Cheney enters 'torture' memos row

[ericlp]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8009571.stm

Former US Vice-President Dick Cheney has urged the CIA to release memos which he says show harsh interrogation techniques such as water-boarding work.

Yeah? torture works? Maybe we ought to torture your ass a few times and see how well it works, maybe we could get some good info out of your ugly ass?

Ask the professionals (the Russians) how well it worked. Any fool will tell you torture doesn't work. Never has and never did.

Mr Cheney said that the decision to publish the memos was a mistake.

Man, give this man a shovel to dig deeper the hole he's already in. I would Imagine that Bush would be telling him to STFU about now. I'm thinking maybe Cheney was just as bad as bush the seem to make a great team.

If it was such a mistake why do you want to publish even more information?

I think Obama might change his mind and start holding these clowns accountable for their actions. Maybe they both need to go jail?

 

[cubby1223]

I fail to see the new outrage here. Where's the twist in the story?

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: ericlp
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8009571.stm

Former US Vice-President Dick Cheney has urged the CIA to release memos which he says show harsh interrogation techniques such as water-boarding work.

Yeah? torture works? Maybe we ought to torture your ass a few times and see how well it works, maybe we could get some good info out of your ugly ass?

Ask the professionals (the Russians) how well it worked. Any fool will tell you torture doesn't work. Never has and never did.

Mr Cheney said that the decision to publish the memos was a mistake.

Man, give this man a shovel to dig deeper the hole he's already in. I would Imagine that Bush would be telling him to STFU about now. I'm thinking maybe Cheney was just as bad as bush the seem to make a great team.

If it was such a mistake why do you want to publish even more information?

I think Obama might change his mind and start holding these clowns accountable for their actions. Maybe they both need to go jail?

It's not going to happen.

 

[I Saw OJ]

Torture gets people to talk...news at 11

 

[Colt45]

Originally posted by: ericlp
Yeah? torture works? Maybe we ought to torture your ass a few times and see how well it works, maybe we could get some good info out of your ugly ass?

Ask the professionals (the Russians) how well it worked. Any fool will tell you torture doesn't work. Never has and never did.

I don't remember anyone claiming torture to be ineffective. The problem is that it's inhumane.

Otherwise there would be no stir - the govn't does ineffective stuff all the time

 

[heyheybooboo]

Originally posted by: Colt45

Originally posted by: ericlp
Yeah? torture works? Maybe we ought to torture your ass a few times and see how well it works, maybe we could get some good info out of your ugly ass?

Ask the professionals (the Russians) how well it worked. Any fool will tell you torture doesn't work. Never has and never did.

I don't remember anyone claiming torture to be ineffective. The problem is that it's inhumane.

Otherwise there would be no stir - the govn't does ineffective stuff all the time

If that is the case you are not paying attention.

?24? Versus the Real World
Does torture really work? Most intelligence experts say no.

... In recent interviews with NEWSWEEK reporters, U.S. intelligence officers say they have little?if any?evidence that useful intelligence has been obtained using techniques generally understood to be torture.

 

[shira]

Cheney has claimed on several occasions that the "enhanced interrogation" methods were helping to keep us safe - that many terrorist attacks were stopped because of what we learned. So what I want to see is detailed documentation of all of the torture-obtained information and the terror-conspiracies that were thwarted because of it.

At this point, such information could hardly be considered classified, since the bad guys already know about all of those thwarted plots, and therefore know that we know.

Wanna bet we don't get squat?

 

[blackangst1]

RP from the Obama releasing memo thread.

 

[bbdub333]

Originally posted by: ericlp

Former US Vice-President Dick Cheney has urged the CIA to release memos which he says show harsh interrogation techniques such as water-boarding work.

...

Any fool will tell you torture doesn't work. Never has and never did.

Wouldn't that be the point of publishing the memos? To show that it did work?

Me: "I have this evidence that X worked."
You: "I don't want to see the evidence, any idiot can tell you that X doesn't work!"

Does that allow you to see the stupidity of your argument?

If it was such a mistake why do you want to publish even more information?

Once the cat is out of he bag, it does't matter if this information is released, and in his view, it would quell some of the furor over the program by showing what positive results came out of it. Not too hard to understand, right?

 

[BMW540I6speed]

Some of this is definitely political. The last thing Obama wants to answer is the question "If torturing a suspect would get information that might save a few lives, would you do it?". Torture is only useful in obtaining "confessions" not "facts". The analysis suggest torture is a rather lousy means to get information and can even be counter productive (eg person being tortured makes shit up hoping it'll be what the torturer wants to hear and the'll stop).

The ends don't justify the means. It doesn't matter if Cheney can point to a specific torture session that yielded valid information, because there's no telling if we could have gotten that information without torturing.

So if we torture 100 people and 5 of them give us good information that does saves lives does that justify it? Does that justify the innocents that are tortured? The very same principles and liberties that we claim our troops are defending with their lives must be lived up to if they mean anything at all. We can't commit the same acts and justify them with rhetoric about being the good guys.

It would be a stupid move to essentially brag to the world how well our torture techniques work. If an armed force fighting the US captures a senior US military officer, and they know that torturing him will save the lives of hundreds of their soldiers, they should go ahead and do it? And, when brought before an international court for war crimes, they can just say, "Dick Cheney, a former Vice President of the US, said it was morally justified, so we did it."

Showing that we actually got useful information after torturing someone fails to defend the torture because we do not know that we would have failed to get the information without torture. It also fails to take into account the number of recruits that we promoted for the enemy who might have stayed neutral had their family or friends not been tortured and locked up indefinetly and the numbers of civilians and our troops who could be tortured and murdered in retaliation.

It is always possible that any given torture of an individual provided some reliable information, but even that information remains suspect in the fog of false statements made by those who are attempting to escape pain. The only thing that Cheney's call could do would be to provide a clear example of confirmation bias. Look! We got these three pieces of useful information among the 20,000 false leads from several hundred tortured prisoners! It works!

Bush and Cheney lied to claim we did not use torture. - "We don't torture" they said

Dick Cheney had several years to argue for the importance of torture, since Congress had been debating torture and Guantanamo as a hot topic since probably 2005. He showed no reticence in declassifying information if it suited his political ends (e.g., Valerie Plame). For him to come out now and say that certain documents ought to be declassified to support his view of waterboarding is simply beyond the pale.

I cannot think of a major public figure who has less credibility when talking about national security, and yet, he is deluded into thinking that his views are beyond reproach. He is the Republican version of Lyndon LaRouche.

 

[racolvin]

Cheney is a douche

nuff said

 

[jonks]

1: We don't torture.

2: But didn't the CIA cop to waterboarding some suspects under direct authority of the president?

1: Yes, but waterboarding isn't torture, as the OLC informed us.

2: Since when? It's been used as torture for centuries, US supported prosecution after WWII for those who waterboarded. The Spanish Inquisition, Stalin, the Khmer Rouge all used it. It's even prominently displayed at the Genocide Museum in Cambodia where the Khmer Rouge used it among other techniques like pulling out finger nails to extract "confessions". So you are lying when you say it isn't torture. At the very least, you've created a new definition of torture simply to exclude waterboarding and the other techniques you authorized.

1: Well our lawyers say it's ok if you only do it now and then. Rarely used, it isn't torture. And you can't deny that it works. As we said, it was like flipping a switch. 35 seconds in and they were spilling their guts.

2: Just released info says Kaleid Sheik Mohammad was waterboarded almost 200 times in one month. Abu Zubaydah was also waterboarded almost 100 times. So the CIA lied when they said they only used it a couple times. They also lied about it's efficacy apparently. Isn't it true Abu Zubaydah gave up all his info BEFORE he was ever waterboarded?

1: Yes, well, they both had it coming.

2: At least now you're being honest. Dick.

1: But the info we got from use of waterboarding prevented many attacks on the US.

2: That's a bold claim. Got any evidence to support it?

1: It's classified. You'll have to trust us.

2: Ah. Well you've been so forthcoming in the past, who can doubt you now?

1: Well no one is going to be prosecuted anyway, so let's put this behind us. Everyone acted according to what they thought was within the bounds of the law.

2: Really? Because the memos just released authorized the use of waterboarding no more than twice every 24 hours. So the interrogators went even beyond the expanded rules you allowed them. Obama promised no prosecutions for those who thought they were acting within the bounds of law. Clearly several hundred waterboardings in a month exceed even your tortured stretching of what is understood as legal. So it sounds like whoever authorized all that waterboarding, and anyone who used the memos as justification for it, might have some explaining to do to a judiciary committee, or even a judge and jury.

1: On advice of counsel I refuse to answer any more questions.

2: Better tattoo that one on your arm, I have a feeling you're going to be saying it a lot.

 

[Lemon law]

Cheney's opening up his mouth may amount to that triple I double dog dare you for Judges at the Hague, who very may well indict Cheney just to shut him up. I would consider it just a start for justice if Dick Cheney woke up one day, behind bars, at the Hague.

 

[sandorski]

Hasn't Dude used up his one Call yet?

 

[Robor]

Originally posted by: jonks
1: We don't torture.

2: But didn't the CIA cop to waterboarding some suspects under direct authority of the president?

1: Yes, but waterboarding isn't torture, as the OLC informed us.

2: Since when? It's been used as torture for centuries, US supported prosecution after WWII for those who waterboarded. The Spanish Inquisition, Stalin, the Khmer Rouge all used it. It's even prominently displayed at the Genocide Museum in Cambodia where the Khmer Rouge used it among other techniques like pulling out finger nails to extract "confessions". So you are lying when you say it isn't torture. At the very least, you've created a new definition of torture simply to exclude waterboarding and the other techniques you authorized.

1: Well our lawyers say it's ok if you only do it now and then. Rarely used, it isn't torture. And you can't deny that it works. As we said, it was like flipping a switch. 35 seconds in and they were spilling their guts.

2: Just released info says Kaleid Sheik Mohammad was waterboarded almost 200 times in one month. Abu Zubaydah was also waterboarded almost 100 times. So the CIA lied when they said they only used it a couple times. They also lied about it's efficacy apparently. Isn't it true Abu Zubaydah gave up all his info BEFORE he was ever waterboarded?

1: Yes, well, they both had it coming.

2: At least now you're being honest. Dick.

1: But the info we got from use of waterboarding prevented many attacks on the US.

2: That's a bold claim. Got any evidence to support it?

1: It's classified. You'll have to trust us.

2: Ah. Well you've been so forthcoming in the past, who can doubt you now?

1: Well no one is going to be prosecuted anyway, so let's put this behind us. Everyone acted according to what they thought was within the bounds of the law.

2: Really? Because the memos just released authorized the use of waterboarding no more than twice every 24 hours. So the interrogators went even beyond the expanded rules you allowed them. Obama promised no prosecutions for those who thought they were acting within the bounds of law. Clearly several hundred waterboardings in a month exceed even your tortured stretching of what is understood as legal. So it sounds like whoever authorized all that waterboarding, and anyone who used the memos as justification for it, might have some explaining to do to a judiciary committee, or even a judge and jury.

1: On advice of counsel I refuse to answer any more questions.

2: Better tattoo that one on your arm, I have a feeling you're going to be saying it a lot.

That was freaking AWESOME! :laugh:

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: jonks
1: We don't torture.

2: But didn't the CIA cop to waterboarding some suspects under direct authority of the president?

1: Yes, but waterboarding isn't torture, as the OLC informed us.

2: Since when? It's been used as torture for centuries, US supported prosecution after WWII for those who waterboarded. The Spanish Inquisition, Stalin, the Khmer Rouge all used it. It's even prominently displayed at the Genocide Museum in Cambodia where the Khmer Rouge used it among other techniques like pulling out finger nails to extract "confessions". So you are lying when you say it isn't torture. At the very least, you've created a new definition of torture simply to exclude waterboarding and the other techniques you authorized.

1: Well our lawyers say it's ok if you only do it now and then. Rarely used, it isn't torture. And you can't deny that it works. As we said, it was like flipping a switch. 35 seconds in and they were spilling their guts.

2: Just released info says Kaleid Sheik Mohammad was waterboarded almost 200 times in one month. Abu Zubaydah was also waterboarded almost 100 times. So the CIA lied when they said they only used it a couple times. They also lied about it's efficacy apparently. Isn't it true Abu Zubaydah gave up all his info BEFORE he was ever waterboarded?

1: Yes, well, they both had it coming.

2: At least now you're being honest. Dick.

1: But the info we got from use of waterboarding prevented many attacks on the US.

2: That's a bold claim. Got any evidence to support it?

1: It's classified. You'll have to trust us.

2: Ah. Well you've been so forthcoming in the past, who can doubt you now?

1: Well no one is going to be prosecuted anyway, so let's put this behind us. Everyone acted according to what they thought was within the bounds of the law.

2: Really? Because the memos just released authorized the use of waterboarding no more than twice every 24 hours. So the interrogators went even beyond the expanded rules you allowed them. Obama promised no prosecutions for those who thought they were acting within the bounds of law. Clearly several hundred waterboardings in a month exceed even your tortured stretching of what is understood as legal. So it sounds like whoever authorized all that waterboarding, and anyone who used the memos as justification for it, might have some explaining to do to a judiciary committee, or even a judge and jury.

1: On advice of counsel I refuse to answer any more questions.

2: Better tattoo that one on your arm, I have a feeling you're going to be saying it a lot.

There hasn't been any clarification as of yet, but being waterboarded 200 times doesn't necessarily imply it was done on 200 separate occassions. In this particular case I get the impression that the count was resumed every time the detainee was permitted to take the requisite amount of breaths. Since the memos permitted using waterboarding techniques for up to 20 minutes in total, with each application lasting 20 seconds, a somewhat dishonest account could claim the detainee was waterboarded 20 times or more within that 20 minutes. Since two sessions per day were permitted, that could result in the detainee being "waterboarded" 40 or 50 times (using the counting method that possibly is being used here) in a single day when in actuality, they were waterboarded twice.

At the moment it's only my suspicion, but I wouldn't be surprised in the least if that sort of liberal counting method was used to inflate the numbers and make them seem outrageous.

 

[Robor]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
There hasn't been any clarification as of yet, but being waterboarded 200 times doesn't necessarily imply it was done on 200 separate occassions. In this particular case I get the impression that the count was resumed every time the detainee was permitted to take the requisite amount of breaths. Since the memos permitted using waterboarding techniques for up to 20 minutes in total, with each application lasting 20 seconds, a somewhat dishonest account could claim the detainee was waterboarded 20 times or more within that 20 minutes. Since two sessions per day were permitted, that could result in the detainee being "waterboarded" 40 or 50 times (using the counting method that possibly is being used here) in a single day when in actuality, they were waterboarded twice.

At the moment it's only my suspicion, but I wouldn't be surprised in the least if that sort of liberal counting method was used to inflate the numbers and make them seem outrageous.

Would that excuse it?

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

There hasn't been any clarification as of yet, but being waterboarded 200 times doesn't necessarily imply it was done on 200 separate occassions. In this particular case I get the impression that the count was resumed every time the detainee was permitted to take the requisite amount of breaths. Since the memos permitted using waterboarding techniques for up to 20 minutes in total, with each application lasting 20 seconds, a somewhat dishonest account could claim the detainee was waterboarded 20 times or more within that 20 minutes. Since two sessions per day were permitted, that could result in the detainee being "waterboarded" 40 or 50 times (using the counting method that possibly is being used here) in a single day when in actuality, they were waterboarded twice.

At the moment it's only my suspicion, but I wouldn't be surprised in the least if that sort of liberal counting method was used to inflate the numbers and make them seem outrageous.

I guess you didn't get the memo. No matter how you try to distort the numbers or blame "liberals" for "inflating" them, WATERBOARDING IS TORTURE!

At the moment, your "suspicion" is as much bullshit as any of the rest of your lame attempts to excuse or deny the Bushwhackos' crimes. :roll:

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Robor

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
There hasn't been any clarification as of yet, but being waterboarded 200 times doesn't necessarily imply it was done on 200 separate occassions. In this particular case I get the impression that the count was resumed every time the detainee was permitted to take the requisite amount of breaths. Since the memos permitted using waterboarding techniques for up to 20 minutes in total, with each application lasting 20 seconds, a somewhat dishonest account could claim the detainee was waterboarded 20 times or more within that 20 minutes. Since two sessions per day were permitted, that could result in the detainee being "waterboarded" 40 or 50 times (using the counting method that possibly is being used here) in a single day when in actuality, they were waterboarded twice.

At the moment it's only my suspicion, but I wouldn't be surprised in the least if that sort of liberal counting method was used to inflate the numbers and make them seem outrageous.

Would that excuse it?

It would certainly un-hype the numbers. Saying he was waterboarded 4 or 5 times doesn't have quite the impact of claiming it was done 200 times.

And, personally, I don't need to make excuses for the treatment of scumbags like KSM and his ilk. Clearly, some do.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

There hasn't been any clarification as of yet, but being waterboarded 200 times doesn't necessarily imply it was done on 200 separate occassions. In this particular case I get the impression that the count was resumed every time the detainee was permitted to take the requisite amount of breaths. Since the memos permitted using waterboarding techniques for up to 20 minutes in total, with each application lasting 20 seconds, a somewhat dishonest account could claim the detainee was waterboarded 20 times or more within that 20 minutes. Since two sessions per day were permitted, that could result in the detainee being "waterboarded" 40 or 50 times (using the counting method that possibly is being used here) in a single day when in actuality, they were waterboarded twice.

At the moment it's only my suspicion, but I wouldn't be surprised in the least if that sort of liberal counting method was used to inflate the numbers and make them seem outrageous.

I guess you didn't get the memo. No matter how you try to distort the numbers or blame "liberals" for "inflating" them, WATERBOARDING IS TORTURE!

At the moment, your "suspicion" is as much bullshit as any of the rest of your lame attempts to excuse or deny the Bushwhackos' crimes. :roll:

Keep screaming that mantra to yourself over and over and over curled up in a fetal position while all your friends join hands in a circle and hum Kumbya, Harvey.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Harvey

I guess you didn't get the memo. No matter how you try to distort the numbers or blame "liberals" for "inflating" them, WATERBOARDING IS TORTURE!

At the moment, your "suspicion" is as much bullshit as any of the rest of your lame attempts to excuse or deny the Bushwhackos' crimes. :roll:

Keep screaming that mantra to yourself over and over and over curled up in a fetal position while all your friends join hands in a circle and hum Kumbya, Harvey.

I nominate you as the official AT P&N crash test dummy to prove waterboarding isn't torture. :light:

 

[NoStateofMind]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Harvey

I guess you didn't get the memo. No matter how you try to distort the numbers or blame "liberals" for "inflating" them, WATERBOARDING IS TORTURE!

At the moment, your "suspicion" is as much bullshit as any of the rest of your lame attempts to excuse or deny the Bushwhackos' crimes. :roll:

Keep screaming that mantra to yourself over and over and over curled up in a fetal position while all your friends join hands in a circle and hum Kumbya, Harvey.

I nominate you as the official AT P&N crash test dummy to prove waterboarding isn't torture. :light:

All those in favor say "Aye". Motion passed

 

[Robor]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Robor

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
There hasn't been any clarification as of yet, but being waterboarded 200 times doesn't necessarily imply it was done on 200 separate occassions. In this particular case I get the impression that the count was resumed every time the detainee was permitted to take the requisite amount of breaths. Since the memos permitted using waterboarding techniques for up to 20 minutes in total, with each application lasting 20 seconds, a somewhat dishonest account could claim the detainee was waterboarded 20 times or more within that 20 minutes. Since two sessions per day were permitted, that could result in the detainee being "waterboarded" 40 or 50 times (using the counting method that possibly is being used here) in a single day when in actuality, they were waterboarded twice.

At the moment it's only my suspicion, but I wouldn't be surprised in the least if that sort of liberal counting method was used to inflate the numbers and make them seem outrageous.

Would that excuse it?

It would certainly un-hype the numbers. Saying he was waterboarded 4 or 5 times doesn't have quite the impact of claiming it was done 200 times.

And, personally, I don't need to make excuses for the treatment of scumbags like KSM and his ilk. Clearly, some do.

Uh, huh. Just so we're clear, we do or we don't torture?

 

[Lemon law]

Obama is now signaling a new stance, he still does not advocate prosecution for personnel in the field who acted under the justifications of superiors who said that torture was legal, but that set of miscreants who provided the justifications may be prosecuted.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/oba...xrA2Z1bGxuYnNwc3Rvcg--

In other words, hello Dick Cheney, Yoo, Alberto Gonzales, and quite a few others, you may be about to be prosecuted by the USA.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Harvey

I guess you didn't get the memo. No matter how you try to distort the numbers or blame "liberals" for "inflating" them, WATERBOARDING IS TORTURE!

At the moment, your "suspicion" is as much bullshit as any of the rest of your lame attempts to excuse or deny the Bushwhackos' crimes. :roll:

Keep screaming that mantra to yourself over and over and over curled up in a fetal position while all your friends join hands in a circle and hum Kumbya, Harvey.

I nominate you as the official AT P&N crash test dummy to prove waterboarding isn't torture. :light:

Sure. No problem. And we'll hand you over as just a plain old dummy to the jihadis and let them inflict their brand of torture on you. Then we'll compare to see who comes out of it in one piece and compare what is torture and what is TORTURE!.

Deal?