10 'torture' techniques blessed by Bush

If you go through the list of methods cited above, i don't have any philosophical problems with many of them being used on terror suspects, as i don't consider them torture. You have to remember that these aren't ordinary citizens fished off the streets of metropolitan cities while they walk to work. Most of the people who are detained are at the least up to no good and some are hardcore terrorists, who as we've seen have promptly resumed their professions after having been released.

Hell some of those "torture" techniques my father used on me on a daily basis. :lol: Facial Hold.....Attention Grasp....

feck me, hopefully they don't use the "go get your own switch" method or moms favorite mental torture, "wait until your father gets home". That one fecked me up.
 
Hell some of those "torture" techniques my father used on me on a daily basis. :lol: Facial Hold.....Attention Grasp....

feck me, hopefully they don't use the "go get your own switch" method or moms favorite mental torture, "wait until your father gets home". That one fecked me up.

I don't think most people are familiar with the methods which may be why they immediately reach for the term "torture", which of course demonizes what is a perfectly rational process. There have been numerous plots that have been foiled after 9/11 which may have been a result of these methods, and ultimately saved lives. When most people think of torture they think of real torture - old skool medevil stuff like pulleys that yank the joints apart etc.
 
I don't think most people are familiar with the methods which may be why they immediately reach for the term "torture", which of course demonizes what is a perfectly rational process. There have been numerous plots that have been foiled after 9/11 which may have been a result of these methods, and ultimately saved lives. When most people think of torture they think of real torture - old skool medevil stuff like pulleys that yank the joints apart etc.

It's all semantics though Raoul, much of what they describe other than the waterboarding is basically strong interrogation tactics but we all know that there's far worse going on than the ten items listed in the approval memo. Just look at the case of Binyan Mohamed where he was shuttled from country to country to evade all those awkward niceties like the Geneva convention and basic human rights and stripped, repeatedly cut with a razor including to his genitals, brutally beaten and sleep deprived all to gain two false confessions which were thrown out by the courts under duress before his release. Do we really know how many, if any of these foiled plots were ever actually real?

The couching of these things in intelligence speak like "extraordinary rendition" for kidnapping and breach of all civilized society's rules on the treatment of prisoners and "waterboarding" for simulated drowning is the same sort of linguistic BS that was used at the outset of this ludicrous "war on terror" with its "shock & awe", "WMDs", "axes of evil" etc. It's designed such that I'm sure much of the American TV audience hears of Cuban detention camps, waterboarding, sleepless nights and loud rock music and believes the victims are being treated to an extended spring break in the Caribbean.

I wouldn't think even the daftest guards at Gitmo, Abu Ghraib and the countless other illegal detention centres scattered around the world believe they should be applauded because they have restrained themselves from going medieval on their victims. Whether they've held back from using the rack and the iron maiden or not is irrelevant, it's torture and the US, UK and all their other complicit partners in this deserve hauling over the coals and anyone involved should be removed from office first and foremost and preferably prosecuted and jailed. Of course all we'll get is a hand wringing exercise and a few "rogue" jailers tried as scapegoats in the same way that the Abu Ghraib affair was whitewashed, Bush, Rumsfeld, Cheney, Bliar et al will never be brought to task.
 
It's all semantics though Raoul, much of what they describe other than the waterboarding is basically strong interrogation tactics but we all know that there's far worse going on than the ten items listed in the approval memo. Just look at the case of Binyan Mohamed where he was shuttled from country to country to evade all those awkward niceties like the Geneva convention and basic human rights and stripped, repeatedly cut with a razor including to his genitals, brutally beaten and sleep deprived all to gain two false confessions which were thrown out by the courts under duress before his release. Do we really know how many, if any of these foiled plots were ever actually real?

The couching of these things in intelligence speak like "extraordinary rendition" for kidnapping and breach of all civilized society's rules on the treatment of prisoners and "waterboarding" for simulated drowning is the same sort of linguistic BS that was used at the outset of this ludicrous "war on terror" with its "shock & awe", "WMDs", "axes of evil" etc. It's designed such that I'm sure much of the American TV audience hears of Cuban detention camps, waterboarding, sleepless nights and loud rock music and believes the victims are being treated to an extended spring break in the Caribbean.

I wouldn't think even the daftest guards at Gitmo, Abu Ghraib and the countless other illegal detention centres scattered around the world believe they should be applauded because they have restrained themselves from going medieval on their victims. Whether they've held back from using the rack and the iron maiden or not is irrelevant, it's torture and the US, UK and all their other complicit partners in this deserve hauling over the coals and anyone involved should be removed from office first and foremost and preferably prosecuted and jailed. Of course all we'll get is a hand wringing exercise and a few "rogue" jailers tried as scapegoats in the same way that the Abu Ghraib affair was whitewashed, Bush, Rumsfeld, Cheney, Bliar et al will never be brought to task.

I'm with you that its all semantics which is why i highlighted that the term torture should be applied to real cases of torture and not the methods that are posted at the top of the page, many of which are perfectly legitimate to use. That doesn't absolve the Bush administration from having failed to create a process to adjudicate all of the Gitmo cases, or any of the other policy blunders it initiated due to having a narrow world view. These methods however, were in place well before Bush was elected and if they lead to obtaining valuable information that deters terror attacks or leads to the apprehension of other terrorists, then I'm all for giving the interviewers the tools they need to do their jobs. Unfortunately this issue is commonly woven into anti-Bush debates, which it shouldn't be. Its a completely separate law enforcement issue that should be left to the professionals who work in that particular field, not adjudicated in a public forum where people with little or no knowledge of the nuts and bolts of information gathering are constantly sticking their beaks in because they object about a particular method based on humanitarian grounds. Not to beat a dead horse, but the above treatments including stress positions, face hold, cramped confinement, sleep deprivation are in my view perfectly legitimate tools to use on people who want to kill as many innocent civilians as possible. That has to be the main objective behind all of this and the truth is we may never know how much information has come out of these people since it may never be made available in a public forum.
 
From Times Online
April 20, 2009
September 11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed 'waterboarded 183 times'
Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, alleged September 11 mastermind

(AP)


CIA interrogators used the controverisal waterboarding technique 183 times on Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the mastermind behind the September 11, 2001, attacks and 83 times on another al-Qaeda suspect, according to The New York Times.

A 2005 Justice Department memorandum revealed that the simulated drowning technique was used on Mohammed 183 times in March 2003.

Abu Zubaydah, the first prisoner questioned in the CIA's overseas detention programme in August 2002, was waterboarded 83 times, although a former CIA officer had told news organisations that he had been subjected to only 35 seconds under water before agreeing to tell everything he knew.

President Barack Obama has banned the use of waterboarding, overturning a Bush Administration policy that it did not constitute torture.


The memo is one of four authorising “harsh interrogation” that were declassified by the Obama Administration last week. They show that the CIA based more than 3,000 intelligence reports on the questioning of “high-value” terror suspects from September 11, 2001, to April 2003.

According to The New York Times, some copies of the memo on Mohammed appeared to have the number of waterboardings used on him redacted while others did not.

A footnote to another 2005 Justice Department memo said that waterboarding was used both more frequently and with a greater volume of water than the CIA rules permitted, the newspaper claimed, while a separate footnote said that the use of the harshest techniques appeared to have been “unnecessary” in Abu Zubaydah's case.

On Saturday, The New York Times claimed that Abu Zubaydah had already given all the information he knew before he was subjected to waterboarding.

Officials in the Bush Administration had claimed that harsh interrogation techniques were necessary to get information but the number of times Mohammed was subjected to waterboarding will raise questions about its efficacy and about assertions from officials that the methods were used under strict guidelines.

Mr Obama, who will make his first visit to the CIA headquarters today, does not intend to prosecute Bush Administration officials who devised the policies that led to the harsh interrogation techniques, the White House Chief of Staff, Rahm Emanuel, said on Sunday.

Mr Obama has already made clear that he did not believe that those who carried out the interrogations should be prosecuted. Announcing the release of the documents last week, he said: "It is our intention to assure those who carried out their duties relying in good faith upon legal advice from the Department of Justice that they will not be subject to prosecution."

He did not mention the officials but Mr Emanuel told ABC television that the President did not want them prosecuted. Mr Obama believed that they "should not be prosecuted either and that's not the place that we go".
 
I'm with you that its all semantics which is why i highlighted that the term torture should be applied to real cases of torture and not the methods that are posted at the top of the page, many of which are perfectly legitimate to use. That doesn't absolve the Bush administration from having failed to create a process to adjudicate all of the Gitmo cases, or any of the other policy blunders it initiated due to having a narrow world view. These methods however, were in place well before Bush was elected and if they lead to obtaining valuable information that deters terror attacks or leads to the apprehension of other terrorists, then I'm all for giving the interviewers the tools they need to do their jobs. Unfortunately this issue is commonly woven into anti-Bush debates, which it shouldn't be. Its a completely separate law enforcement issue that should be left to the professionals who work in that particular field, not adjudicated in a public forum where people with little or no knowledge of the nuts and bolts of information gathering are constantly sticking their beaks in because they object about a particular method based on humanitarian grounds. Not to beat a dead horse, but the above treatments including stress positions, face hold, cramped confinement, sleep deprivation are in my view perfectly legitimate tools to use on people who want to kill as many innocent civilians as possible. That has to be the main objective behind all of this and the truth is we may never know how much information has come out of these people since it may never be made available in a public forum.


but many/most/perhaps all are innocent or innocent until proven guilty - if you and the US are sure they are terrorists then use the laws you and we are so proud of and give them their day in court.

and after you find them guilty then most people would accept the "interrogation" techniques the CIA were using. .....I would
 
It's all semantics though Raoul, much of what they describe other than the waterboarding is basically strong interrogation tactics but we all know that there's far worse going on than the ten items listed in the approval memo. Just look at the case of Binyan Mohamed where he was shuttled from country to country to evade all those awkward niceties like the Geneva convention and basic human rights and stripped, repeatedly cut with a razor including to his genitals, brutally beaten and sleep deprived all to gain two false confessions which were thrown out by the courts under duress before his release. Do we really know how many, if any of these foiled plots were ever actually real?

The couching of these things in intelligence speak like "extraordinary rendition" for kidnapping and breach of all civilized society's rules on the treatment of prisoners and "waterboarding" for simulated drowning is the same sort of linguistic BS that was used at the outset of this ludicrous "war on terror" with its "shock & awe", "WMDs", "axes of evil" etc. It's designed such that I'm sure much of the American TV audience hears of Cuban detention camps, waterboarding, sleepless nights and loud rock music and believes the victims are being treated to an extended spring break in the Caribbean.

I wouldn't think even the daftest guards at Gitmo, Abu Ghraib and the countless other illegal detention centres scattered around the world believe they should be applauded because they have restrained themselves from going medieval on their victims. Whether they've held back from using the rack and the iron maiden or not is irrelevant, it's torture and the US, UK and all their other complicit partners in this deserve hauling over the coals and anyone involved should be removed from office first and foremost and preferably prosecuted and jailed. Of course all we'll get is a hand wringing exercise and a few "rogue" jailers tried as scapegoats in the same way that the Abu Ghraib affair was whitewashed, Bush, Rumsfeld, Cheney, Bliar et al will never be brought to task.


great post.
 
but many/most/perhaps all are innocent or innocent until proven guilty - if you and the US are sure they are terrorists then use the laws you and we are so proud of and give them their day in court.

and after you find them guilty then most people would accept the "interrogation" techniques the CIA were using. .....I would

We seem to have reached common ground that bad people should be interrogated. Unfortunately, the time sensitive nature of certain cases combined with lack of planning by the Bush administration probably didn't make for a good environment to try foreign fighter cases in a timely manner.
 
I wonder how many people who are so happy to moralise here would be willing to answer to the parent of a child who died in a terrorist attack as to why they didn't think it was worth waterboarding the suspects who had been arrested to get information even if it possible some of them had the information which could have saved the child.

While I am not for forgetting about human rights, it must be recognised that we are in a warlike situation and whenever war has happened in human history, rules have been broken even by the good guys.

Like in most debates, there is no absolute right or wrong in this and we have be careful not to go too far on either. We're civilised enough to not go back to racks and thumbscrews but i'm not for letting them be treated as ordinary prisoners either. There's just too much to lose.
 
I wonder how many people who are so happy to moralise here would be willing to answer to the parent of a child who died in a terrorist attack as to why they didn't think it was worth waterboarding the suspects who had been arrested to get information even if it possible some of them had the information which could have saved the child.

While I am not for forgetting about human rights, it must be recognised that we are in a warlike situation and whenever war has happened in human history, rules have been broken even by the good guys.

Like in most debates, there is no absolute right or wrong in this and we have be careful not to go too far on either. We're civilised enough to not go back to racks and thumbscrews but i'm not for letting them be treated as ordinary prisoners either. There's just too much to lose.

I think I'd rather face the rack or thumbscrews than a nutter with a razor to my meat and two veg slicing away and making comments like "we should just have done with it and cut it off, it'll stop him breeding terrorists at least" and that's to a bloke who was ultimately found guilty of nowt and released after 4 years of hell in assorted US detention centres around the globe. I'd say we've already gone way past too far.
 
I think I'd rather face the rack or thumbscrews than a nutter with a razor to my meat and two veg slicing away and making comments like "we should just have done with it and cut it off, it'll stop him breeding terrorists at least" and that's to a bloke who was ultimately found guilty of nowt and released after 4 years of hell in assorted US detention centres around the globe. I'd say we've already gone way past too far.

a sensible riposte to a silly post
 
I think I'd rather face the rack or thumbscrews than a nutter with a razor to my meat and two veg slicing away and making comments like "we should just have done with it and cut it off, it'll stop him breeding terrorists at least" and that's to a bloke who was ultimately found guilty of nowt and released after 4 years of hell in assorted US detention centres around the globe. I'd say we've already gone way past too far.
I'd agree there are cases where we've gone too far and part of the reason, in my opinion, is the extreme secrecy behind this whole operation.

I'm agreeable to lowering some evidentiary rules for arrest warrants and allowing longer discretionary holding periods but i'm for civilian courts and trials (though confidential).
 
I wonder how many people who are so happy to moralise here would be willing to answer to the parent of a child who died in a terrorist attack as to why they didn't think it was worth waterboarding the suspects who had been arrested to get information even if it possible some of them had the information which could have saved the child.

While I am not for forgetting about human rights, it must be recognised that we are in a warlike situation and whenever war has happened in human history, rules have been broken even by the good guys.

Like in most debates, there is no absolute right or wrong in this and we have be careful not to go too far on either. We're civilised enough to not go back to racks and thumbscrews but i'm not for letting them be treated as ordinary prisoners either. There's just too much to lose.

The first point is just a reworking of Dostoevsky's conundrum in The Brothers Karamazov:

Imagine that you are creating a fabric of human destiny with the object of making men happy in the end... but that it was essential and inevitable to torture to death only one tiny creature ... And to found that edifice on its unavenged tears: would you consent to be the architect on those conditions? Tell me, and tell me the truth!

The problem with torture is that there is an absolute - it is never permissible, under any circumstances.

The other point about your ticking bomb scenario is that it is a hypothetical - very rarely will suspects be arrested before an event that is imminent. You presuppose that the individuals arrested may know something, and that the event is known to occur immediately, and that it is preventable.

There are far too many vagueries here - how many people would you arrest? What measures would you authorise? How far would you go? Would you torture the suspect's children in front of them to make them confess? Their wives? Mothers? Other relations? Pets?

Is that fanciful? Surely not - yours is an argument in favour of utility, and it is important to know how far you would go in the (hypothetical) circumstances you propose.
 
The problem with torture is that there is an absolute - it is never permissible, under any circumstances.

The problem isn't torture, but what we define as torture. As was said above, the practices cited earlier in the thread don't appear to be anything more than the hazing that occurs on University campuses. To characterize this as torture is really an insult to the people who have been legitimately tortured in the past.
 
The problem isn't torture, but what we define as torture. As was said above, the practices cited earlier in the thread don't appear to be anything more than the hazing that occurs on University campuses. To characterize this as torture is really an insult to the people who have been legitimately tortured in the past.

long time, raoul. hope all is well with you.

of course the united states tortured people - these things you characterize as frat pranks were certainly torture when other countries did these things to americans, were they not? waterboarding was torture when the khmer rouge did it, right? or when the gestapo did it? or when the japs did it?

but when the u.s. does it, it is apparently coercive interrogation techniques. quite orwellian. 183 times this was done to khaleid sheikh mohammed in two months. it's grotesque. i don't remember congress approving a withdrawal from the geneva convention prior to the executive office authorizing this. did we withdraw from the u.n. and its convention against torture? did i miss something? how is this not a blatant violation of the constitution by the president?

what information was ever obtained from these torture sessions? how did this make our country safe? quite the opposite - torture seems to have been more useful in obtaining fake confessions than real ones, clogging the system with fake "intelligence."

the united states is a country governed by laws and a constitution. these are war crimes and those that committed them need to be prosecuted.
 
long time, raoul. hope all is well with you.

of course the united states tortured people - these things you characterize as frat pranks were certainly torture when other countries did these things to americans, were they not? waterboarding was torture when the khmer rouge did it, right? or when the gestapo did it? or when the japs did it?

but when the u.s. does it, it is apparently coercive interrogation techniques. quite orwellian. 183 times this was done to khaleid sheikh mohammed in two months. it's grotesque. i don't remember congress approving a withdrawal from the geneva convention prior to the executive office authorizing this. did we withdraw from the u.n. and its convention against torture? did i miss something? how is this not a blatant violation of the constitution by the president?

what information was ever obtained from these torture sessions? how did this make our country safe? quite the opposite - torture seems to have been more useful in obtaining fake confessions than real ones, clogging the system with fake "intelligence."

the united states is a country governed by laws and a constitution. these are war crimes and those that committed them need to be prosecuted.

Hi Kevin,

I'm not defending the lack of Gitmo procedures by the Bush administration, just that I don't believe the methods are tantamount to torture, not even close. That's not to say there needs to be a sweeping evaluation about each individual tactic to scrutinize whether it is working or not. Ultimately, none of this is torture in my book, because frankly torture doesn't work - because if I torture you, you're more likely to tell me what you think I want to hear in order to stop the pain, than the truth itself. This is why the US doesn't go down that road. These are tried and tested methodologies that would never be used if they didn't yield positive results.
 
we aren't better than the terrorists then. if we start torturing people merely on suspicion just like the terrorists do.
 
Hi Kevin,

I'm not defending the lack of Gitmo procedures by the Bush administration, just that I don't believe the methods are tantamount to torture, not even close. That's not to say there needs to be an sweeping evaluation about each individual tactic to scrutinize whether it is working or not. Ultimately, none of this is torture in my book, because frankly torture doesn't work - because if I torture you, you're more likely to tell me what you think I want to hear in order to stop the pain, than the truth itself. This is why the US doesn't go down that road. These are tried and tested methodologies that would never be used if they didn't yield positive results.

ksm was waterboarded 183 times, largely because the bush administration thought he had more info and was higher up the bin laden food chain than he actually was. so he was waterboarded 183 times, because apparently that 182nd time he still wasn't giving him the info they wanted. probably because he did not have it. maybe if they crushed his nuts instead, which i gather the bush justice department would have come up with some tangled logic about how that wasn't torture either.

in what world is waterboarding not close to torture? bizarre.
 
thanks sultan. all is indeed well, though i wouldn't say i am back, per se, but rather just visiting. a nomad passing through, impressing everyone with his wonderful grasp of current events before moving on to other pastures.
 
long time, raoul. hope all is well with you.

of course the united states tortured people - these things you characterize as frat pranks were certainly torture when other countries did these things to americans, were they not? waterboarding was torture when the khmer rouge did it, right? or when the gestapo did it? or when the japs did it?

but when the u.s. does it, it is apparently coercive interrogation techniques. quite orwellian. 183 times this was done to khaleid sheikh mohammed in two months. it's grotesque. i don't remember congress approving a withdrawal from the geneva convention prior to the executive office authorizing this. did we withdraw from the u.n. and its convention against torture? did i miss something? how is this not a blatant violation of the constitution by the president?

what information was ever obtained from these torture sessions? how did this make our country safe? quite the opposite - torture seems to have been more useful in obtaining fake confessions than real ones, clogging the system with fake "intelligence."

the united states is a country governed by laws and a constitution. these are war crimes and those that committed them need to be prosecuted.

The methods used on this list are nothing compared to what toture really is. The only one I'd listen to is water boarding. Broken bones, knife wounds, starvation, electrocution and various others are what springs to mind when a discussion about torture comes up. Sleep deprevation is nothing when put into context with these. Hell, the US trains it's military with some of these techniques. There is a specific militay course called SERE school so pilots and special forces operators will have an idea of to expect if captured. I was part of one in the late 80' at Ft. Bragg. And as to the list, the US does know that torture doesn't work, that's why these methods were developed. And while I understand and agree with not torturing, I'll certainly cry no tears for Khaleid Sheikh Mohammed.

BTW, "japs"? Really?
 
thanks sultan. all is indeed well, though i wouldn't say i am back, per se, but rather just visiting. a nomad passing through, impressing everyone with his wonderful grasp of current events before moving on to other pastures.

Keep well

Wishing you the very best in life.

Don't leave it so long before coming back.
 
The methods used on this list are nothing compared to what toture really is. The only one I'd listen to is water boarding. Broken bones, knife wounds, starvation, electrocution and various others are what springs to mind when a discussion about torture comes up. Sleep deprevation is nothing when put into context with these. Hell, the US trains it's military with some of these techniques. There is a specific militay course called SERE school so pilots and special forces operators will have an idea of to expect if captured. I was part of one in the late 80' at Ft. Bragg. And as to the list, the US does know that torture doesn't work, that's why these methods were developed. And while I understand and agree with not torturing, I'll certainly cry no tears for Khaleid Sheikh Mohammed.

BTW, "japs"? Really?

people will always find ways to move the fence posts. pulling out fingernails? that's not torture. try having your hands chopped off. sleep deprivation? bah! try being sodomized with a plunger!

the fact remains that the u.n., which i believe the united states is still party to, defines torture as:

"any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a male or female 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."

given this definition, i invite anyone to explain away what the united states has done as anything less than torture. no legal body had declared waterboarding something other than torture before the bush administration came along. additionally, according to the administration own bullshit torturous legal argument:

"...where authorized, it may be used for two "sessions" per day of up to two hours. During a session, water may be applied up to six times for ten seconds or longer (but never more than 40 seconds). In a 24-hour period, a detainee may be subjected to up to twelve minutes of water appliaction. See id. at 42. Additionally, the waterboard may be used on as many as five days during a 30-day approval period."

so, if we say waterboarding is not torture (it is torture, but lets say you are insane and think it isn't), the waterboarding of ksm far exceeded their own permissive legal standard. this is a war crime. where is the investigation? where are the prosecutions?

the executive office does not have the authorization to unilaterally remove the united states from treaties and international agreements to which it is a party to. not only has our previous administration (admittedly) committed war crimes, they have violated the constitution.

the jap pejorative was ironic.
 
There are still far too many people who underestimate the threat of terrorism, which isn't surprising when you consider that a lot them believe 9/11 was an inside job.

We did some unpleasant things during the second world war such as dropping two atomic bombs on Japan and imprisoning Japanese American civilians in our country. But these were tough decisions that had to be made and history has proved that weak-minded liberals just aren't willing to take them, to the detriment of their own citizens.

We're at war with these people and we must do what is necessary in order to survive.
 
There are still far too many people who underestimate the threat of terrorism, which isn't surprising when you consider that a lot them believe 9/11 was an inside job.

We did some unpleasant things during the second world war such as dropping two atomic bombs on Japan and imprisoning Japanese American civilians in our country. But these were tough decisions that had to be made and history has proved that weak-minded liberals just aren't willing to take them, to the detriment of their own citizens.

We're at war with these people and we must do what is necessary in order to survive.

being humane to your enemy is not the result of a weak mind. i would hate to live in a country where it was. instead, i live in one that is governed by the rule of law, not by a king who does what he wants and then makes the law up later to justify it.

supposedly.
 
being humane to your enemy is not the result of a weak mind. i would hate to live in a country where it was. instead, i live in one that is governed by the rule of law, not by a king who does what he wants and then makes the law up later to justify it.

supposedly.

Are you in the ''if we treat these bad guys nicely they'll stop attacking us'' camp?

It didn't work 70 years ago and it won't work now.
 
i'm in the "we shouldn't torture people" camp. the one every american administration has been in for over two hundred years until bush et al decided the standards of western civilization did not apply to them.

torture has never been all that effective with intelligence gathering. it's been quite effective, however, at garnering fake confessions. one wonders what a relentlessly political animal such as the bush administration had in mind.

i have yet to hear how torturing the bad guys will stop them from attacking us, either. what valuable intelligence was gathered? must be pretty awesome stuff to have forsaken basic human decency to get at it. i am open ears.
 
Dick Cheney says today that these techniques did in fact yield the kind of intelligence they were intended to, and calls for the release of the memos that back this up. He'll be on Fox News tonight talking to the most punchable face in television, Sean Hannity.

Personally, I'm more than just a little bit skeptical. Given that not only does Cheney have very little credibility these days, but it was just two weeks ago that the Washington Post reported that what Abu Zubaydeh said under torture did nothing but send the CIA scurrying around the globe, chasing what turned out to be false leads. And that this came after his interrogators were convinced he had nothing left to tell, but were ordered to press further by Bush administration officials. The same report does say that this further harsh treatment did "break" Zubaydeh. And in this and only this sense, I suspect it was "successful".

In the end, though, not a single significant plot was foiled as a result of Abu Zubaida's tortured confessions, according to former senior government officials who closely followed the interrogations. Nearly all of the leads attained through the harsh measures quickly evaporated, while most of the useful information from Abu Zubaida -- chiefly names of al-Qaeda members and associates -- was obtained before waterboarding was introduced
 
More from the Post's March 30 cover story.

As weeks passed after the capture without significant new confessions, the Bush White House and some at the CIA became convinced that tougher measures had to be tried. The pressure from upper levels of the government was "tremendous," driven in part by the routine of daily meetings in which policymakers would press for updates, one official remembered. "They couldn't stand the idea that there wasn't anything new," the official said. "They'd say, 'You aren't working hard enough.' There was both a disbelief in what he was saying and also a desire for retribution -- a feeling that 'He's going to talk, and if he doesn't talk, we'll do whatever.' "

The application of techniques such as waterboarding -- a form of simulated drowning that U.S. officials had previously deemed a crime -- prompted a sudden torrent of names and facts. Abu Zubaida began unspooling the details of various al-Qaeda plots, including plans to unleash weapons of mass destruction. Abu Zubaida's revelations triggered a series of alerts and sent hundreds of CIA and FBI investigators scurrying in pursuit of phantoms. The interrogations led directly to the arrest of Jose Padilla, the man Abu Zubaida identified as heading an effort to explode a radiological "dirty bomb" in an American city. Padilla was held in a naval brig for 3 1/2 years on the allegation but was never charged in any such plot. Every other lead ultimately dissolved into smoke and shadow, according to high-ranking former U.S. officials with access to classified reports. "We spent millions of dollars chasing false alarms," one former intelligence official said.

Despite the poor results, Bush White House officials and CIA leaders continued to insist that the harsh measures applied against Abu Zubaida and others produced useful intelligence that disrupted terrorist plots and saved American lives. Two weeks ago, Bush's vice president, Richard B. Cheney, renewed that assertion in an interview with CNN, saying that "the enhanced interrogation program" stopped "a great many" terrorist attacks on the level of Sept. 11. "I've seen a report that was written, based upon the intelligence that we collected then, that itemizes the specific attacks that were stopped by virtue of what we learned through those programs," Cheney asserted, adding that the report is "still classified," and, "I can't give you the details of it without violating classification."

Since 2006, Senate intelligence committee members have pressed the CIA, in classified briefings, to provide examples of specific leads that were obtained from Abu Zubaida through the use of waterboarding and other methods, according to officials familiar with the requests. The agency provided none, the officials said.
 
people will always find ways to move the fence posts. pulling out fingernails? that's not torture. try having your hands chopped off. sleep deprivation? bah! try being sodomized with a plunger!

Have you actually read the techniques? Serious question because you are comparing pulling off finger nails, chopping off hands and sodomy by plunger with any of these below you're not sane.

Attention grasp

The attention grasp consists of grasping the individual with both hands, one hand on each side of the collar opening, in a controlled and quick motion. In the same motion as the grasp, the individual is drawn toward the interrogator.

Walling

For walling, a flexible false wall will be constructed. The individual is placed with his heels touching the wall. The interrogator pulls the individual forward and then quickly and firmly pushes the individual into the wall. It is the individual's shoulder blades that hit the wall.

During this motion, the head and neck are supported with a rolled hood or towel that provides a c-collar effect to help prevent whiplash. To further reduce the probability of injury, the individual is allowed to rebound from the flexible wall. You have orally informed us that the false wall is in part constructed to create a loud sound when the individual hits it, which will further shock or surprise the individual. In part, the idea is to create a sound that will make the impact seem far worse than it is and that will be far worse than any injury that might result from the action.

Facial hold

The facial hold is used to hold the head immobile. One open palm is placed on either side of the individual's face. The fingertips are kept well away from the individual's eyes.

Facial slap

With the facial slap or insult slap, the interrogator slaps the individual's face with fingers slightly spread. The hand makes contact with the area directly between the tip of the individual's chin and the bottom of the corresponding earlobe. The interrogator invades the individual' s personal space. The goal of the facial slap is not to inflict physical pain that is severe or lasting. Instead, the purpose of the facial slap is to induce shock, surprise, and/or humiliation.

Cramped confinement

Cramped confinement involves the placement of the individual in a confined space, the dimensions of which restrict the individual's movement. The confined space is usually dark. The duration of confinement varies based upon the size of the container. For the larger confined space, the individual can stand up or sit down; the smaller space is large enough for the subject to sit down. Confinement in the larger space can last up to eighteen hours; for the smaller space, confinement lasts for no more than two hours.

Wall standing

Wall standing is used to induce muscle fatigue. The individual stands about four to five feet from a wall, with his feet spread approximately to shoulder width. His arms are stretched out in front of him, with his fingers resting on the wall. His fingers support all of his body weight. The individual is not permitted to move or reposition his hands or feel.

Stress positions

A variety of stress positions may be used. You have informed us that these positions are not designed to produce the pain associated with contortions or twisting of the body, Rather, somewhat like walling, they are designed to produce the physical discomfort associated with muscle fatigue. Two particular stress positions are likely to be used on Zubaydah: (1) sitting on the floor with legs extended straight out in front of him with his hands raised above his head; and (2) kneeling on the floor while leaning back at a 45 degree angle. You have also orally informed us that through observing Zubaydah in captivity, you have noted that he appears to be quite flexible despite his wound.

Sleep deprivation

Sleep deprivation may be used. You have indicated that your purpose in using this technique is to reduce the individual's ability to think on his feet and, through the discomfort associated with lack of sleep to motivate him to cooperate. The effect of such sleep deprivation will generally remit after one or two nights of uninterrupted sleep.

You have informed us that your research has revealed that, in rare instances, some individuals who are already predisposed to psychological problems may experience abnormal reactions to sleep deprivation.

Even in those cases, however, reactions abate after the individual is permitted to sleep. Moreover, personnel with medical training are available to and will intervene in the unlikely event of an abnormal reaction. You have orally informed us that you would not deprive Zubaydah of sleep for more than eleven days at a time and that you have previously kept him awake for 72 hours, from which no mental or physical harm resulted.

Confinement with insects

You would like to place Zubaydah in a cramped confinement box with an insect. You have informed us that he appears to have a fear of insects. In particular, you would like to tell Zubaydah that you intend to place a stinging insect into the box with him, You would, however, place a harmless insect in the box. You have orally informed us that you would in fact face a harmless insect such as a caterpillar in the box with him.



the fact remains that the u.n., which i believe the united states is still party to, defines torture as:

"any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a male or female 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."

given this definition, i invite anyone to explain away what the united states has done as anything less than torture. no legal body had declared waterboarding something other than torture before the bush administration came along. additionally, according to the administration own bullshit torturous legal argument:

"...where authorized, it may be used for two "sessions" per day of up to two hours. During a session, water may be applied up to six times for ten seconds or longer (but never more than 40 seconds). In a 24-hour period, a detainee may be subjected to up to twelve minutes of water appliaction. See id. at 42. Additionally, the waterboard may be used on as many as five days during a 30-day approval period."

so, if we say waterboarding is not torture (it is torture, but lets say you are insane and think it isn't), the waterboarding of ksm far exceeded their own permissive legal standard. this is a war crime. where is the investigation? where are the prosecutions?

the executive office does not have the authorization to unilaterally remove the united states from treaties and international agreements to which it is a party to. not only has our previous administration (admittedly) committed war crimes, they have violated the constitution.

the jap pejorative was ironic.

Love the UN argument. Bastion of human rights that is. Where were the outcries from them during the Vietnam era? How about when real terrorists and tortures were excuting people by cutting their heads off or bullets to the head, video taping it and releasing it for public viewing on the internet. I've said it many times, the UN is a worthless organization. The sooner the US pulls out of it the better. All you need to do is look at todays UN anti racism conference today. Hilarious that was.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/europe/04/20/racism.conference/index.html

I'm certainly against all the torture you are talking about but you're not going to get valuable information you need from the people that have it with a hand shake and cup of coffee.
 
There are still far too many people who underestimate the threat of terrorism, which isn't surprising when you consider that a lot them believe 9/11 was an inside job.

We did some unpleasant things during the second world war such as dropping two atomic bombs on Japan and imprisoning Japanese American civilians in our country. But these were tough decisions that had to be made and history has proved that weak-minded liberals just aren't willing to take them, to the detriment of their own citizens.

We're at war with these people and we must do what is necessary in order to survive.

Franklin D. Roosevelt was a democrat.