Is it acceptable for the US government to torture people?

[BigSky]

Right, but the justification was that there was a ticking bomb and we got information about future attacks.  Now, we got '"Important background information about how Al Qaeda worked".  Do you see the slide?  The lies and the cover up are at least as problematic as the torture itself.

There has been no sliding.

It was under this current Administration that the CIA said these harsh interrogation techniques worked and stopped a terrorist attack.

Not only that, but the top National Intelligence director under this current Administration also said that these interrogation techniques also "produced significant information that helped the nation in its struggle with terrorists."


Like Paul says we can go back and forth.

You say what we did doesnt work and its torture.


I said what we did work did and didnt rise to the level of torture.

The evidence is on my side.

The evidence shows what we did do did work as admitted by this Administration.

Also the evidence that it wasnt torture is supported by a vast array of legal rulings, etc etc and and to that point all of that vast array of information has not been disproved by those who are against what was done.

[Bill Peckham]

Right, but the justification was that there was a ticking bomb and we got information about future attacks.  Now, we got '"Important background information about how Al Qaeda worked".  Do you see the slide?  The lies and the cover up are at least as problematic as the torture itself.

There has been no sliding.

It was under this current Administration that the CIA said these harsh interrogation techniques worked and stopped a terrorist attack.

Not only that, but the top National Intelligence director under this current Administration also said that these interrogation techniques also "produced significant information that helped the nation in its struggle with terrorists."


Like Paul says we can go back and forth.

You say what we did doesnt work and its torture.


I said what we did work did and didnt rise to the level of torture.

The evidence is on my side.

The evidence shows what we did do did work as admitted by this Administration.

Also the evidence that it wasnt torture is supported by a vast array of legal rulings, etc etc and and to that point all of that vast array of information has not been disproved by those who are against what was done.

I don't know how you can think this narrative makes sense after that anonymous CIA source was completely debunked by the Bush administration's own timeline. The Obama administration has not admitted torture worked - and it is clearly torture, that debate ended when the internal memos confirmed the International Red Cross report.

One of the things I was voting for in November was for the President to depoliticize the Department of Justice. That seems to have happened, or repairing the damage has begun and I think this case will be where the Department reasserts its historic role. There is going to have to be a special prosecutor and I'm await the verdict of justice. Separate from that I think there should be a full accounting as Congress fulfills its Constitutional oversight role.

In think it is important that your point of view is acknowledged and addressed by this accounting. I think this has been a disaster for the country and if we want to avoid repeating this sorry chapter we can't just agree to disagree.

You seem very happy that men trying to save American lives may be heading to prison.
You seem happy that the terrorists cant be harmed but rather coddled like good ol boys.

Enjoy your big smile and happy times.
Cause these TERRORISTS still want to kill us.  Even people like you who stick up for them.
And dont even say anything about the constitution that obama walks on daily.

Sad to see your inspirational leader Mr. Obama can flip on and off like a lightswitch.  He just follows the polls from day to day to see what to do.  And when he misspeaks Pelozi makes him take it back.

How loud will you cheer if these men and woman protecting your rights and LIFE end up in prison??
And you say i have issues. 

I want america to be safe.  That is my issue.
 I dont even want you to be harmed by terrorists.....

I think if in order to make your point you have to ascribing motivations to people it's a clear sign that you're making a weak point.

These policies were deeply, deeply flawed. They strengthened our enemies, while hamstringing our diplomatic offensives and increasing the risk faced all American citizens and most particularly American service members. Those who instituted these policies had no idea what they were doing - it's all coming out in their own words http://obsidianwings.blogs.com/obsidian_wings/2009/04/a-perfect-storm.html 

There were of course interrogation experts available - we now all know about the SERE school and what they are for and what they were training for but our political leadership failed. They had no interest in professionals, they were following their guts.When they did that they failed as managers, and as leaders.

I can not see why their approach continues to have any appeal let alone appeal to millions and millions of Americans. I know the Angry 30% is angry but this seems like blind rage. It's not sustainable.

[BigSky]

I don't know how you can think this narrative makes sense after that anonymous CIA source was completely debunked by the Bush administration's own timeline. The Obama administration has not admitted torture worked - and it is clearly torture, that debate ended when the internal memos confirmed the International Red Cross report.

When Obamas top intelligence official said that these techniques did produce  significant information that helped the nation in its struggle with terrorists that is indeed admitting they did work.

The CIA under this Administration said they stand by their report from 2005.

Neither you nor anyone else against what was done has produced evidence to disprove all the legal findings  of the memos that set the ground work on how far these techniques could be taken and stay within the conventions.  You want to lay a blanket claim of torture for what we did then it is up to you to disprove those memos and all of their corresponding legal rulings etc etc that were used to support those memos.

Shouting torture like you ar doing isnt evidence disproving the findings of memos.  Nor is someone else like the Red Cross shouting torture proof either. 

One of the things I was voting for in November was for the President to depoliticize the Department of Justice. That seems to have happened, or repairing the damage has begun and I think this case will be where the Department reasserts its historic role. There is going to have to be a special prosecutor and I'm await the verdict of justice. Separate from that I think there should be a full accounting as Congress fulfills its Constitutional oversight role.

The only way to prosecute any on actual torture charges would be to find someone who exceeded the what the memos authorized and were backed by legal rulings.  Other than that it will take a violation of the Constitution to do so.  Considering what this Administration has done that well may happen.

Since the detaines are claiming that treatment is far worse  under Obama than it was under Bush, who is the JD going to prosecute in this Administration?  Imagine that, treatment in Gitmo under this administration that is far worse than torture?

[Wallyz]

You've made that claim twice, that the treatment is worse under Obama than Bush, where is the source for that? I can't find it.

[Bill Peckham]

If you're going to quote Dennis Blair why not provide his whole quote?

“The information gained from these techniques was valuable in some instances, but there is no way of knowing whether the same information could have been obtained through other means,” Admiral Blair said in a written statement issued last night. “The bottom line is these techniques have hurt our image around the world, the damage they have done to our interests far outweighed whatever benefit they gave us and they are not essential to our national security.”

It appears the Obama administration is mainly appalled by the policy and the infrastructure that was created and used routinely. Not so much the actual incidents and events, rather instead the bureaucratic and undemocratic, non Constitutional manner the torture policy was created and maintained.

The way it was set up and run was so misguided that there was never any chance that it could be ignored and allowed to pass back into the shadows.
 

[BigSky]

One of the detainees in Gitmo was suppose to call his lawyer and instead called Al Jazeera and it came out that he said their treatment was worse since obama was elected.  He said he started 20 days before Obama became president and that he is subjected to it almost everyday.

Since the buck stops with Obama......................


I should add when I bring this up I bring it up in the blanket method that is being applied to the harsh interrogation methods.

[BigSky]

If you're going to quote Dennis Blair why not provide his whole quote?

“The information gained from these techniques was valuable in some instances, but there is no way of knowing whether the same information could have been obtained through other means,” Admiral Blair said in a written statement issued last night. “The bottom line is these techniques have hurt our image around the world, the damage they have done to our interests far outweighed whatever benefit they gave us and they are not essential to our national security.”

There is no need to bill.  He is merely trying to cover the administrations point of view on what happened.

Hmm the NYT thought so little of what you quoted they posted it well into the story, unlike what I quoted they posted at the beginning of the story.

However......

He tries to claim "but there is no way of knowing whether the same information could have been obtained through other means,"

That is a clear cut obvious lie on his part to stay in line with this administrations trying to push what happened was torture. 

It is a lie because we do know.  This information is in your own links bill.

In one of them  it talks about what they tried to get them to talk and it failed.  This was the one of the reasons to push for the ok of the harsh interrogation methods.

They refused to answer until these harsh methods were used and then they sang like canaries.


So keep on claiming torture all you want.  You have no case until you disprove all of the legal ruling etc etc that were in the memos that gave support to what was done.  Not to mention you have to prove what was done exceeded into the area of what the conventions say are needed for it to be torture.

[Wallyz]

JOhn Boehner called it torture.


I think it's OK to refer to it as torture now.  The issue is whether it was OK.

You haven't given a citation. The Al Jazeera website has nothing about any report.  It fits your narrative too closely to be accepted prima facie, and there is nothing about that on Al Jazeera or any other international or domestic news service.

[paul.karen]

Im all for these witch trail prosecutions.
The ones Obama didnt want until someone decided for him that he did want them??  Glad our president can stand on his own.

Needless lets go for throwing Americans trying to save America into prisons.
But lets also toss in anyone in congress & the senate that said this was ok to do.  Many many dems as well as Repubs agreed this is what we should do.  So lets keep it simple and fair.

Instead of spending millions if not billions on this nonsense.  Why not call it a bad chapter in our history and put it behind us.  It isnt like we dont have two wars going on, the taliban about to invade Islamabad where there are Nuclear weapons.  Oh and this small problem with the worlds if not our own economy.
Then theres a small problem with N Korea and lets not forget our new friends in Iran.

I am sad to see where our priorities are.
Common sense is lost.  I say open the borders and let anyone in.  Oh wait nevermind.

[Wallyz]

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/23/opinion/23soufan.html?_r=2&ref=global

One of the interrogators of Abu Zubayah speaks

It is inaccurate, however, to say that Abu Zubaydah had been uncooperative. Along with another F.B.I. agent, and with several C.I.A. officers present, I questioned him from March to June 2002, before the harsh techniques were introduced later in August. Under traditional interrogation methods, he provided us with important actionable intelligence.

We discovered, for example, that Khalid Shaikh Mohammed was the mastermind of the 9/11 attacks. Abu Zubaydah also told us about Jose Padilla, the so-called dirty bomber. This experience fit what I had found throughout my counterterrorism career: traditional interrogation techniques are successful in identifying operatives, uncovering plots and saving lives.

There was no actionable intelligence gained from using enhanced interrogation techniques on Abu Zubaydah that wasn’t, or couldn’t have been, gained from regular tactics. In addition, I saw that using these alternative methods on other terrorists backfired on more than a few occasions — all of which are still classified. The short sightedness behind the use of these techniques ignored the unreliability of the methods, the nature of the threat, the mentality and modus operandi of the terrorists, and due process.

Defenders of these techniques have claimed that they got Abu Zubaydah to give up information leading to the capture of Ramzi bin al-Shibh, a top aide to Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, and Mr. Padilla. This is false. The information that led to Mr. Shibh’s capture came primarily from a different terrorist operative who was interviewed using traditional methods. As for Mr. Padilla, the dates just don’t add up: the harsh techniques were approved in the memo of August 2002, Mr. Padilla had been arrested that May.

Fortunately for me, after I objected to the enhanced techniques, the message came through from Pat D’Amuro, an F.B.I. assistant director, that “we don’t do that,” and I was pulled out of the interrogations by the F.B.I. director, Robert Mueller (this was documented in the report released last year by the Justice Department’s inspector general).

My C.I.A. colleagues who balked at the techniques, on the other hand, were instructed to continue. (It’s worth noting that when reading between the lines of the newly released memos, it seems clear that it was contractors, not C.I.A. officers, who requested the use of these techniques.)

Interesting.  He is making the claim that it was contractors, not government agents who requested the techniques.

[BigSky]

You haven't given a citation.The Al Jazeera website has nothing about any report.
It fits your narrative too closely to be accepted prima facie, and there is nothing about that on Al Jazeera or any other international or domestic news service.

First off......

Again what I say on this current treatment at Gitmo was said in the blanket method that is being applied to the harsh interrogation techniques.


Second,

You want a citation.  This coming from you who has made the false claim about KSM not being prosecuted and refuses to give a citation?   Really, I find that interesting.

Furthermore,

It was a widely reported that some in Gitmo are saying the abuse at Gitmo is worse now since Obama was elected.

You claim that its not on Al Jazeera, or any international or domestic news services.

Really?
If your claim is true because you looked, how is it I found it within 10 seconds with a search?

I am not sure if its your ability to search or you have a poor search engine.  I googled it and had no problem.




Guantanamo worse since Obama election: ex-detainee  Breitbart

Exclusive: Lawyer says Guantanamo abuse worse since Obama  Reuters

Guantánamo Detainee Phones Al Jazeera From Prison   New York Times 

Guantanamo abuse row deepens     Al Jazeera


These stories refer to how treatment is worse since Obama was elected.

So in the blanket method......................................


BTW I didnt link them, I figure you can use a search engine to find them as they are actual headlines.

[Wallyz]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/13/AR2009011303372.html


Sorry, you are rigth, it was alQhitani.

Story you mentioned said this:

Abuses began to pick up in December after Obama was elected, human rights lawyer Ahmed Ghappour told Reuters. He cited beatings, the dislocation of limbs, spraying of pepper spray into closed cells, applying pepper spray to toilet paper and over-forcefeeding detainees who are on hunger strike.

December 08, when Bush was still president.  The reporting is misleading, and to use that is such a way is disingenuous.

You were intimating that it was policy of the Obama administration to continue mistreatment.

[BigSky]

Actually by the reports say it started right before Obama took office and continued when he was in office.

Nice try, but I said nothing about policy or inferred it.

I said the abuse was worse under Obama as stated by detainees, Obama is president, the buck stops with him.




LONDON (Reuters) - Abuse of prisoners at Guantanamo Bay has worsened sharply since President Barack Obama took office as prison guards "get their kicks in" before the camp is closed, according to a lawyer who represents detainees.

[Bill Peckham]

The Central Intelligence Agency's inspector general report on TORTURE under the direction of, and in the name of, the United States is due out on Monday. Newsweek has a preview:

According to two sources—one who has read a draft of the paper and one who was briefed on it—the report describes how one detainee, suspected USS Cole bomber Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, was threatened with a gun and a power drill during the course of CIA interrogation. According to the sources, who like others quoted in this article asked not to be named while discussing sensitive information, Nashiri's interrogators brandished the gun in an effort to convince him that he was going to be shot. Interrogators also turned on a power drill and held it near him. "The purpose was to scare him into giving [information] up," said one of the sources. A federal law banning the use of torture expressly forbids threatening a detainee with "imminent death."

The report also says, according to the sources, that a mock execution was staged in a room next to a detainee, during which a gunshot was fired in an effort to make the suspect believe that another prisoner had been killed. The inspector general's report alludes to more than one mock execution.

Mock executions are torture. Despicable.

The drill is an unexpected twist. Many people were murdered via power drill during the lawless Iraqi sectarian separation process. People in that part of the world know what that sound means.

[BigSky]

YAWN