Waterboarding Rocks!

[BeAChooser]

It will be interesting to see what Attorney General Eric Holder actually does ... given the fact that back in 2002 he said

http://letters.salon.com/opinion/gr...rmalink/ca0286fab9844ae3e786d461b5101654.html

HOLDER: One of the things we clearly want to do with these prisoners is to have an ability to interrogate them and find out what their future plans might be, where other cells are located; under the Geneva Convention that you are really limited in the amount of information that you can elicit from people.

It seems to me that given the way in which they have conducted themselves, however, that they are not, in fact, people entitled to the protection of the Geneva Convention. They are not prisoners of war. If, for instance, Mohammed Atta had survived the attack on the World Trade Center, would we now be calling him a prisoner of war? I think not. Should Zacarias Moussaoui be called a prisoner of war? Again, I think not.

I almost hope that Holder does try to prosecute these attorneys. It will be interesting when the defense calls not only all the past and current CIA heads but Holder as one of their witnesses.

 

[Texas]

It will be interesting to see what Attorney General Eric Holder actually does ... given the fact that back in 2002 he said

http://letters.salon.com/opinion/gr...rmalink/ca0286fab9844ae3e786d461b5101654.html



I almost hope that Holder does try to prosecute these attorneys. It will be interesting when the defense calls not only all the past and current CIA heads but Holder as one of their witnesses.

Indict Holder RIGHT NOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[leftysergeant]

Or it could mean to the lucid among us that the CIA was never obliged legally under the Constitution or the Geneva Convention to operate under the Army Field Manual regarding interrogations until Congress passed the law in 2007.

Unless the treaty to which the USA was a signatory prior to that included an exception for rogue spooks with a sadistic bent, yes, it was already against the law.

 

[leftysergeant]

...only three of the hundreds of detainees?

That we know of. Since it is a criminal act, they may be lying about the number of people they did it to.

The CIA, BTW, got the idea from a North Korean program. It was used to force false confessions from prisoners of war, maybe political prisoners as well.

 

[Texas]

That we know of. Since it is a criminal act, they may be lying about the number of people they did it to.

The CIA, BTW, got the idea from a North Korean program. It was used to force false confessions from prisoners of war, maybe political prisoners as well.

There was NO attempt to elicit a "false confession". Stop using that discredited straw man.

 

[leftysergeant]

There was NO attempt to elicit a "false confession". Stop using that discredited straw man.

And you have what evidence for that?

 

[Texas]

And you have what evidence for that?

Yes, KSM had already confessed in public before capture and was under indictment for other terrorist activity.

http://edition.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/asiapcf/south/03/02/mohammed.biog/

In 1996, he was indicted in New York for his alleged involvement in a Philippines-based plot to blow up 12 U.S.-bound commercial airliners in 48 hours. The indictment has no legal bearing right now, U.S. government officials said; the priority is to interrogate him.

'Yes we did it': terrorist's chilling words
March 5 2003

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/03/04/1046540189712.html

Journalist Yosri Fouda of Arabic TV station al-Jazeera interviewed Khalid Sheikh Mohammed before his capture. It was an extraordinary encounter.


It was late afternoon, Sunday April 21, 2002, when I packed my bags before joining Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and fellow al-Qaeda boss Ramzi bin al-Shibh for a last prayer before saying goodbye.

After nearly 48 hours with them, the last moments in that Karachi safe house were bizarrely emotional. Ramzi hugged me closely, and Mohammed insisted on leading the way down the stairs - uncharacteristic for someone as security-conscious as him.

"You know what!" Mohammed said as we walked down. "You would make the perfect terrorist. I mean, look at yourself! You are young, intelligent, highly-educated, well-organised, you speak good English, you live in London, and you are single."

He went on: "You remind me in a sense of brother Atta." The comparison with Mohamed Atta, leader of the September 11 hijackers, would have been in his eyes a huge compliment.

Before the September 11 attacks, few people, even intelligence agents, had heard of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. He had been indicted for his role in a 1995 Philippines-based plot to crash US airliners into the sea, but no one had ever questioned him for this - or for his alleged role in the first attack on the World Trade Centre in 1993.

 

[Cicero]

That we know of. Since it is a criminal act, they may be lying about the number of people they did it to.

The CIA, BTW, got the idea from a North Korean program. It was used to force false confessions from prisoners of war, maybe political prisoners as well.

I know misinformation is the hallmark of a lefty post, but just for your edification the OSS employed waterboarding on Wehrmacht and Schutzstaffeln personnel captured during the war as well as suspected German spies caught out of uniform.

So where are all these other detainees that were waterboarded? They have the ear of the sympathetic U.S. Congress and none of them back up your false accusations.

 

[Darth Rotor]

Prove he isn't lying about where they got the intel. They were illegally tapping our phones at the time, too, remember?

Seems they recently caught a member of our Congress trying to get a spy let off the hook.

Hmmm, tempting to support this, given the outcome.

Tempting as hell.

DR

 

[Cicero]

Unless the treaty to which the USA was a signatory prior to that included an exception for rogue spooks with a sadistic bent, yes, it was already against the law.

If this was true, Congress must be in the habit of duplicating laws already on the books. How else can you explain the 2007 Intelligence authorization bill?

 

[Dr Adequate]

That is the moral argument, which I am glad to see discussed.

Well, no it isn't.

He discusses the empirical argument, of whether torture elicits useful information, and he says that we don't know.

And the pragmatic argument: even if it does, does it on balance help us to achieve our goals? He says it doesn't.

But not the moral argument: is this not just plain wrong?

 

[leftysergeant]

I know misinformation is the hallmark of a lefty post, but just for your edification the OSS employed waterboarding on Wehrmacht and Schutzstaffeln personnel captured during the war as well as suspected German spies caught out of uniform.

Citation needed.

Also, please tell us whether this was before or after we signed a treaty against it.

 

[Cicero]

Seems they recently caught a member of our Congress trying to get a spy let off the hook.

Hmmm, tempting to support this, given the outcome.

Tempting as hell.

DR

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=4644633#post4644633

 

[gdnp]

It will be interesting to see what Attorney General Eric Holder actually does ... given the fact that back in 2002 he said

http://letters.salon.com/opinion/gr...rmalink/ca0286fab9844ae3e786d461b5101654.html

Quote:
HOLDER: One of the things we clearly want to do with these prisoners is to have an ability to interrogate them and find out what their future plans might be, where other cells are located; under the Geneva Convention that you are really limited in the amount of information that you can elicit from people.

It seems to me that given the way in which they have conducted themselves, however, that they are not, in fact, people entitled to the protection of the Geneva Convention. They are not prisoners of war. If, for instance, Mohammed Atta had survived the attack on the World Trade Center, would we now be calling him a prisoner of war? I think not. Should Zacarias Moussaoui be called a prisoner of war? Again, I think not.

I almost hope that Holder does try to prosecute these attorneys. It will be interesting when the defense calls not only all the past and current CIA heads but Holder as one of their witnesses.

So Holder stated in 2002 that he did not believe that Atta was entitled to POW status under the Geneva convention. Thus he believed that terrorists can be legally interrogated.

Could you then please point out the article in the UN Convention Against Torture
that states that its protections only apply to prisoners of war? Because otherwise Holder's opinion on POW status is irrelevant, as torture remains illegal regardless of the Geneva Conventions.

 

[Cicero]

Citation needed.

Also, please tell us whether this was before or after we signed a treaty against it.

According to Raychill Maddow, during the post WWII Tokyo Trials, Japanese soldiers were convicted and hanged for waterboarding allied prisoners.

 

[Prometheus]

What other way is that, exactly? Offering these three nylons and Hershey Bars? How do you know every other method wasn't tried and proved to be unsuccessful before these three were waterboarded?

I don't know what other methods might be useful, but that's probably because I'm a teacher and not a professional interrogator. Luckily for my case, that's completely irrelevant. All I'm arguing is that it's unknown to the public whether or not torture actually produces anything useful that can't be gotten otherwise. I've heard ostensibly skilled professional interrogators argue both sides of the question with equal force, so I gather that there is at least enough uncertainty, even among those who do know the truth to render torture unjustified.

Just because waterboarding is considered torture by its detractors, it is not ipso facto that the information was not corroborated. The info would be useless otherwise. Just as in civilian police work when a suspect voluntarily confesses to a crime it still has to be corroborated.

It's also considered torture by most of its supporters. Just not the ones who wish to blind themselves to the abuses of the Bush administration. And again, it's irrelevant to my case whether or not any information gleaned from torture was corroborated otherwise. The point is that it's not trustworthy enough to overcome the moral objection to torture.

 

[Texas]

I don't know what other methods might be useful, but that's probably because I'm a teacher and not a professional interrogator. Luckily for my case, that's completely irrelevant. All I'm arguing is that it's unknown to the public whether or not torture actually produces anything useful that can't be gotten otherwise. I've heard ostensibly skilled professional interrogators argue both sides of the question with equal force, so I gather that there is at least enough uncertainty, even among those who do know the truth to render torture unjustified.



It's also considered torture by most of its supporters. Just not the ones who wish to blind themselves to the abuses of the Bush administration. And again, it's irrelevant to my case whether or not any information gleaned from torture was corroborated otherwise. The point is that it's not trustworthy enough to overcome the moral objection to torture.

Well there are chemical means of interrogation that are completely painless and do not cause mental harm BUT that is also defined as "torture".

 

[Prometheus]

Well there are chemical means of interrogation that are completely painless and do not cause mental harm BUT that is also defined as "torture".

That's interesting, but what does it have to do with my post?

If it's true, then what is it about these methods that fits the definition of torture?

Regardless, what does the existence of such methods say about the acceptability, or not, of waterboarding?

 

[Texas]

That's interesting, but what does it have to do with my post?

If it's true, then what is it about these methods that fits the definition of torture?

Regardless, what does the existence of such methods say about the acceptability, or not, of waterboarding?

It was in answer to the first paragraph of your earlier post. It fits the definition simply because the UN decided it did even though Sodium Pentothal is used millions of times a day accross the world.

 

[Prometheus]

It was in answer to the first paragraph of your earlier post. It fits the definition simply because the UN decided it did even though Sodium Pentothal is used millions of times a day accross the world.

So it's an example of method, other than torture, that might be useful?

Can you point me to: a) any information about how well it works; or b) the actual law defining it as torture?

Are you sure it's actually considered 'torture' and not just banned for some other reason?