CIA Admits It Destroyed Tapes Of Harsh Interrogation

[Arkaign]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Pelosi was briefed on the waterboarding technique back in 2002 and had no objections.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/...8/AR2007120801664.html

In September 2002, four members of Congress met in secret for a first look at a unique CIA program designed to wring vital information from reticent terrorism suspects in U.S. custody. For more than an hour, the bipartisan group, which included current House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), was given a virtual tour of the CIA's overseas detention sites and the harsh techniques interrogators had devised to try to make their prisoners talk.

Among the techniques described, said two officials present, was waterboarding, a practice that years later would be condemned as torture by Democrats and some Republicans on Capitol Hill. But on that day, no objections were raised. Instead, at least two lawmakers in the room asked the CIA to push harder, two U.S. officials said.

...

Yet long before "waterboarding" entered the public discourse, the CIA gave key legislative overseers about 30 private briefings, some of which included descriptions of that technique and other harsh interrogation methods, according to interviews with multiple U.S. officials with firsthand knowledge.

With one known exception, no formal objections were raised by the lawmakers briefed about the harsh methods during the two years in which waterboarding was employed, from 2002 to 2003, said Democrats and Republicans with direct knowledge of the matter. The lawmakers who held oversight roles during the period included Pelosi and Rep. Jane Harman (D-Calif.) and Sens. Bob Graham (D-Fla.) and John D. Rockefeller IV (D-W.Va.), as well as Rep. Porter J. Goss (R-Fla.) and Sen. Pat Roberts (R-Kan).

Individual lawmakers' recollections of the early briefings varied dramatically, but officials present during the meetings described the reaction as mostly quiet acquiescence, if not outright support. "Among those being briefed, there was a pretty full understanding of what the CIA was doing," said Goss, who chaired the House intelligence committee from 1997 to 2004 and then served as CIA director from 2004 to 2006. "And the reaction in the room was not just approval, but encouragement."

Hmmm. So it wasn't so secret after all. Now certain people are using it as a political tool to bash the Bush admin.

Why am I not surprised?

Well, for those partisan hacks who would criticize Republicans for waterboarding, but not Democrats, they can suck it.

Douchebaggery of any political stripe should be properly called out for account.

If Pelosi called for waterboarding, then fuck her with something hard and sandpapery, because America is BETTER THAN THAT. Or at least it used to be. Our country charged Japanese soldiers with war crimes for it in WW2. The Gestapo also used it. The Khmer Rouge used it at Tuol Sleng as well. Do we really want to be associated with three of the most vile regimes in recent history? I think not.

 

[ProfJohn]

Arkaign, as the article points out people were really worried about a follow up attack in 2002 and therefore they were not as concerned with wether it was torture or not.

I am pretty sure that if AQ carried out another major attack and we caught someone with knowledge of that attack and maybe information to stop a follow up to it that everyone would be calling for us to get that information out of them anyway they can.

 

[Arkaign]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Arkaign, as the article points out people were really worried about a follow up attack in 2002 and therefore they were not as concerned with wether it was torture or not.

I am pretty sure that if AQ carried out another major attack and we caught someone with knowledge of that attack and maybe information to stop a follow up to it that everyone would be calling for us to get that information out of them anyway they can.

I understand the sentiment behind this. But we are a nation of principles, and as the ban on torture illustrates, most of these principles are based on upholding standards that are above and beyond what has previously been condoned by empires and kingdoms throughout history, both recent and ancient. We have the honor of living in one of the greatest, if not *the* greatest, countries in the human experience. I do not, and I'm sure many Americans feel the same way, believe that regressing to the evils perpetrated by failed regimes is the way to go about things.

As many events in history confirm, it's usually a bad idea to use a temporary public sentiment determine a serious policy decision with such negative and dire repercussions to the national image, as well as to legal standards that took thousands of years of human/political/moral growth to achieve.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

It would be disconcerting if the CIA used the waterboarding technique indiscriminately, as many of those undesireable regimes did in the past. However, it appears it was saved solely for very specific detainees that were considered upper-level AQ members and who potentially had valuable information.

If inflicting some temporary discomfort on an enemy of this country could potentially saves some lives I can't see why we should shelve it. While it may bit a bit distasteful I find flying airplanes into buildings and truck bombs that murder tens, hundreds, or thousands of people to be far, far more distasteful. ymmv.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: palehorse74
Citizens have a right to know. Ever heard of the Freedom of Information Act?

Yes, I most certainly have, but it has nothing to do with classified information.[/quote]

American citizens still have the right to know what their government is doing in their name. Intelligence agencies do NOT have carte blanche privilege to declare anything completely secret from public scrutiny. There are specific provisions for Congressional oversight where secrecy is required.

Originally posted by: keird
I just watched a broadcast on CNN indicating that the tapes that were claimed to have never existed may have been of two other terrorists in question at the time. The interrogation tapes that were destroyed could have been from two other terrorist detainees that were not within the scope of the original testimony.

It doesn't matter. The tapes were requested by at least two Federal judges, several members of Congress and the 9-11 Commission, which was established by Congress, and the CIA denied that the tapes existed. Lying to Congress or their established investigatory bodies is a felony.

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Arkaign, as the article points out people were really worried about a follow up attack in 2002 and therefore they were not as concerned with wether it was torture or not.

I am pretty sure that if AQ carried out another major attack and we caught someone with knowledge of that attack and maybe information to stop a follow up to it that everyone would be calling for us to get that information out of them anyway they can.

Further proof that PJ has NO sense of what it means to be an American.

Hitler's gang burned the Reichstag, blamed it on Bolshevists and used it as an excuse to push through laws that suspended most civil liberties in Germany.

I don't believe the Bushwhackos were behind the attacks of 9-11, but they did essentially the same thing to capitalize on them with their scare mongering to stampede the nation into their war of LIES in Iraq and to shred the rights guaranteed to all American citizens under the U.S. Constitution.

PJ -- It's easy to abide by the Constitution when times are good. It takes a REAL American to defend it when the going gets rough. You and your neo-facist neocon Bushwacko sycophants are an embarrassment to the citizens of the United States of America and everything our Constitution represents.

 

[RightIsWrong]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

If inflicting some temporary discomfort on an enemy of this country could potentially saves some lives I can't see why we should shelve it. While it may bit a bit distasteful I find flying airplanes into buildings and truck bombs that murder tens, hundreds, or thousands of people to be far, far more distasteful. ymmv.

Is this how you truly and honestly see it....ad "temporary discomfort"?

Temporary discomfort is a hang nail or reading some of your posts.

Temporary discomfort is NOT being led to believe that you are about to die at the hands of people that you may or may not be at war with. (I state it this way because a lot of stories have come out that indicate we indiscriminately picked up people that had no connection to the "war on terror")

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

If inflicting some temporary discomfort on an enemy of this country could potentially saves some lives I can't see why we should shelve it. While it may bit a bit distasteful I find flying airplanes into buildings and truck bombs that murder tens, hundreds, or thousands of people to be far, far more distasteful. ymmv.

Is this how you truly and honestly see it....ad "temporary discomfort"?

Temporary discomfort is a hang nail or reading some of your posts.

Temporary discomfort is NOT being led to believe that you are about to die at the hands of people that you may or may not be at war with. (I state it this way because a lot of stories have come out that indicate we indiscriminately picked up people that had no connection to the "war on terror")

Nice sleight of hand attempt.

Who was the waterboarding technique used on? Do you have any proof that it was used on anyone other than those considered high-value detainees with known connections to AQ?

Maybe you have sympathy for those who would like to see you dead and gutted? I don't.

 

[RightIsWrong]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

If inflicting some temporary discomfort on an enemy of this country could potentially saves some lives I can't see why we should shelve it. While it may bit a bit distasteful I find flying airplanes into buildings and truck bombs that murder tens, hundreds, or thousands of people to be far, far more distasteful. ymmv.

Is this how you truly and honestly see it....ad "temporary discomfort"?

Temporary discomfort is a hang nail or reading some of your posts.

Temporary discomfort is NOT being led to believe that you are about to die at the hands of people that you may or may not be at war with. (I state it this way because a lot of stories have come out that indicate we indiscriminately picked up people that had no connection to the "war on terror")

Nice sleight of hand attempt.

Who was the waterboarding technique used on? Do you have any proof that it was used on anyone other than those considered high-value detainees with known connections to AQ?

Maybe you have sympathy for those who would like to see you dead and gutted? I don't.

Maybe I would have proof if the CIA didn't lie to Congress, disobey a federal court's order and destroy evidence?

Do you know for a fact that the CIA (or CYA in this case) didn't use it on anyone but these three subjects? You seem to be very willing to take the CIA at face value when their entire existence is predicated on pretending to be something that they aren't so that they can gain the upper hand in situations.

Nice appeal to emotion and trying to question the patriotism of anyone that doesn't condone illegal actions by our country.

For the record, I do have more sympathy for those being tortured that have no connection to any terror plot or organization than I do concern for some fairy tale boogey man coming to kill me. I guess you will call me a traitor. I tend to think of it as being a human being that is compassionate for others with a respect for the rule of law.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Nice sleight of hand attempt.

Who was the waterboarding technique used on? Do you have any proof that it was used on anyone other than those considered high-value detainees with known connections to AQ?

Maybe you have sympathy for those who would like to see you dead and gutted? I don't.

So torturing people is okay as long as they are bad people?

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

If inflicting some temporary discomfort on an enemy of this country could potentially saves some lives I can't see why we should shelve it. While it may bit a bit distasteful I find flying airplanes into buildings and truck bombs that murder tens, hundreds, or thousands of people to be far, far more distasteful. ymmv.

Is this how you truly and honestly see it....ad "temporary discomfort"?

Temporary discomfort is a hang nail or reading some of your posts.

Temporary discomfort is NOT being led to believe that you are about to die at the hands of people that you may or may not be at war with. (I state it this way because a lot of stories have come out that indicate we indiscriminately picked up people that had no connection to the "war on terror")

Nice sleight of hand attempt.

Who was the waterboarding technique used on? Do you have any proof that it was used on anyone other than those considered high-value detainees with known connections to AQ?

Maybe you have sympathy for those who would like to see you dead and gutted? I don't.

Maybe I would have proof if the CIA didn't lie to Congress, disobey a federal court's order and destroy evidence?

Do you know for a fact that the CIA (or CYA in this case) didn't use it on anyone but these three subjects? You seem to be very willing to take the CIA at face value when their entire existence is predicated on pretending to be something that they aren't so that they can gain the upper hand in situations.

Nice appeal to emotion and trying to question the patriotism of anyone that doesn't condone illegal actions by our country.

For the record, I do have more sympathy for those being tortured that have no connection to any terror plot or organization than I do concern for some fairy tale boogey man coming to kill me. I guess you will call me a traitor. I tend to think of it as being a human being that is compassionate for others with a respect for the rule of law.

If you have proof there were people being tortured who weren't connected to a terrorist organization then present it. Otherwise you're basing your beliefs on a straw man and your very own appeal to emotion.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Nice sleight of hand attempt.

Who was the waterboarding technique used on? Do you have any proof that it was used on anyone other than those considered high-value detainees with known connections to AQ?

Maybe you have sympathy for those who would like to see you dead and gutted? I don't.

So torturing people is okay as long as they are bad people?

Don't be such a simpleton.

 

[piasabird]

What makes anyone think the CIA answers to the President anyway?

After the last round of evidence about weapons of Mass Destruction, I doubt whether the president can trust the CIA at all. After all they tend to do things in secret and kill people who get in their way.

 

[piasabird]

Maybe it is time to get rid of the director of the CIA and put some new blood in their to clean house. I say start investigating the CIA and keep an eye on them for a while.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Nice sleight of hand attempt.

Who was the waterboarding technique used on? Do you have any proof that it was used on anyone other than those considered high-value detainees with known connections to AQ?

Maybe you have sympathy for those who would like to see you dead and gutted? I don't.

So torturing people is okay as long as they are bad people?

Don't be such a simpleton.

Was that a yes or a no?

 

[RightIsWrong]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

If inflicting some temporary discomfort on an enemy of this country could potentially saves some lives I can't see why we should shelve it. While it may bit a bit distasteful I find flying airplanes into buildings and truck bombs that murder tens, hundreds, or thousands of people to be far, far more distasteful. ymmv.

Is this how you truly and honestly see it....ad "temporary discomfort"?

Temporary discomfort is a hang nail or reading some of your posts.

Temporary discomfort is NOT being led to believe that you are about to die at the hands of people that you may or may not be at war with. (I state it this way because a lot of stories have come out that indicate we indiscriminately picked up people that had no connection to the "war on terror")

Nice sleight of hand attempt.

Who was the waterboarding technique used on? Do you have any proof that it was used on anyone other than those considered high-value detainees with known connections to AQ?

Maybe you have sympathy for those who would like to see you dead and gutted? I don't.

Maybe I would have proof if the CIA didn't lie to Congress, disobey a federal court's order and destroy evidence?

Do you know for a fact that the CIA (or CYA in this case) didn't use it on anyone but these three subjects? You seem to be very willing to take the CIA at face value when their entire existence is predicated on pretending to be something that they aren't so that they can gain the upper hand in situations.

Nice appeal to emotion and trying to question the patriotism of anyone that doesn't condone illegal actions by our country.

For the record, I do have more sympathy for those being tortured that have no connection to any terror plot or organization than I do concern for some fairy tale boogey man coming to kill me. I guess you will call me a traitor. I tend to think of it as being a human being that is compassionate for others with a respect for the rule of law.

If you have proof there were people being tortured who weren't connected to a terrorist organization then present it. Otherwise you're basing your beliefs on a straw man and your very own appeal to emotion.

Wiki on Abu Ghraib

 

[Arkaign]

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

If inflicting some temporary discomfort on an enemy of this country could potentially saves some lives I can't see why we should shelve it. While it may bit a bit distasteful I find flying airplanes into buildings and truck bombs that murder tens, hundreds, or thousands of people to be far, far more distasteful. ymmv.

Is this how you truly and honestly see it....ad "temporary discomfort"?

Temporary discomfort is a hang nail or reading some of your posts.

Temporary discomfort is NOT being led to believe that you are about to die at the hands of people that you may or may not be at war with. (I state it this way because a lot of stories have come out that indicate we indiscriminately picked up people that had no connection to the "war on terror")

Nice sleight of hand attempt.

Who was the waterboarding technique used on? Do you have any proof that it was used on anyone other than those considered high-value detainees with known connections to AQ?

Maybe you have sympathy for those who would like to see you dead and gutted? I don't.

Maybe I would have proof if the CIA didn't lie to Congress, disobey a federal court's order and destroy evidence?

Do you know for a fact that the CIA (or CYA in this case) didn't use it on anyone but these three subjects? You seem to be very willing to take the CIA at face value when their entire existence is predicated on pretending to be something that they aren't so that they can gain the upper hand in situations.

Nice appeal to emotion and trying to question the patriotism of anyone that doesn't condone illegal actions by our country.

For the record, I do have more sympathy for those being tortured that have no connection to any terror plot or organization than I do concern for some fairy tale boogey man coming to kill me. I guess you will call me a traitor. I tend to think of it as being a human being that is compassionate for others with a respect for the rule of law.

If you have proof there were people being tortured who weren't connected to a terrorist organization then present it. Otherwise you're basing your beliefs on a straw man and your very own appeal to emotion.

Wiki on Abu Ghraib

Don't confuse him with things like proof. It's not like anyone was charged with a crime in that incident, right? Not like there are any records that confirm that assertation. Heh.

:beer:

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Arkaign

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

If inflicting some temporary discomfort on an enemy of this country could potentially saves some lives I can't see why we should shelve it. While it may bit a bit distasteful I find flying airplanes into buildings and truck bombs that murder tens, hundreds, or thousands of people to be far, far more distasteful. ymmv.

Is this how you truly and honestly see it....ad "temporary discomfort"?

Temporary discomfort is a hang nail or reading some of your posts.

Temporary discomfort is NOT being led to believe that you are about to die at the hands of people that you may or may not be at war with. (I state it this way because a lot of stories have come out that indicate we indiscriminately picked up people that had no connection to the "war on terror")

Nice sleight of hand attempt.

Who was the waterboarding technique used on? Do you have any proof that it was used on anyone other than those considered high-value detainees with known connections to AQ?

Maybe you have sympathy for those who would like to see you dead and gutted? I don't.

Maybe I would have proof if the CIA didn't lie to Congress, disobey a federal court's order and destroy evidence?

Do you know for a fact that the CIA (or CYA in this case) didn't use it on anyone but these three subjects? You seem to be very willing to take the CIA at face value when their entire existence is predicated on pretending to be something that they aren't so that they can gain the upper hand in situations.

Nice appeal to emotion and trying to question the patriotism of anyone that doesn't condone illegal actions by our country.

For the record, I do have more sympathy for those being tortured that have no connection to any terror plot or organization than I do concern for some fairy tale boogey man coming to kill me. I guess you will call me a traitor. I tend to think of it as being a human being that is compassionate for others with a respect for the rule of law.

If you have proof there were people being tortured who weren't connected to a terrorist organization then present it. Otherwise you're basing your beliefs on a straw man and your very own appeal to emotion.

Wiki on Abu Ghraib

Don't confuse him with things like proof. It's not like anyone was charged with a crime in that incident, right? Not like there are any records that confirm that assertation. Heh.

:beer:

Yeah, instead lets conflate Abu Ghraib with the waterboarding issue and muddy the waters.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Nice sleight of hand attempt.

Who was the waterboarding technique used on? Do you have any proof that it was used on anyone other than those considered high-value detainees with known connections to AQ?

Maybe you have sympathy for those who would like to see you dead and gutted? I don't.

So torturing people is okay as long as they are bad people?

Don't be such a simpleton.

Was that a yes or a no?

"bad people?" :roll:

You don't deserve an answer when posing a question in such a ridiculous, simplistic manner. If you can't see that then there's just no hope for you.

 

[RightIsWrong]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Arkaign

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

If inflicting some temporary discomfort on an enemy of this country could potentially saves some lives I can't see why we should shelve it. While it may bit a bit distasteful I find flying airplanes into buildings and truck bombs that murder tens, hundreds, or thousands of people to be far, far more distasteful. ymmv.

Is this how you truly and honestly see it....ad "temporary discomfort"?

Temporary discomfort is a hang nail or reading some of your posts.

Temporary discomfort is NOT being led to believe that you are about to die at the hands of people that you may or may not be at war with. (I state it this way because a lot of stories have come out that indicate we indiscriminately picked up people that had no connection to the "war on terror")

Nice sleight of hand attempt.

Who was the waterboarding technique used on? Do you have any proof that it was used on anyone other than those considered high-value detainees with known connections to AQ?

Maybe you have sympathy for those who would like to see you dead and gutted? I don't.

Maybe I would have proof if the CIA didn't lie to Congress, disobey a federal court's order and destroy evidence?

Do you know for a fact that the CIA (or CYA in this case) didn't use it on anyone but these three subjects? You seem to be very willing to take the CIA at face value when their entire existence is predicated on pretending to be something that they aren't so that they can gain the upper hand in situations.

Nice appeal to emotion and trying to question the patriotism of anyone that doesn't condone illegal actions by our country.

For the record, I do have more sympathy for those being tortured that have no connection to any terror plot or organization than I do concern for some fairy tale boogey man coming to kill me. I guess you will call me a traitor. I tend to think of it as being a human being that is compassionate for others with a respect for the rule of law.

If you have proof there were people being tortured who weren't connected to a terrorist organization then present it. Otherwise you're basing your beliefs on a straw man and your very own appeal to emotion.

Wiki on Abu Ghraib

Don't confuse him with things like proof. It's not like anyone was charged with a crime in that incident, right? Not like there are any records that confirm that assertation. Heh.

:beer:

Yeah, instead lets conflate Abu Ghraib with the waterboarding issue and muddy the waters.

Now you are trying to imply that we torture in one case and had documented evidence destroyed as to us torturing in another but don't think that 1+1=2 anymore?

You truly are becoming a hopeless cause WRT your denial of all things negative about Bush/GOP.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
Now you are trying to imply that we torture in one case and had documented evidence destroyed as to us torturing in another but don't think that 1+1=2 anymore?

You truly are becoming a hopeless cause WRT your denial of all things negative about Bush/GOP.

What's hopeless is arguing with the ***** types in here. Was what happened at Abu Ghraib condoned? Did Congress members, including a few Democrats, get a briefing on those practices at Abu Ghraib? You know damn well there was a huge difference between Abu Ghraib and the waterboarding issue.

Stop acting foolish. There is no 1+1 in these two cases because one is not even remotely related to the other. Nor do your own suspicions and paranoia about the evil Bush cabal equal facts.

 

[ahurtt]

The only thing that surprises me about this is that anybody found out the tapes ever existed, let alone that they were destroyed. Oh, well. Now that they are destroyed I guess we'll never know what was really on them so we don't know whether any "evidence" was destroyed or not. Unless, of course you just want to presume guilt before innocence and say that there was damaging footage on those destroyed tapes and charge them with destroying evidence. In which case, if you're going to assume they're guilty of destroying evidence without ever having seen the tapes, then what do we need the tapes for? So then it doesn't matter if they were destroyed or not. They're already guilty regardless of what was on the tapes.

 

[RightIsWrong]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
Now you are trying to imply that we torture in one case and had documented evidence destroyed as to us torturing in another but don't think that 1+1=2 anymore?

You truly are becoming a hopeless cause WRT your denial of all things negative about Bush/GOP.

What's hopeless is arguing with the ***** types in here. Was what happened at Abu Ghraib condoned? Did Congress members, including a few Democrats, get a briefing on those practices at Abu Ghraib? You know damn well there was a huge difference between Abu Ghraib and the waterboarding issue.

Stop acting foolish. There is no 1+1 in these two cases because one is not even remotely related to the other. Nor do your own suspicions and paranoia about the evil Bush cabal equal facts.

So "enhanced interrogation techniques" that were conducted in Abu Ghraib are not equal to the "enhanced interrogation techniques" that Congress was briefed on?

Most accept the particular acts committed at the prison leading to the initial broadcast report were unauthorized, but as has been shown, they were not isolated incidents. These or similar incidents of torture and humiliation were routine, systemic and widespread, had been occurring for over a year, and some of them were official policy.

Alfred W. McCoy history professor and author of a book on torture in the Philippine armed forces, has noted similarities in the abusive treatment of prisoners at Abu Ghraib and the techniques described in the CIA's 1963 "KUBARK Counterintelligence Interrogation" manual and asserts that what he calls "the CIA's no-touch torture methods" have been in continuous use by the CIA and U.S. military intelligence since that time.

A May 25, 2004 article by Hersh in The New Yorker suggests a connection between the Abu Ghraib incidents and a chain of decisions and events set into play by high administration officials following the 9/11 attacks, specifically to a "special access" or "black ops" program known as Copper Green. According to Hersh, officials concerned with extracting intelligence information from terrorists stretched the bounds of interrogation to or beyond the extreme legal limits. Subsequently, methods which were originally intended to be used only on high value Taliban and Al Qaeda "enemy combatants" came to be improperly used on Iraqi prisoners. The Department of Defense immediately characterized Hersh's report as "outlandish, conspiratorial, and filled with error and anonymous conjecture".

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
Now you are trying to imply that we torture in one case and had documented evidence destroyed as to us torturing in another but don't think that 1+1=2 anymore?

You truly are becoming a hopeless cause WRT your denial of all things negative about Bush/GOP.

What's hopeless is arguing with the ***** types in here. Was what happened at Abu Ghraib condoned? Did Congress members, including a few Democrats, get a briefing on those practices at Abu Ghraib? You know damn well there was a huge difference between Abu Ghraib and the waterboarding issue.

Stop acting foolish. There is no 1+1 in these two cases because one is not even remotely related to the other. Nor do your own suspicions and paranoia about the evil Bush cabal equal facts.

So "enhanced interrogation techniques" that were conducted in Abu Ghraib are not equal to the "enhanced interrogation techniques" that Congress was briefed on?

Most accept the particular acts committed at the prison leading to the initial broadcast report were unauthorized, but as has been shown, they were not isolated incidents. These or similar incidents of torture and humiliation were routine, systemic and widespread, had been occurring for over a year, and some of them were official policy.

Alfred W. McCoy history professor and author of a book on torture in the Philippine armed forces, has noted similarities in the abusive treatment of prisoners at Abu Ghraib and the techniques described in the CIA's 1963 "KUBARK Counterintelligence Interrogation" manual and asserts that what he calls "the CIA's no-touch torture methods" have been in continuous use by the CIA and U.S. military intelligence since that time.

A May 25, 2004 article by Hersh in The New Yorker suggests a connection between the Abu Ghraib incidents and a chain of decisions and events set into play by high administration officials following the 9/11 attacks, specifically to a "special access" or "black ops" program known as Copper Green. According to Hersh, officials concerned with extracting intelligence information from terrorists stretched the bounds of interrogation to or beyond the extreme legal limits. Subsequently, methods which were originally intended to be used only on high value Taliban and Al Qaeda "enemy combatants" came to be improperly used on Iraqi prisoners. The Department of Defense immediately characterized Hersh's report as "outlandish, conspiratorial, and filled with error and anonymous conjecture".

Here's the important sentence from above that spells out the difference between the waterboarding and Abu Ghraib:

"Most accept the particular acts committed at the prison leading to the initial broadcast report were unauthorized,"

Again, you're trying to conflate the acts of some undisciplined rogue idiots, who were tried and found guilty of their crimes, with an interrogation technique that had Congressional oversight and was authorized for use in certain cases. Are you overlooking that fact on purpose?

 

[manowar821]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Nice sleight of hand attempt.

Who was the waterboarding technique used on? Do you have any proof that it was used on anyone other than those considered high-value detainees with known connections to AQ?

Maybe you have sympathy for those who would like to see you dead and gutted? I don't.

So torturing people is okay as long as they are bad people?

Don't be such a simpleton.

Was that a yes or a no?

"bad people?" :roll:

You don't deserve an answer when posing a question in such a ridiculous, simplistic manner. If you can't see that then there's just no hope for you.

MAN you are just a rude SOB, aren't you? It seemed like a valid question to me.

Are you condoning torture, or are you not condoning torture? I'll tell you where I stand. Torture == Wrong. Period. I don't care if it's Dick-head Cheney, a terrorist, or Hitler. We do not torture. AMERICA does not torture. Well, at-least that's what they say, and boy would I love to believe it. I'm better than that, and we're better than that, and if you support it? Heh, well, what does that make you, then?

 

[WHAMPOM]

Let me see. The CIA did not turn the tapes over because "tapes" were not mentioned "specifically" under "all records". And were later destroyed to protect the agents identities, although they could have provided copies with the faces blacked out. Now tell me it was not to protect their own asses?