CIA Waterboarded Zubaydah 183 Times in One Month (drug, world, foreign)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Nice attempt at connecting apples to oranges....I suppose the prolifers don't see the hypocracy in prolife and prowar?
We could also say the same thing about the pro-choicers being OK with killing babies who have done nothing, but not killing terrorists. Works both ways, zippy.
Someone's still following the Bush way, if it fails keep trying it maybe it will work this time.
Failed? Really? How about the attack on CA (set as a follow-up to 9/11 on the Library tower in LA) that was aborted by the aggressive questioning tactics?
How 'bout releasing all of the info that was attained so a fully informed debate can be had? Or is that something to be avoided since it may just set the majority opinion that the waterboarding was needed?
Even one of Obama's cabinet members (intel chief) said he understood why it was done and wouldn't go after the previous administration. "Last week, Mr. Blair made a similar statement in an internal memo to his staff when he wrote that "[h]igh value information came from interrogations in which those methods were used and provided a deeper understanding of the al Qa'ida organization that was attacking this country"
Boy the wackadoo kool aid left is out in full force on this thread...
I concede that my use of "humane" is relative. To me, the world has the gloves off and we're the only people playing by any kind of rules. Let me ask you this: would any level of discomfort or pain be acceptable?
Certainly some discomfort or even pain would be acceptable. Not to the level of torture. And historically the US has conceded that waterboarding was torture. Then when we do it, it's not.
To me, if the world has the gloves off, and we're the only people abiding by the rules, then that's something to be proud of. I want my country to abide by the rules because it's the right thing to do. I don't want my country to jump off a cliff because all the other countries are doing so.
If torture resulted in solid, good information elicited promptly every time, it might tempt me to the dark side. But it doesn't. And that information has to be verified independently by other sources. If we can get the information without torture, why do we torture? If we waste years and resources following up on bogus information that we cannot independently verify, it would seem obvious that the costs outweighed the benefits, so why torture?
If we lose any claim to integrity or morality, why torture?
That's funny. I guess "herniated esophaegus" wasn't much of a stretch at all.
If there was evidence of waterboarding by agents of the United States inducing a heart attack in any subject since 2001 don't you think we would have read all about it?
No. Because they were quite careful about hiding the evidence. Videotapes destroyed. Reports carefully edited. There evidently have been deaths during interrogations, but whether the deaths were the result of interrogation methods we may never know.
Nightline had a story tonight about some prince in the UAE torturing a guy who he thought cheated him out of $5,000 worth of grain.
They do it to each other and think nothing of it, but when we do it all of a sudden we're the bad guy? It's totally acceptable behavior in their culture, and you tree huggers want to hold the USA to a "higher" standard? Higher standard of what? This is how they treat each other in their slice of the world - and we should do the same. When in Rome...
No one here is defending Amnesty's silly air conditioning issue.
I never said they were, it was just a reference for a starting place to find out what techniques people like you would approve of. It is not hyperbole to bring up what people from an international organization have described as torture, even though it may have been simply hyperbole on their part. I have no clue if the woman who said not giving the prisoners at GITMO a set date for release, or turning off the AC, really was torture in her mind, or if it was seen as torture in your mind for that matter.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ♠atizar♠
Torture is any action which employs methods of mental, physical (or both) prolonged discomfort, to extract info. I know it kills you bloodthirsty-for-revenge types, but them's the facts, and waterboarding certainly meets this definition. Funny how the guy you all put up as your candidate calls it torture, but yeah, just write him off as a RINO, and his opinion doesn't count anymore. A man who was tortured himself, and served bravely and with dignity and honor, and you all don't listen to him either.
And gosh, if it's not torture, why did the US execute Japanese soldiers for doing it? Why did we court martial a soldier during the Vietnam War for it?
All of these are examples of a war and captured enemy prisoners. An enemy soldier should not be tortured to give up information, which might lead to the deaths of his countrymen or fellow soldiers. The soldier is simply trying to protect their lives and defend his country.
A captured terrorist is a different matter. for example, a captured terrorist who was born in Saudi Arabia, is a country we have never been at war with, and he is not a soldier representing his country. He is not refusing to disclose information to protect lives, or acting under the orders of his country's government, he simply does not want to provide us with information that would ruin his plan to murder civilians.
You can find condemnation of waterboarding in the past, because it was used against captured enemy prisoners, doing that to an enemy soldier who just is following orders, or civilians taking up arms trying to defend their homes from an invading army is wrong.
“Torture is any action which employs methods of mental, physical (or both) prolonged discomfort, to extract info".
Your definition of torture is vague, and there is nothing wrong with that, because anyone else’s description of mental stress, physical discomfort would also be vague. You need to draw the line somewhere, as to what is too uncomfortable, what is too prolonged, and what is too much mental stress. People in civilian prisons can feel too much mental stress from simply being in prison is, and hang themselves.
Putting someone with claustrophobia in a small room, not telling a Muslim the direction of Mecca, being served bland tasteless food, or simply keeping them in isolation might be seen as unbearable conditions to a prisoner, and shrugged off as insignificant by another prisoner. So what you may see as too severe may be laughed at by the terrorist you employ it on. And what you determine as a reasonable technique, someone else might view as going to far.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ♠atizar♠
We are not barbarians, and you all would apparently like to lower us to that level.
Standard interrogation procedures are whats ok with me, like the FBI and local police use. And there's about a zillion studies and experts who agree that simple interrogation is vastly more effective than any form of torture.
Finally I get an answer.
I agree with you 100%, we should only use standard kid gloves interrogation techniques when it comes to enemy soldiers captured in a war, and the civilian population caught up in the war.
The Bush administration sat down and examined where the line of “too severe” was, and where the line for torture was. Obviously cutting someone up or employing the clumsy and brutal Jack Bauer techniques crossed that line. So they decided that for terrorists, a cold room, sleep deprivation, and bland food was permissible, and the furthest they would go for extreme cases where many lives are at stake, was waterboarding. You just disagree with their conclusion. We still follow the standard kid gloves treatment for enemy soldiers.
There was an investigative report by a man named Helgerson (sp?) on the interrogation techniques back in 2004. According to several sources in his report there were accounts of terrorists being killed during interrogations. Evidently Vice President was instrumental in quashing the report. I know you wouldn't want to search the NYT, but google can probably dig us some sources for you.
Killing a captured prisoner, terrorist or not is a at the very least negligent homicide. The purpose of interrogation is to get information, so if you killed the prisoner, you were incompetent, and you should be investigated by a court of law.
The Bush administration sat down and examined where the line of “too severe” was, and where the line for torture was. Obviously cutting someone up or employing the clumsy and brutal Jack Bauer techniques crossed that line. So they decided that for terrorists, a cold room, sleep deprivation, and bland food was permissible, and the furthest they would go for extreme cases where many lives are at stake, was waterboarding. You just disagree with their conclusion. We still follow the standard kid gloves treatment for enemy soldiers.
The problem with this logic is the "extreme cases where many lives are at stake". Are you fishing for information (183 times in one month-that's avid fishing)? In which case, how do you verify that information? With independent sources? If you had alternative sources of information, why did you have to torture someone to get them to share that information?
Or are you going after specific information? Which leads to the question of how much did you already know, and where did you get that information? So that you knew specifically what additional information you required? Why didn't your original sources have that information? If it takes 183 waterboardings over a month, how urgently did you need that information? Would it have been quicker to explore more cooperative sources of information?
These torture/information scenarios seem to be like jigsaw puzzles. Either we're just trying to acquire random pieces, or we're trying to acquire pieces that will help us complete the puzzle. And either way, it doesn't seem like torture is a quick way to acquire the pieces, so there goes the urgent argument. It also seems clear the the terrorist being interrogated isn't the ONLY source of information. Why torture someone, when you can get the information elsewhere?
Article 2 of the convention prohibits torture, and requires parties to take effective measures to prevent it in any territory under its jurisdiction. This prohibition is absolute and non-derogable. "No exceptional circumstances whatsoever"[5] may be invoked to justify torture, including war, threat of war, internal political instability, public emergency, terrorist acts, violent crime, or any form of armed conflict.[6] Torture cannot be justified as a means to protect public safety or prevent emergencies.[6] Neither can it be justified by orders from superior officers or public officials.[7] The prohibition on torture applies to all territories under a party's effective jurisdiction, and protects all people under its effective control, regardless of citizenship or how that control is exercised.[6] Since the Conventions entry into force, this absolute prohibition has become accepted as a principle of customary international law.[6]
Because it is often difficult to distinguish between cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment and torture, the Committee regards Article 16's prohibition of such treatment as similarly absolute and non-derogable.[6]
The other articles of part I lay out specific obligations intended to implement this absolute prohibition by preventing, investigating and punishing acts of torture.[6]
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
