

04-17-2009, 11:58 AM	#13 (permalink)
dippin Crazy, indeed Location: the ether	I think it is amazing the lengths of moral relativism people go to in order to justify torture. First, there was nothing "ambiguous" about what was being done here. This wasn't a good faith effort to determine the limits of the law, but a bad faith effort to subvert them. The Bush administration had no problems calling the same things the US did torture when it was other nations doing it the exact same things. And one must be either exercising selective reading or not have read at all to think that the only torture that was going on was slapping. Waterboarding, slapping, sensory deprivation, sleep deprivation, smashing heads against walls, stress positions, confinement in boxes, etc. are not just "slaps." There are over 100 recorded cases of detainees dying under interrogation, as well as several more cases of individuals being driven insane because of that, including American citizen Jose Padilla. And even those very close to the interrogations admit that very little, if any, relevant intelligence came of it. If there is one thing these memos make clear is that the whole "ticking time bomb" scenario is false.

04-17-2009, 12:13 PM	#14 (permalink)
QuasiMondo Wise-ass Latino Location: Pretoria (Tshwane), RSA	I'm satisfied with the Justice Dept's decision not to prosecute. This isn't the Nuremberg scenario where these agents were just following orders. They're not going to be tried by an international tribunal, so the question of whether they're following orders is the incorrect one. It really comes down to this: Does it make sense for the Justice Department to retroactively prosecute these agents for doing things that this very same Justice Dept said was legal? Never mind the intelligence community revolting against the Administration, you'd have to deal with an already angry public who has now lost faith in a Justice Department who would prosecute individuals for doing things they said was perfectly legal. The circus would surely be in town then. __________________ Cameron originally envisioned the Terminator as a small, unremarkable man, giving it the ability to blend in more easily. As a result, his first choice for the part was Lance Henriksen. O. J. Simpson was on the shortlist but Cameron did not think that such a nice guy could be a ruthless killer. -From the Collector's Edition DVD of The Terminator

04-17-2009, 12:19 PM	#15 (permalink)
Slims Eccentric insomniac Location: North Carolina	What? Dude, there is no moral relativism involved. It's a legal issue and only a legal issue. Torture is, by definition extremely painful (or it wouldn't be torture). The methods listed in that memo just dont' fit that bill. If detainees were actually being tortured beyond the treatment authorized then that is another issue. As for the number of detainees who have 'died' in custody, remember that many of them were already sick or wounded before they were picked up and are often on their way out the door already. Some of those detainees who were "Tortured" were the primary producers of Intel on Al-Qaeda for quite some time. Those tactics were employed BECAUSE they were effective and were constantly refined and re-verified. I can understand the argument that it wasn't right and shouldn't have been done I disagree, but it is absolutely a legitimate argument. I can even understand an argument saying the tactics should have been interpreted as illegal. What I don't understand is an argument which circumvents the issue by either pointing at people who were actually tortured (illegally) and/or misrepresents the effectiveness of the methods employed with absolutely no first hand (or even second or third) information whatsoever and no data (because none has been released, intelligence being one of those 'secret' type things) to support your claim. __________________ "Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery." - Winston Churchill "All men dream: but not equally. Those who dream by night in the dusty recesses of their minds wake in the day to find that it was vanity: but the dreamers of the day are dangerous men, for they may act out their dream with open eyes, to make it possible." Seven Pillars of Wisdom, T.E. Lawrence Last edited by Slims; 04-17-2009 at 09:01 PM..

04-17-2009, 12:51 PM	#17 (permalink)
Slims Eccentric insomniac Location: North Carolina	Ok, I don't recall reading anything which authorized fake executions. Second, "Mental Anguish" is torture? Really? Sleep deprivation not to exceed 48 hours isn't torture or college students cramming for a test wouldn't do it on a regular basis. They are not slamming heads into a wall. Sensory Deprivation is torture? I guess we should make sure they have HBO. The food deprivation consisted of a tasteless but nutritionally complete liquid diet, not starvation. It is my understanding that our government is only required to look out for the most basic needs of a detainee...he doesn't have to like the food he is given, it doesn't have to be on a regular schedule, he can be uncomfortable so long as he is not harmed. Those memos lay out exactly how far the CIA was able to go before they stepped over that line. I know what you are saying about the mental state of the detainee...If the Afghans roll someone up and then rape him over and over again for a week before giving him to you then yeah, he is probably not going to be very usefull. But if you make someone drink a protein shake instead of eat a stake dinner I doubt he is going to be mentally 'broken' and useless. Also, if you administer corrections and whatnot willy-nilly and don't reward good behavior/punish bad, etc. then you make someone who is simply traumatized rather than cooperative. Also, the memo's require a psychologist to be present during all such interrogations to monitor and ensure that the methods are productive rather than counterproductive....Sounds to me like they were already addressing the issue you are worried about. Edit: last thing. I was not implying that you were not free to discuss the issue. But rather that you were drawing conclusions you knew nothing about. Saying an interrogation method is ineffective when you don't even know how the method is employed is silly. It's like saying fast cars always kill people because you read about a NASCAR wreck. What I was saying about the information is that you would only have heard about the failures...there is no reason to keep that a secret. The people who rolled over as a result of these tactics and are giving good information would not be mentioned, even at the expense of making the method look like a failure. So even if the program were wildly successful beyond anyones imagination, the few people who did not provide information would be all the public is likely to ever learn about. __________________ "Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery." - Winston Churchill "All men dream: but not equally. Those who dream by night in the dusty recesses of their minds wake in the day to find that it was vanity: but the dreamers of the day are dangerous men, for they may act out their dream with open eyes, to make it possible." Seven Pillars of Wisdom, T.E. Lawrence Last edited by Slims; 04-17-2009 at 01:03 PM..

04-17-2009, 01:49 PM	#18 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	waterboarding is torture. there's not a whole lot of debate about that. sleep deprivation etc.---alot of these actions were developed in order to circumvent restrictions on torture. slapping etc--it's hard to say: taken in isolation, probably not; seen in the context of a systematic desensitization of the interrogators to limits that should have been placed on their actions, they're a problem. i hear gordon liddy making the same kind of arguments outlined above concerning some of these actions--o pshaw they're not really torture according to some arbitrary manly man notion of what "real pain" is. and his move was the same as what you see above--isolate "slapping"and ask well, is that torture? fact is that the bush administration attempted to fashion a legal rationale which circumvented international conventions of the treatment of prisoners to which the united states is a signatory; the bush administration attempted to fashion the narrowest possible interpretation of torture in order to justify actions in the name of----well what, really?---it's been known for a very long time that what torture is good at eliciting is whatever information will make the torture stop--that has nothing to do with accurate information--this is self-evident---look at the history of the french in algeria for fucks sake. the only way torture worked in that case was that is was applied to a huge population regardless of legal standing and was aimed at eliciting extremely narrow types of information and the accuracy of that information really wasn't important because it just fed back into the same operation. and in the end, this tactic not only did not work, but it was fundamental to political changes that caused the french to loose the war in algeria. it's a fools game. anyway, there are problems with prosecuting bush administration officials for the policy-but i fundamentally do not think that the government of the united states is in a position to determine what actions of the previous version of the same government were and were not war crimes. i think this should be tried by an international tribunal. otherwise, it is functionally the case that a government that does not loose a war can do any fucking thing it decides is justified, and that the ONLY crime really is losing a war. that, folks, is fucked up. most of the factors folk have elicited to either be cool with or justify the obama administration's decision not to prosecute i already used as arguments against the idea that a national government is in a position to functionally prosecute itself for this kind of action. and the question of what is and is not torture really is not for a messageboard debate to decide. it's for a court. there should be prosecution. but i think the people who are responsible for the policy should be the ones facing charges. starting with rumsfeld. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

04-17-2009, 03:37 PM	#20 (permalink)
Baraka_Guru warrior bodhisattva Super Moderator Location: East-central Canada	Other than pretty much agreeing with most of what roachboy has laid out of late, I want to say that the use of torture is an indication of a problematic moral failure. Within the context of war, it obliterates any possibility of "just" warfare. Once you cross the line of bypassing human dignity, you have bypassed all hope for fighting for the greater good. If you cannot uphold your own values, it becomes unclear as to what exactly you're fighting for. If America is okay with torture, it can be little better than many of the brutal dictatorships we've seen come and go. What else will we see as a means to an end? I don't understand your Constitution to the letter, but I'd be rather surprised to learn that this kind of behaviour doesn't go against such an important document. That it does is indicative of a serious omission on the part of the framers and those involved in the amendments. __________________ Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing? —Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön Humankind cannot bear very much reality. —From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

04-17-2009, 08:22 PM	#24 (permalink)
Slims Eccentric insomniac Location: North Carolina	Ok, to be clear, I am not claiming to be CIA or anything similar. I miss spoke about the sleep deprivation. It was my understanding that such incidents didn't last more than 48 hours straight, though they may be part of a longer cycle. The memo indicates different, however. With regards to the waterboarding, the Japanese would routinely 'waterboard' our servicemen until they were unconscious. They would then revive them and repeat the process. The procedure that was OK'd by the Justice Dept. only allows for breathing to be 'somewhat' impeded for 20-40 seconds at a time in order to induce panic without actually drowning the person. Big difference, IMHO. Jose Padilla was evaluated by a court-appointed psychologist who concluded he was and remains mentally competent...he was trying to play the crazy card so he wouldn't go to PMITA prison. Didn't work. Abu Zubaydah was shot prior to his capture and appeared to be either mentally unstable to begin with or very cunning. How exactly did interrogators cripple him mentally? Seems to me like most of the trauma he experienced was during his capture rather than his interrogations. As far as my "telling silence:" I mentioned walling when I stated that they are not banging the detainees head against a wall, as you stated. I never bothered to mention waterboarding as that is nothing but a panic inducer and hasnt' been authorized for use in a way that would actually cause any pain or damage. Am I really supposed to get upset because the CIA told a prisoner to lean against a wall and 'dont' move'? Yes, I am equating sensory deprivation to missing HBO. Both these asshats were involved in attacks against either the United States or it's citizens. They also knew other people who were still on the loose and active. I have very little regard for their feelings. I think we should have (and we did) safeguard their physical well being, but they do not have to like their time in our prisons, feel comfortable, or be happy. I already conceded the Memo's were on what appeared (to my non-lawyer eyes) to be weak legal justification. However, our country routinely stretches the law to the limit and it is not a crime to do so. Standing up in court and stating "I obeyed the letter of the law if not the spirit" is still a valid defense. The prosecution does not get a "Well we really meant for the law to mean this" rebuttal because it is completely irrelevant. If you think we should coddle detainees more than we already do then fine, pass a law requiring us to do so. But don't storm after people who were acting in good faith to carry out what were (at least at the time) legal interrogations. And the Memo's are not 'extreme manipulations to justify torture' as you state. Rather, they are a clarification on exactly what can be done without breaking the law by torturing someone. Big difference, like it or not. ---------- Post added at 12:15 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:09 AM ---------- Edit: I have not implied that I have super secret access to anything. What I have implied is that due to the nature of the beast you are only going to hear details about the people who were dead ends. Those who rolled over and gave up everything are not going to be talked about because the information they provided is likely involved in current ongoing operations. My point was that you are only seeing the negative because the CIA is unable to come forward and mount an adequate defense and is not about to provide further information on the exact details of the interrogations. You also mentioned in a very adamant way that the techniques outlined were unreliable and couldn't be trusted. That is also something which I would trust the judgment of the intelligence professionals over yours. I don't know why they felt these particular techniques would be effective, but they probably had good reasons. Granted, straight up pulling fingernails is counterproductive for the obvious reason that the detainee will say anything to make the pain stop. Likewise if you are overly nice they have no incentive to talk. You have to provide interrogators with options in the middle for complex individuals with valuable information. Lastly, your uncle is irrelevant with respect to the discussion. ---------- Post added at 12:22 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:15 AM ---------- Oh, and I didn't mention SERE specifically because I didn't want to be the guy who drags it into the discussion, but going back over the memos it is made quite clear that these techniques have been used on soldiers for years with no adverse effects. __________________ "Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery." - Winston Churchill "All men dream: but not equally. Those who dream by night in the dusty recesses of their minds wake in the day to find that it was vanity: but the dreamers of the day are dangerous men, for they may act out their dream with open eyes, to make it possible." Seven Pillars of Wisdom, T.E. Lawrence Last edited by Slims; 04-17-2009 at 08:19 PM..

04-17-2009, 08:43 PM	#26 (permalink)
Slims Eccentric insomniac Location: North Carolina	Will, the police shouldn't be allowed to drop bombs on the houses of suspected criminals...The Military can and should when it is at War. Water boarding does not involved pain, only panic. The Memo tells me so. Also, I have passed out underwater several times, once in a full blown panic as I was trying to get back to the surface and could not. I can honestly say I was not in pain. __________________ "Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery." - Winston Churchill "All men dream: but not equally. Those who dream by night in the dusty recesses of their minds wake in the day to find that it was vanity: but the dreamers of the day are dangerous men, for they may act out their dream with open eyes, to make it possible." Seven Pillars of Wisdom, T.E. Lawrence

04-17-2009, 10:45 PM	#30 (permalink)
pan6467 Lennonite Priest Location: Mansfield, Ohio USA	It's funny that the majority of people who wanted Bush and co. tried for war crimes seem to be ok or silent about this. Why Obama could have offered immunity, kept secret their identity through some plea deals some of the agents that would testify the orders came from above. Just more hypocrisy. __________________ I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

04-17-2009, 10:53 PM	#31 (permalink)
dippin Crazy, indeed Location: the ether	Where is this majority of people who wanted Bush tried but are ok with "this?" This thing where every political thread gets derailed by someone who comes up with "Obama worshipers this," "majority of Obama supporters that" without ever identifying who these mythical creatures with such blatant double standards are is getting tiresome.

04-18-2009, 09:04 AM	#34 (permalink)
Cynthetiq Tilted Cat Head Administrator Location: Manhattan, NY	My tax dollars fund a multitude of things that you and I know NOTHING about. Our consumer dollars go to fund multitudes of things that you and I know nothing about. See, you want me to do something that I don't have to do. I don't have to argue for it. I don't have to defend the statement. I just have to state it. I say that torture is fine. In fact, you need to do something more than I do. You need to accept that my opinion is valid and acceptable. __________________ I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not. What's the best nation in the world? DO-NATION!

04-18-2009, 09:19 AM	#35 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	cyn--how about we make this into a bit more formal a game for a minute? just play along. it's fun at least for the duration of this post. maybe. only if you restrict the argument to the fact that you can say it. ethically condoning torture seems pretty close to reprehensible. and this is an area wherein ethical and political considerations intertwine in a wholesale fashion. so let's assume that is the case--your arguments, cyn, are essentially of two types: expediency and utility. expediency doesn't hold up real well in a space where ethical and poltical arguments are tangled, so i assume that in order to make that argument you presuppose that you can hold the two apart. see what i mean? so you'd ave to move on to argue that torture can be understood as a problem that does NOT involve an ethical dimension. but if you make that move, you repeat something of the position of the bush administration--which is a problematic position to find yourself backed into i would think given that i don't have the sense you were heading in that direction. the utility argument can be made on ethical grounds--it's a classic ends justify the means statement, really. the main counter to that is that torture practices are not and cannot be justified on utility grounds because of the nature of the information they tend to elicit. you'd have to be in a position to argue that's not the case in respose. there'd be no ducking the question either--and if you can't make that argument work, your position collapses. because the counter-argument really is that not only can torture not be justified as a legitimate practice, and not only can it not be justified as an interrogation procedure, but that its use is COUNTERPRODUCTIVE on utilitarian grounds because it's consequences call into question the legitimacy of the political order that employs torture. want an example? think about the political turmoil that surrounded the end of the 4th republic and setting up of the 5th republic in france. de gaulle found himself entirely boxed in by the political shit-storm that followed from books like henri alleg's that outlined the french military's systematic use of torture on the algerian population. his solution was basically to concede the conflict to the fln---that in turn triggered a radical rightwing counter-revolution from the oas. the political damage done by the fact that the french state used torture--and that it got out--was extraorindary. and later, in books like gangrene, the fact that for some prisoners the torture would happen in paris, in the same building that the gestapo had used to torture suspected resistance members---it's not good. so there's a history that militates pretty strongly against any utility arguments, and without a utility argument, i think you're position is in serious trouble. i run this stuff out because i really don't see a way to justify the use of torture at all, anywhere, ever. this is why i am as irritated as i am that the decision about whether to prosecute rests with the obama administration and not with an international tribunal, frankly. i already ran out the arguments for such a tribunal... anyway--your move. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

04-18-2009, 10:25 AM	#38 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	Who's making excuses for Obama? Can you cite something or someone?

04-18-2009, 10:57 AM	#40 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	goddamn it, pan. no-one's ignored the ongoing wiretap thing in the real world--maybe in your own private world things are different--but at this point, your private world really isn't that interesting. so how about you try to figure a way to interact with thread so that every interaction is not the same as any other? this cookie cutter shit is getting old. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite