Patraeus Endorses Closing Gitmo and Ending Torture

Turfgrass

Registered User
Forum Member
Sep 26, 2002
1,153
5
0
Raleigh
Turfgrass, I have stated a few times here that if I knew someone had information (not sure exactly how people can KNOW a person has info or not, but... ) that could save lives, then I really don't care too much myself - although that does not really follow what our country stands for and aspires to. In doing the things you describe, it does undermine our country and what it stands for, and it makes our country hypocritical when we expect a certain treatment of our people and then don't respect that treatment and do it ourselves.

My point on this - why I think it matters the most - is that if you cannot PROVE someone is a terrorist after several years of holding them, and even admit that, then you should not engage in these activities - under any circumstance. And I think we all agree that our country has done that. And I have a problem with that - because we hold other countries - and our own in our society of respecting and following the law - to that standard of proof.

The L.A. situation is just another example of how people who defend the practice use things - and fear - to justify their opinions, whether the situations are true, on point, or defendable. Most don't even care to check it out, really.

I can agree with that.

We should hold ourselves to a higher standard, but I think it should be the President?s call (whoever that is at the time) and his call alone. After all, I would assume that he would only have the country?s safety in mind.

We put a lot on our President?s shoulders, so letting him make this decision is not above board.
 

Trench

Turn it up
Forum Member
Mar 8, 2008
3,974
18
0
Mad City, WI
Let?s just say you?re right for the sake of argument, mainly because I can?t prove the article is correct, but I don?t think we waterboarded the guy 183 times because someone was having his fun with him. (And if that is the case it would be wrong in every possible way)

I?m just saying if someone has the information that could save thousands of lives and if we have somebody in our custody who can tell us where that bomb is, and if you had a reasonable expectation that you could get that information from this guy, I?m for it.
Turf... I understand your wish to save lives. We all want that. The problem is that many credible sources, from former members of the military to the FBI, have gone on record stating that waterboarding was used for one purpose only -- to try to establish a link between Iraq and 9/11.

If waterboarding were effective, why would you have to do it to someone 183 times? More importantly, if it were an effective means of obtaining useful information, then why were only 3 detainees waterboarded? Surely the other 240 detainees must be with-holding information as well. :shrug:
 

Turfgrass

Registered User
Forum Member
Sep 26, 2002
1,153
5
0
Raleigh
I must say that those are both great questions, and unfortunately I don?t have any answers, mainly because I?m not privy to the whole story and all the information those guys that were making those decisions did at the time.

I?ll also agree that if you?re right and we had no good reasons for torturing those three guys and we were just scaring the hell out of them, that?s wrong on so many levels I don?t want to even think about it, but I don?t believe that to be the case?at least I don?t want to anyway.

But ultimately, in my heart of hearts it?s a decision we should reserve for the President.

I respect your opinion though, as I don?t believe anybody that has had it done to them would feel that it wasn?t torture.
 

Chadman

Realist
Forum Member
Apr 2, 2000
7,501
42
48
SW Missouri
Many good points, turfgrass. I think I agree with you on most, if not all of them. Look forward to more of your thoughts in this forum.
 

DOGS THAT BARK

Registered User
Forum Member
Jul 13, 1999
19,421
128
63
Bowling Green Ky
Remains a very nuanced answer, seems to make a point, and skirts the issue, IMO. So, are you saying that there is a difference between enhanced interrogation techniques and harsh interrogation techniques (for the purposes we are discussing here, I mean)? Do you think Petraeus does not consider waterboarding to be a harsh from of interrogation? For example, when it's done to the same person 120 times or so? Are you really asking me to believe there is this nuanced a difference in this conversation? That he thinks so? I don't think so, but maybe you can explain the difference, and perhaps give some examples, or a list, or something. I know why you chose that word - it avoided the question rather deftly, but I don't think there is that big a range of activity to make that work.

Interesting that you then go on to say:

"My hope and our troops hope would be that if they are caught that is worse they'd be submitted to.

Understandable, but why would that be - for the purposes of this discussion? Meaning this is pretty bad, right, and we wouldn't want worse? Of course these soldiers are trained and subjected to this... they are being prepared for the bad things our enemies will do to us to extract info, or just to plain hurt them. They need to let the soldiers know that they may be tortured, mistreated, and here is one thing that the bad people can do to you. Would you consider if Al Qaida grabbed one of our soldiers, and waterboarded him 120 times, that it would be an enhanced interrogation technique? I sincerely doubt that - in fact, I would guess you would use that as justification for doing bad things to others under the guise of safety for us.

One important distinction to be made though - there is one chicken shit swinging dick that has not followed through with his waterboarding volunteering - Sean Hannity. He volunteered, yes, to score points and get ratings, then hid and avoided it. Much like other big previous administration talkers who promote war and who have avoided duty that you reference (and I admire and appreciate).

Clearly, you are going to try to make this nebulous wordplay work. Maybe show me some kind of facts that can explain a difference - otherwise, I still consider it fuzzy words. I know what your stated opinion position is - but it doesn't address this adequately for me. Your position avoids the direct question, IMO.

To your question, that you stubbornly ask others to answer while massaging the direct comments to you, I have not found anywhere specific where he said waterboarding is torture. I haven't looked, either, so I can't say for sure one way or the other. That's not really important to me - I think his position is pretty clear on this issue - although you guys want to blame that on the Obama factor, without admitting that there was ever a Bush factor in his opinion process previously.

And so it goes...

I see no diff between the words harsh and enhanced-- the defining factor would be what act of interrogation consist of--not what word someone wants to use to define act.As in this case inparticular--one mans view of torture may totally diff than anothers.

On 2nd paragraph---

In a nutshell--I can flat quarantee you our troops-our allies and every civilian every captured by terrorist in the past-present or future--would breath hugh sigh of relief and be doing cartwheels if they knew they would receive exact same atmosphere as terrorist do at Gitmo--including waterboarding. as matter of fact from most reports Gitmo has much better facility and treatment of prisonors than our own prisons.

on Hannity--If he said he was and don't would say he is not only chikenshit--but a liar to boot.

I like someone to take survey of families of 911-the 1000 that were on 10 transatlantic flights that terrorists planned to blow up that was averted--those in building in La that was averted- if they think waterboarding should have been done on KSM and other 2 ?

better yet--if plot was found on pres and family and they had suspect in custody --would like to see O personally have to give him his Miranda Rights ;)
 

Trench

Turn it up
Forum Member
Mar 8, 2008
3,974
18
0
Mad City, WI
I don't like to post entire articles but I think this ABC News story is a must read on the subject.

CIA's Harsh Interrogation Techniques Described
Sources Say Agency's Tactics Lead to Questionable Confessions, Sometimes to Death
By BRIAN ROSS and RICHARD ESPOSITO
Nov. 18, 2005


Harsh interrogation techniques authorized by top officials of the CIA have led to questionable confessions and the death of a detainee since the techniques were first authorized in mid-March 2002, ABC News has been told by former and current intelligence officers and supervisors.

They say they are revealing specific details of the techniques, and their impact on confessions, because the public needs to know the direction their agency has chosen. All gave their accounts on the condition that their names and identities not be revealed. Portions of their accounts are corrobrated by public statements of former CIA officers and by reports recently published that cite a classified CIA Inspector General's report. Other portions of their accounts echo the accounts of escaped prisoners from one CIA prison in Afghanistan.

"They would not let you rest, day or night. Stand up, sit down, stand up, sit down. Don't sleep. Don't lie on the floor," one prisoner said through a translator. The detainees were also forced to listen to rap artist Eminem's "Slim Shady" album. The music was so foreign to them it made them frantic, sources said.

Contacted after the completion of the ABC News investigation, CIA officials would neither confirm nor deny the accounts. They simply declined to comment. The CIA sources described a list of six "Enhanced Interrogation Techniques" instituted in mid-March 2002 and used, they said, on a dozen top al Qaeda targets incarcerated in isolation at secret locations on military bases in regions from Asia to Eastern Europe.

According to the sources, only a handful of CIA interrogators are trained and authorized to use the techniques:

1. The Attention Grab: The interrogator forcefully grabs the shirt front of the prisoner and shakes him.

2. Attention Slap: An open-handed slap aimed at causing pain and triggering fear.

3. The Belly Slap: A hard open-handed slap to the stomach. The aim is to cause pain, but not internal injury. Doctors consulted advised against using a punch, which could cause lasting internal damage.

4. Long Time Standing: This technique is described as among the most effective. Prisoners are forced to stand, handcuffed and with their feet shackled to an eye bolt in the floor for more than 40 hours. Exhaustion and sleep deprivation are effective in yielding confessions.

5. The Cold Cell: The prisoner is left to stand naked in a cell kept near 50 degrees. Throughout the time in the cell the prisoner is doused with cold water.

6. Water Boarding: The prisoner is bound to an inclined board, feet raised and head slightly below the feet. Cellophane is wrapped over the prisoner's face and water is poured over him. Unavoidably, the gag reflex kicks in and a terrifying fear of drowning leads to almost instant pleas to bring the treatment to a halt.

According to the sources, CIA officers who subjected themselves to the water boarding technique lasted an average of 14 seconds before caving in. They said al Qaeda's toughest prisoner, Khalid Sheik Mohammed, won the admiration of interrogators when he was able to last between two and two-and-a-half minutes before begging to confess.

"The person believes they are being killed, and as such, it really amounts to a mock execution, which is illegal under international law," said John Sifton of Human Rights Watch.

The techniques are controversial among experienced intelligence agency and military interrogators. Many feel that a confession obtained this way is an unreliable tool. Two experienced officers have told ABC that there is little to be gained by these techniques that could not be more effectively gained by a methodical, careful, psychologically based interrogation.

According to a classified report prepared by the CIA Inspector General John Helgerwon and issued in 2004, the techniques "appeared to constitute cruel, and degrading treatment under the (Geneva) convention," the New York Times reported on Nov. 9, 2005. It is "bad interrogation. I mean you can get anyone to confess to anything if the torture's bad enough," said former CIA officer Bob Baer.

Larry Johnson, a former CIA officer and a deputy director of the State Department's office of counterterrorism, recently wrote in the Los Angeles Times, "What real CIA field officers know firsthand is that it is better to build a relationship of trust ? than to extract quick confessions through tactics such as those used by the Nazis and the Soviets."

One argument in favor of their use: time. In the early days of al Qaeda captures, it was hoped that speeding confessions would result in the development of important operational knowledge in a timely fashion. However, ABC News was told that at least three CIA officers declined to be trained in the techniques before a cadre of 14 were selected to use them on a dozen top al Qaeda suspects in order to obtain critical information. In at least one instance, ABC News was told that the techniques led to questionable information aimed at pleasing the interrogators and that this information had a significant impact on U.S. actions in Iraq.

According to CIA sources, Ibn al Shaykh al Libbi, after two weeks of enhanced interrogation, made statements that were designed to tell the interrogators what they wanted to hear. Sources say Al Libbi had been subjected to each of the progressively harsher techniques in turn and finally broke after being water boarded and then left to stand naked in his cold cell overnight where he was doused with cold water at regular intervals.

His statements became part of the basis for the Bush administration claims that Iraq trained al Qaeda members to use biochemical weapons. Sources tell ABC that it was later established that al Libbi had no knowledge of such training or weapons and fabricated the statements because he was terrified of further harsh treatment. "This is the problem with using the waterboard. They get so desperate that they begin telling you what they think you want to hear," one source said.

http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/Investigation/story?id=1322866
 

DOGS THAT BARK

Registered User
Forum Member
Jul 13, 1999
19,421
128
63
Bowling Green Ky
I don't like to post entire articles but I think this ABC News story is a must read on the subject.

CIA's Harsh Interrogation Techniques Described
Sources Say Agency's Tactics Lead to Questionable Confessions, Sometimes to Death
By BRIAN ROSS and RICHARD ESPOSITO
Nov. 18, 2005

++++++++++++++++++++++++++

and why is it a must read--because it holds your views.

I can give you an much shorter version from the other side--

Giving terrorists right to remain silent generally will get you squat shit. :)

--a bit of info on "reliable intel" from one who is a bit familiar with interrogations--but this is just my opinion-but consider it.

We had 3 people water boarded that we knew for certain was involved in 911. Ever wonder why 3?

My premise would be to seperate them-waterboard all 3 as we did and ask same question. If you got same answer from 2 you might "consider that some what reliable--then I'd continue waterboarding the 3rd that I knew lied until he decided such lies would not be in his best interest.

Also any info obtained from any method can generally be weighed as credible or not from previous intel. Trick is to ask him questions you know the answer to 1st --to guage his reliabilty.

Trust me I could get a lot more solid info from above than you could with--You have the right to remain silent-you have the right to an attorney :)
 
Bet on MyBookie
Top