CIA Admits It Destroyed Tapes Of Harsh Interrogation

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: chucky2
OK, so lets agree for a minute that waterboarding is indeed torture.

Why would we take off the table a means of torture that causes no physical harm, and most likely, little psychological harm?

These aren't the average joe someone threw a rock at a Hummer people we're waterboarding, these are the hardcore types we know/strongly suspect to have important information.

Given that waterboarding works, and that it doesn't cause physical harm, why are we even debating whether we should or should not be using it on special high value targets??

This isn't us chopping off someone hands, burning them, electrocuting them, etc....so no physical harm.

Why are we dragging this out for public/international debate when the public/international's should not be making these decisions in the first place??

Chuck

I think your ideas about what waterboarding entails are not correct. The idea that waterboarding does 'little psychological harm' is not correct. If you read up on the long term effects of waterboarding you'll see a significant number of people who have undergone it have developed PTSD as a result, and some even more severe psychological damage.

It is in no way a method of torture with no long term effects. Oh, and of course the unreliable nature of coerced testimony always applies as well.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

If you have the slightest shred of evidence he was convicted SOLELY for waterboarding, please present it. Of course you can't because he was convicted on a slew of charges including beating and punching with fists, feet, and club, and burning with a cigarrette. Ommitting those other charges leaves out the real truth behind the matter, is intellectually dishonest, and you damn well know it. Now stop being such a putz about it.

Okay, so you ARE retarded. Even though he WAS convicted of war crimes for a list of offenses, including waterboarding, as per the scope of our discussion it's completely irrelevant anyway. I'll spell it out for you, as you seem to be consciously avoiding the rational conclusions on your own.

It is a truly breathtaking display of willful denial however to see a court convict someone of war crimes based upon a slate of charges, and then assume that the court didn't actually mean to convict a person on one of them. Had the court issued in its conviction that he was not guilty of some of the offenses listed but was still guilty of the overall crime then you would have a point. No such thing exists however. Since you seem to have some intimate knowledge of the situation, which one of the listed crimes did he commit?

Anyways though, on to why you're hopelessly (but hilariously) wrong:

We are discussing the US government's view on torture. The war crimes trial in which that Japanese officer was prosecuted by representitives of the US government. Even if he had been found 100% innocent of war crimes, the US government still attempted to prosecute him for these crimes, SPECIFICALLY mentioning waterboarding as one of those. That means the US government certainly considered waterboarding a war crime because if it had not it would not have included it in the description of offenses justifying the indictment. That's just common sense.

See how easy that is?

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

We're talking about waterboarding people that are involved in planning mass murder and people are worried that it might screw with their head?

What's wrong with that picture?

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Apparently the usual suspects in here believe that by invoking the word "torture," and all the baggage that goes along with it, that it immediately places waterboarding on the same level as stretching someone on the rack, breaking bones, cutting off appendages, smashing testicles with a rock, and yanking off fingernails with a pair of pliers. It's part of the usual word association game they play in here where everything is black & white unless they themselves define the grey areas.

"The usual suspects..." BUAhahahaha!!! Spoken by one of the "usual suspects" among the lying, deceitful, sycophantic brown nosed Bushwhacko POS apologists who hasn't a clue about the truth on any issue. :roll:

"The usual suspects" to whom you refer include the majority of experts on torture, who know far more than you, and the United States of America, but since you'd prefer to continue your lies to support your TRAITOR IN CHIEF and his criminal cabal of torturers and murderers, it's only reasonable to expect you to disagree with the U.S. Consitution and every decent thing the nation stands for, including the integrity of our commitments to international treaties, that shouldn't phase you.

Start here:

Waterboarding: Interrogation Or Torture?
Technique Dates Back To Spanish Inquisition And Has Been Used By World's Cruelest Regimes

(CBS) Waterboarding, a controversial interrogation technique that simulates drowning, dates back to at least the Spanish Inquisition, and has been used some of the world's cruelest dictatorships, according to Human Rights Watch.

Forms of waterboarding vary but generally consist of immobilizing an individual on his or her back - head inclined downward - and pouring water over the face to induce the sensation of drowning.

Other techniques include dunking prisoners head-first into water, as was used by Chadian military forces in the mid 1980s. The Khmer Rouge, responsible for the deaths of approximately 1.5 million Cambodians during the 1970s, strapped victims on inclined boards, with feet raised and head lowered, and covered their faces with cloth or cellophane. Water then was poured over their mouths to stimulate drowning.

Waterboarding, long considered a form of torture by the United States, produces a gag reflex and makes the victim believe death is imminent. The technique leaves no visible physical damage.

Republican presidential candidate John McCain, who was tortured as a prisoner of war in North Vietnam, considers waterboarding a form of torture. McCain has been quoted as saying that waterboarding is "no different than holding a pistol to his head and firing a blank."

After World War II, U.S. military commissions prosecuted several Japanese soldiers for subjecting U.S. soldiers to waterboarding, according to Human Rights Watch. In 1968, a U.S. soldier was court-martialed for water boarding a Vietnamese prisoner.

But in October 2006, Vice President Dick Cheney confirmed the United States had used the controversial technique to interrogate senior Al Qaeda suspects, and he said the White House did not consider waterboarding a form of torture.

In the aftermath of September 11, fewer than 100 terrorists have been held in the CIA's secret prisons, and fewer than one third of those have been subjected to what CIA Director Michael Hayden calls "special methods of interrogation," and what others called torture.

"The intelligence they produce is absolutely irreplaceable," Hayden said. "It's been crucial in giving us a better understanding of the enemy we face as well as leads on taking in taking other terrorists off the battlefield."

The CIA says it no longer uses waterboarding.

Cheney confirmed waterboarding was used to interrogate Khaled Sheikh Mohammed, the senior Al Qaeda operative now being held in Guantanamo Bay, adding that the use of the technique was "a no-brainer."

"The Bush administration continues to astonish," said Larry Cox, Amnesty International USA's executive director. "Its own State Department has labeled water boarding torture when it applies to other countries. Yet in President Bush's legal wonderland, water boarding is renamed an enhanced interrogation technique. President Bush continues to assert that his administration is complying with U.S. and international law, yet every available fact has proven the contrary."

That sentence, "The CIA says it no longer uses waterboarding." is particularly noteworthy because, in destroying the tapes that are the subject of this thread and then, LYING about it to Congress and Federal Judges, they raise the greatest suspicion about their credibility on this subject and any other.

There's no question about your credibility. You have NONE! :thumbsdown: :| :thumbsdown:

Starting around note #6 in the References section of Wikipediea's page on waterboarding, you'll find some more "usual suspects" who will be glad to tell you how full of shit you are.

6. In April 2006, in a letter to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, more than 100 U.S. law professors stated unequivocally that waterboarding is torture, and is a criminal felony punishable under the U.S. federal criminal code.

7. According to Republican United States Senator and 2008 presidential candidate John McCain, who was tortured as a prisoner of war in North Vietnam, waterboarding is "torture, no different than holding a pistol to his head and firing a blank" and can damage the subject's psyche "in ways that may never heal." Torture's Terrible Toll, Newsweek, November 21, 2005.

8. In its 2005 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices, the U.S. Department of State formally recognizes "submersion of the head in water" as torture in its examination of Tunisia's poor human rights record.U.S. Department of State (2005). "Tunisia". Country Reports on Human Rights Practices.

9. A former senior official in the directorate of operations is quoted (in full) as saying: "'Of course it was torture. Try it and you'll see.'" Another "former higher-up in the directorate of operations" said "'Yes, it's torture'". At pp. 225-26, in Stephen Grey (2006). Ghost Plane: The True Story of the CIA Torture Program. New York City: St. Martin's Press.

10. Benjamin Davis. Endgame on Torture: Time to Call the Bluff. "Waterboarding has been torture for at least 500 years. All of us know that torture is going on."

11. Carter says U.S. tortures prisoners, CNN, October 10, 2007. "The United States tortures prisoners in violation of international law, former President Carter said Wednesday. 'I don't think it. I know it,' Carter told CNN's Wolf Blitzer."

12. Michael Cooper and Marc Santora. McCain Rebukes Giuliani on Waterboarding Remark, New York Times, October 26, 2007. Speaking about Waterboarding, John McCain stated in a telephone interview "They should know what it is. It is not a complicated procedure. It is torture."

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
We're talking about waterboarding people that are involved in planning mass murder and people are worried that it might screw with their head?

What's wrong with that picture?

We're talking about becoming the evil we seek to defeat. What's wrong with that picture? :shocked:

If you believe waterboarding isn't torture, please prove it by volunteering as a repeated test subject a few months, or better yet, a few years, and report back to us. Until you've done that, please STFU!

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Apparently the usual suspects in here believe that by invoking the word "torture," and all the baggage that goes along with it, that it immediately places waterboarding on the same level as stretching someone on the rack, breaking bones, cutting off appendages, smashing testicles with a rock, and yanking off fingernails with a pair of pliers. It's part of the usual word association game they play in here where everything is black & white unless they themselves define the grey areas.

"The usual suspects..." BUAhahahaha!!! Spoken by one of the "usual suspects" among the lying, deceitful, sycophantic brown nosed Bushwhacko POS apologists who hasn't a clue about the truth on any issue. :roll:

"The usual suspects" to whom you refer include the majority of experts on torture, who know far more than you, and the United States of America, but since you'd prefer to continue your lies to support your TRAITOR IN CHIEF and his criminal cabal of torturers and murderers, it's only reasonable to expect you to disagree with the U.S. Consitution and every decent thing the nation stands for, including the integrity of our commitments to international treaties, that shouldn't phase you.

Start here:

Waterboarding: Interrogation Or Torture?
Technique Dates Back To Spanish Inquisition And Has Been Used By World's Cruelest Regimes

(CBS) Waterboarding, a controversial interrogation technique that simulates drowning, dates back to at least the Spanish Inquisition, and has been used some of the world's cruelest dictatorships, according to Human Rights Watch.

Forms of waterboarding vary but generally consist of immobilizing an individual on his or her back - head inclined downward - and pouring water over the face to induce the sensation of drowning.

Other techniques include dunking prisoners head-first into water, as was used by Chadian military forces in the mid 1980s. The Khmer Rouge, responsible for the deaths of approximately 1.5 million Cambodians during the 1970s, strapped victims on inclined boards, with feet raised and head lowered, and covered their faces with cloth or cellophane. Water then was poured over their mouths to stimulate drowning.

Waterboarding, long considered a form of torture by the United States, produces a gag reflex and makes the victim believe death is imminent. The technique leaves no visible physical damage.

Republican presidential candidate John McCain, who was tortured as a prisoner of war in North Vietnam, considers waterboarding a form of torture. McCain has been quoted as saying that waterboarding is "no different than holding a pistol to his head and firing a blank."

After World War II, U.S. military commissions prosecuted several Japanese soldiers for subjecting U.S. soldiers to waterboarding, according to Human Rights Watch. In 1968, a U.S. soldier was court-martialed for water boarding a Vietnamese prisoner.

But in October 2006, Vice President Dick Cheney confirmed the United States had used the controversial technique to interrogate senior Al Qaeda suspects, and he said the White House did not consider waterboarding a form of torture.

In the aftermath of September 11, fewer than 100 terrorists have been held in the CIA's secret prisons, and fewer than one third of those have been subjected to what CIA Director Michael Hayden calls "special methods of interrogation," and what others called torture.

"The intelligence they produce is absolutely irreplaceable," Hayden said. "It's been crucial in giving us a better understanding of the enemy we face as well as leads on taking in taking other terrorists off the battlefield."

The CIA says it no longer uses waterboarding.

Cheney confirmed waterboarding was used to interrogate Khaled Sheikh Mohammed, the senior Al Qaeda operative now being held in Guantanamo Bay, adding that the use of the technique was "a no-brainer."

"The Bush administration continues to astonish," said Larry Cox, Amnesty International USA's executive director. "Its own State Department has labeled water boarding torture when it applies to other countries. Yet in President Bush's legal wonderland, water boarding is renamed an enhanced interrogation technique. President Bush continues to assert that his administration is complying with U.S. and international law, yet every available fact has proven the contrary."

That sentence, "The CIA says it no longer uses waterboarding." is particularly noteworthy because, in destroying the tapes that are the subject of this thread and then, LYING about it to Congress and Federal Judges, they raise the greatest suspicion about their credibility on this subject and any other.

There's no question about your credibility. You have NONE! :thumbsdown: :| :thumbsdown:

Starting around note #6 in the References section of Wikipediea's page on waterboarding, you'll find some more "usual suspects" who will be glad to tell you how full of shit you are.

6. In April 2006, in a letter to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, more than 100 U.S. law professors stated unequivocally that waterboarding is torture, and is a criminal felony punishable under the U.S. federal criminal code.

7. According to Republican United States Senator and 2008 presidential candidate John McCain, who was tortured as a prisoner of war in North Vietnam, waterboarding is "torture, no different than holding a pistol to his head and firing a blank" and can damage the subject's psyche "in ways that may never heal." Torture's Terrible Toll, Newsweek, November 21, 2005.

8. In its 2005 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices, the U.S. Department of State formally recognizes "submersion of the head in water" as torture in its examination of Tunisia's poor human rights record.U.S. Department of State (2005). "Tunisia". Country Reports on Human Rights Practices.

9. A former senior official in the directorate of operations is quoted (in full) as saying: "'Of course it was torture. Try it and you'll see.'" Another "former higher-up in the directorate of operations" said "'Yes, it's torture'". At pp. 225-26, in Stephen Grey (2006). Ghost Plane: The True Story of the CIA Torture Program. New York City: St. Martin's Press.

10. Benjamin Davis. Endgame on Torture: Time to Call the Bluff. "Waterboarding has been torture for at least 500 years. All of us know that torture is going on."

11. Carter says U.S. tortures prisoners, CNN, October 10, 2007. "The United States tortures prisoners in violation of international law, former President Carter said Wednesday. 'I don't think it. I know it,' Carter told CNN's Wolf Blitzer."

12. Michael Cooper and Marc Santora. McCain Rebukes Giuliani on Waterboarding Remark, New York Times, October 26, 2007. Speaking about Waterboarding, John McCain stated in a telephone interview "They should know what it is. It is not a complicated procedure. It is torture."

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
We're talking about waterboarding people that are involved in planning mass murder and people are worried that it might screw with their head?

What's wrong with that picture?

We're talking about becoming the evil we seek to defeat. What's wrong with that picture? :shocked:

If you believe waterboarding isn't torture, please prove it by volunteering as a repeated test subject a few months, or better yet, a few years, and report back to us. Until you've done that, please STFU!

Late to the party as usual, Harvey.

We've already been over the subjects in your copy & paste efforts in this thread. Try coming some other time when you have an original thought. Though you having an original thought of your own making surely would be something novel.

 

[chucky2]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: chucky2
OK, so lets agree for a minute that waterboarding is indeed torture.

Why would we take off the table a means of torture that causes no physical harm, and most likely, little psychological harm?

These aren't the average joe someone threw a rock at a Hummer people we're waterboarding, these are the hardcore types we know/strongly suspect to have important information.

Given that waterboarding works, and that it doesn't cause physical harm, why are we even debating whether we should or should not be using it on special high value targets??

This isn't us chopping off someone hands, burning them, electrocuting them, etc....so no physical harm.

Why are we dragging this out for public/international debate when the public/international's should not be making these decisions in the first place??

Chuck

I think your ideas about what waterboarding entails are not correct. The idea that waterboarding does 'little psychological harm' is not correct. If you read up on the long term effects of waterboarding you'll see a significant number of people who have undergone it have developed PTSD as a result, and some even more severe psychological damage.

So if some hardcore terrorists develope PTSD we're supposed to take that into account in our information gathering?

It is in no way a method of torture with no long term effects. Oh, and of course the unreliable nature of coerced testimony always applies as well.

No, it's a method of torture that causes 0 physical long term - or short term, past the physical stress during/very soon after the actual event - effects, and in some cases may cause PTSD.

And it's so unreliable it cracked 3 hardcore terrorists...yeah, that sounds super unreliable to me... :roll:

Chuck

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: chucky2


So if some hardcore terrorists develope PTSD we're supposed to take that into account in our information gathering?

It is in no way a method of torture with no long term effects. Oh, and of course the unreliable nature of coerced testimony always applies as well.

No, it's a method of torture that causes 0 physical long term - or short term, past the physical stress during/very soon after the actual event - effects, and in some cases may cause PTSD.

And it's so unreliable it cracked 3 hardcore terrorists...yeah, that sounds super unreliable to me... :roll:

Chuck

Your information is again wrong unfortunately. First of all there have been many cases of people dying and suffering brain damage from waterboarding. I'm not saying that this has happened under us, but it has certainly happened. I think you should read some testimonies on the long term psychological effects of waterboarding and then decide if you still think it is as harmless as you describe.

Secondly I wasn't referring to the actual ability of waterboarding to break people. It's astoundingly effective at that. (in fact, they decided to stop using it to train our people how to resist interrogation because it was lowering morale... nobody could withstand the sheer terror of it). What I meant was the unreliable nature of the information provided from coerced testimony. That's of course why professional interrogators say torture is a worthless tool.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: chucky2

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: chucky2
OK, so lets agree for a minute that waterboarding is indeed torture.

Why would we take off the table a means of torture that causes no physical harm, and most likely, little psychological harm?

These aren't the average joe someone threw a rock at a Hummer people we're waterboarding, these are the hardcore types we know/strongly suspect to have important information.

Given that waterboarding works, and that it doesn't cause physical harm, why are we even debating whether we should or should not be using it on special high value targets??

This isn't us chopping off someone hands, burning them, electrocuting them, etc....so no physical harm.

Why are we dragging this out for public/international debate when the public/international's should not be making these decisions in the first place??

Chuck

I think your ideas about what waterboarding entails are not correct. The idea that waterboarding does 'little psychological harm' is not correct. If you read up on the long term effects of waterboarding you'll see a significant number of people who have undergone it have developed PTSD as a result, and some even more severe psychological damage.

So if some hardcore terrorists develope PTSD we're supposed to take that into account in our information gathering?

It is in no way a method of torture with no long term effects. Oh, and of course the unreliable nature of coerced testimony always applies as well.

No, it's a method of torture that causes 0 physical long term - or short term, past the physical stress during/very soon after the actual event - effects, and in some cases may cause PTSD.

And it's so unreliable it cracked 3 hardcore terrorists...yeah, that sounds super unreliable to me... :roll:

Chuck

If it's so reliable, why only 3? And why do we still not have bin Laden if it's such a great tool?

 

[chucky2]

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: chucky2

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: chucky2
OK, so lets agree for a minute that waterboarding is indeed torture.

Why would we take off the table a means of torture that causes no physical harm, and most likely, little psychological harm?

These aren't the average joe someone threw a rock at a Hummer people we're waterboarding, these are the hardcore types we know/strongly suspect to have important information.

Given that waterboarding works, and that it doesn't cause physical harm, why are we even debating whether we should or should not be using it on special high value targets??

This isn't us chopping off someone hands, burning them, electrocuting them, etc....so no physical harm.

Why are we dragging this out for public/international debate when the public/international's should not be making these decisions in the first place??

Chuck

I think your ideas about what waterboarding entails are not correct. The idea that waterboarding does 'little psychological harm' is not correct. If you read up on the long term effects of waterboarding you'll see a significant number of people who have undergone it have developed PTSD as a result, and some even more severe psychological damage.

So if some hardcore terrorists develope PTSD we're supposed to take that into account in our information gathering?

It is in no way a method of torture with no long term effects. Oh, and of course the unreliable nature of coerced testimony always applies as well.

No, it's a method of torture that causes 0 physical long term - or short term, past the physical stress during/very soon after the actual event - effects, and in some cases may cause PTSD.

And it's so unreliable it cracked 3 hardcore terrorists...yeah, that sounds super unreliable to me... :roll:

Chuck

If it's so reliable, why only 3? And why do we still not have bin Laden if it's such a great tool?

My guess - since I'm not an interrogator that works with Muslim fanatics - would be that the other methods of interrogation extraction work on most people...and I don't assume it's only three. There's probably more we don't know about.

As far as not having OBL, you got to get people first who know where - precisely or at least with a high degree of local accuracy - he is. Until you have that, it's finding a needle in the haystack....

Chuck

 

[chucky2]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: chucky2


So if some hardcore terrorists develope PTSD we're supposed to take that into account in our information gathering?

It is in no way a method of torture with no long term effects. Oh, and of course the unreliable nature of coerced testimony always applies as well.

No, it's a method of torture that causes 0 physical long term - or short term, past the physical stress during/very soon after the actual event - effects, and in some cases may cause PTSD.

And it's so unreliable it cracked 3 hardcore terrorists...yeah, that sounds super unreliable to me... :roll:

Chuck

Your information is again wrong unfortunately. First of all there have been many cases of people dying and suffering brain damage from waterboarding. I'm not saying that this has happened under us, but it has certainly happened.

So what you're saying is that it hasn't happened under us, and done properly, it's not going to cause people to die or suffer brain damage.

I think you should read some testimonies on the long term psychological effects of waterboarding and then decide if you still think it is as harmless as you describe.

Unless it's testimonies by people who have been truly waterboarded by US interrogators, then their testimonies are essentially worthless. You point me in the right direction for those people, and I'll most certainly go read what they have to say. I don't want some candyass reporter. I want a terrorist who's telling us about it.

Secondly I wasn't referring to the actual ability of waterboarding to break people. It's astoundingly effective at that. (in fact, they decided to stop using it to train our people how to resist interrogation because it was lowering morale... nobody could withstand the sheer terror of it).

Ahh, so we shouldn't use this amazingly effective non-physically damaging (when done properly, which I'm sure we are, since we don't want to loose our high value captives) technique on hardcore terrorists that we absolutely know contain information that's going to be very beneficial to us on the WoT??? Okey dokey...

What I meant was the unreliable nature of the information provided from coerced testimony. That's of course why professional interrogators say torture is a worthless tool.

Again, yet it was so unreliable that it led to one guy, which led to another. Funny, that doesn't sound unreliable to me...

Chuck

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: chucky2


So if some hardcore terrorists develope PTSD we're supposed to take that into account in our information gathering?

It is in no way a method of torture with no long term effects. Oh, and of course the unreliable nature of coerced testimony always applies as well.

No, it's a method of torture that causes 0 physical long term - or short term, past the physical stress during/very soon after the actual event - effects, and in some cases may cause PTSD.

And it's so unreliable it cracked 3 hardcore terrorists...yeah, that sounds super unreliable to me... :roll:

Chuck

Your information is again wrong unfortunately. First of all there have been many cases of people dying and suffering brain damage from waterboarding. I'm not saying that this has happened under us, but it has certainly happened. I think you should read some testimonies on the long term psychological effects of waterboarding and then decide if you still think it is as harmless as you describe.

Secondly I wasn't referring to the actual ability of waterboarding to break people. It's astoundingly effective at that. (in fact, they decided to stop using it to train our people how to resist interrogation because it was lowering morale... nobody could withstand the sheer terror of it). What I meant was the unreliable nature of the information provided from coerced testimony. That's of course why professional interrogators say torture is a worthless tool.

And people have died while excercising free speech yet I see you do that quite well. What exactly is your point?

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: chucky2

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: chucky2


So if some hardcore terrorists develope PTSD we're supposed to take that into account in our information gathering?

It is in no way a method of torture with no long term effects. Oh, and of course the unreliable nature of coerced testimony always applies as well.

No, it's a method of torture that causes 0 physical long term - or short term, past the physical stress during/very soon after the actual event - effects, and in some cases may cause PTSD.

And it's so unreliable it cracked 3 hardcore terrorists...yeah, that sounds super unreliable to me... :roll:

Chuck

Your information is again wrong unfortunately. First of all there have been many cases of people dying and suffering brain damage from waterboarding. I'm not saying that this has happened under us, but it has certainly happened.

So what you're saying is that it hasn't happened under us, and done properly, it's not going to cause people to die or suffer brain damage.

I think you should read some testimonies on the long term psychological effects of waterboarding and then decide if you still think it is as harmless as you describe.

Unless it's testimonies by people who have been truly waterboarded by US interrogators, then their testimonies are essentially worthless. You point me in the right direction for those people, and I'll most certainly go read what they have to say. I don't want some candyass reporter. I want a terrorist who's telling us about it.

Secondly I wasn't referring to the actual ability of waterboarding to break people. It's astoundingly effective at that. (in fact, they decided to stop using it to train our people how to resist interrogation because it was lowering morale... nobody could withstand the sheer terror of it).

Ahh, so we shouldn't use this amazingly effective non-physically damaging (when done properly, which I'm sure we are, since we don't want to loose our high value captives) technique on hardcore terrorists that we absolutely know contain information that's going to be very beneficial to us on the WoT??? Okey dokey...

What I meant was the unreliable nature of the information provided from coerced testimony. That's of course why professional interrogators say torture is a worthless tool.

Again, yet it was so unreliable that it led to one guy, which led to another. Funny, that doesn't sound unreliable to me...

Chuck

Okay, first of all we DO know for certain that captives of ours have died during interrogation by our troops/CIA/etc. We don't know the exact circumstances, but obviously our torture monitoring techniques aren't that great.

You are just putting up crazy and unreasonable conditions in order to avoid having to address the issues. If the only way you are willing to accept that what we do is torture is by getting the testimony of people that A.) we aren't releasing and B.) you probably wouldn't believe anyway is a load of crap.

I really can't argue with you on this. I am using information that I've gotten from reading quite a bit on this topic, and you are using your personal opinion. It's just not really an equal discussion because you don't understand the issue well enough.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: chucky2


So if some hardcore terrorists develope PTSD we're supposed to take that into account in our information gathering?

It is in no way a method of torture with no long term effects. Oh, and of course the unreliable nature of coerced testimony always applies as well.

No, it's a method of torture that causes 0 physical long term - or short term, past the physical stress during/very soon after the actual event - effects, and in some cases may cause PTSD.

And it's so unreliable it cracked 3 hardcore terrorists...yeah, that sounds super unreliable to me... :roll:

Chuck

Your information is again wrong unfortunately. First of all there have been many cases of people dying and suffering brain damage from waterboarding. I'm not saying that this has happened under us, but it has certainly happened. I think you should read some testimonies on the long term psychological effects of waterboarding and then decide if you still think it is as harmless as you describe.

Secondly I wasn't referring to the actual ability of waterboarding to break people. It's astoundingly effective at that. (in fact, they decided to stop using it to train our people how to resist interrogation because it was lowering morale... nobody could withstand the sheer terror of it). What I meant was the unreliable nature of the information provided from coerced testimony. That's of course why professional interrogators say torture is a worthless tool.

And people have died while excercising free speech yet I see you do that quite well. What exactly is your point?

I can't possibly fathom what your point would be here.

 

[chucky2]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: chucky2

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: chucky2


So if some hardcore terrorists develope PTSD we're supposed to take that into account in our information gathering?

It is in no way a method of torture with no long term effects. Oh, and of course the unreliable nature of coerced testimony always applies as well.

No, it's a method of torture that causes 0 physical long term - or short term, past the physical stress during/very soon after the actual event - effects, and in some cases may cause PTSD.

And it's so unreliable it cracked 3 hardcore terrorists...yeah, that sounds super unreliable to me... :roll:

Chuck

Your information is again wrong unfortunately. First of all there have been many cases of people dying and suffering brain damage from waterboarding. I'm not saying that this has happened under us, but it has certainly happened.

So what you're saying is that it hasn't happened under us, and done properly, it's not going to cause people to die or suffer brain damage.

I think you should read some testimonies on the long term psychological effects of waterboarding and then decide if you still think it is as harmless as you describe.

Unless it's testimonies by people who have been truly waterboarded by US interrogators, then their testimonies are essentially worthless. You point me in the right direction for those people, and I'll most certainly go read what they have to say. I don't want some candyass reporter. I want a terrorist who's telling us about it.

Secondly I wasn't referring to the actual ability of waterboarding to break people. It's astoundingly effective at that. (in fact, they decided to stop using it to train our people how to resist interrogation because it was lowering morale... nobody could withstand the sheer terror of it).

Ahh, so we shouldn't use this amazingly effective non-physically damaging (when done properly, which I'm sure we are, since we don't want to loose our high value captives) technique on hardcore terrorists that we absolutely know contain information that's going to be very beneficial to us on the WoT??? Okey dokey...

What I meant was the unreliable nature of the information provided from coerced testimony. That's of course why professional interrogators say torture is a worthless tool.

Again, yet it was so unreliable that it led to one guy, which led to another. Funny, that doesn't sound unreliable to me...

Chuck

Okay, first of all we DO know for certain that captives of ours have died during interrogation by our troops/CIA/etc. We don't know the exact circumstances, but obviously our torture monitoring techniques aren't that great.

Again, which captives were physically harmed by the CIA by waterboarding? We're not talking about some hyped up GI who gets carried away, we're talking about the CIA and waterboarding tapes. So, which ones, since you are making that argument.

You are just putting up crazy and unreasonable conditions in order to avoid having to address the issues. If the only way you are willing to accept that what we do is torture is by getting the testimony of people that A.) we aren't releasing and B.) you probably wouldn't believe anyway is a load of crap.

Oh, I'm addressing the issue. I never said it was the only way either...I just said on high value hardcore terrorists who we know to have information that we can use on the WoT, and who are probably either laughing at the interrogators face, or just plain aren't talking, we don't p*ssyfoot around, and use a method that works. And, 3 times now, it's absolutely worked.

I really can't argue with you on this. I am using information that I've gotten from reading quite a bit on this topic, and you are using your personal opinion. It's just not really an equal discussion because you don't understand the issue well enough.

Read the news reports then yourself....we used waterboarding, it worked. In each of those cases, no reported physical problems (like, no heads, arms, feet, other appendeges cut off, etc..).

Chuck

 

[fskimospy]

Like I said before, it's by no means certain that we have harmed someone while waterboarding, but it IS certain we have harmed people using other interrogation techniques and so it would be somewhat naive to think that we would be above/incapable of doing so.

Your descriptions of interrogation and what is effective are showing me you don't know a lot about the subject. I'm not trying to talk trash, but I really think you need to research it more.

EDIT: I suck with quotes.

 

[chucky2]

Originally posted by: eskimospy
Like I said before, it's by no means certain that we have harmed someone while waterboarding, but it IS certain we have harmed people using other interrogation techniques and so it would be somewhat naive to think that we would be above/incapable of doing so.

Yet we've blown waterboarding - a technique that has worked on the hardcore terrorists three times now - completely out of porportion.

Could we harm someone? Sure. Do we? No, that hasn't come to light yet.

Your descriptions of interrogation and what is effective are showing me you don't know a lot about the subject. I'm not trying to talk trash, but I really think you need to research it more.

EDIT: I suck with quotes.

[/quote]

No, I don't need to research it more. We've already discussed what we all need to know:

1.) Waterboard is effective on hardcore detainees we know to possess valuable intelligence information.
2.) As far as we know, no one in our care that has been subjected to physical harm when we waterboarded them.
3.) End of story.

Personally, for these POS that we know are hardcore terrorists, I could give a flying F less if they have PTSD or even physical harm - and when it comes down to it, so could any other American outside of LA/whateverotherBDSfueledlocal.

Sometimes with some people you need to play for keeps, and I'm not willing - nor do I want the people who are willing to do the hard things to keep us all safe - to take waterboarding off the table for some POS hardcore terrorist who laughs/spits in the interrogators face, insults them, or just doesn't say sh1t because people like you think it's wrong, and they know the interrogator just has time...and that's it.

This isn't Vietnam where we it's the South Vietnamese who'll lose, this time it's us they want to come after. Since that's the case, F'em, they want to go all the way, then we should be prepared to as well.

Chuck

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: chucky2

No, I don't need to research it more. We've already discussed what we all need to know:

1.) Waterboard is effective on hardcore detainees we know to possess valuable intelligence information.
2.) As far as we know, no one in our care that has been subjected to physical harm when we waterboarded them.
3.) End of story.

Personally, for these POS that we know are hardcore terrorists, I could give a flying F less if they have PTSD or even physical harm - and when it comes down to it, so could any other American outside of LA/whateverotherBDSfueledlocal.

Sometimes with some people you need to play for keeps, and I'm not willing - nor do I want the people who are willing to do the hard things to keep us all safe - to take waterboarding off the table for some POS hardcore terrorist who laughs/spits in the interrogators face, insults them, or just doesn't say sh1t because people like you think it's wrong, and they know the interrogator just has time...and that's it.

This isn't Vietnam where we it's the South Vietnamese who'll lose, this time it's us they want to come after. Since that's the case, F'em, they want to go all the way, then we should be prepared to as well.

Chuck

We have blown nothing out of proportion. Waterboarding is torture, plain and simple. Torture is evil, and those who condone it are also evil.

We do not know its effectiveness on these detainees because we are not aware of the full scope of what their interrogation revealed. Did they give out loads of bad information too? If that's the case, how many resources did we expend chasing down bad leads that could have been used to greater effect? Historical precedent tells us that torture supplies us with a large amount of bad information and I see no reason why this would be different.

You also fail to understand that the ineffectiveness of torture is only one of the many arguments against it. When we want to enlist the aid of other countries with significant Muslim populations (Turkey? Saudi Arabia?) it becomes a lot more difficult when we are so hated. Don't fool yourself into thinking that our record of torture hasn't done this. It destroys our international credibility, and causes damage that far outweighs the benefits (if any) that it provides. You're not thinking big picture.

This is a pervasive problem I have noticed with America lately, particularly with the right wing of American politics. They seem to think that if we just get bad-ass enough that we can surely crush all who oppose us. It is incredibly naive. The harder we squeeze, the worse it will get for us. Your Vietnam comparison implies that you believe that had we just kicked a little more ass in Vietnam that we somehow would have won that war. That is a perfect example of why you do not understand torture now.

 

[chucky2]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

We have blown nothing out of proportion. Waterboarding is torture, plain and simple. Torture is evil, and those who condone it are also evil.

Yes, waterboarding is mental torture. And we've blown it out of proportion because we use it in so few cases, yet it is sensationalized so much as if we're using it on some kid we catch throwing a rock at one of our patrols in Iraq.

We do not know its effectiveness on these detainees because we are not aware of the full scope of what their interrogation revealed. Did they give out loads of bad information too? If that's the case, how many resources did we expend chasing down bad leads that could have been used to greater effect? Historical precedent tells us that torture supplies us with a large amount of bad information and I see no reason why this would be different.

We know the effectiveness: It directly led us to the mastermind behind 9/11. Right there you are proved wrong. If the information they gave out was so bad, it's funny we still got our man. But, I know, it's lots better to assume the worst, publicize it to the World, and then go from there. Really good way to conduct national security there...just supah!!

As for historical precedent, historically that's because people were just outright tortured, and many just had no F'ing clue of anything. But that's not what we're talking about here, and you know it. We're talking about using a harsh technique on high value targets known to have important info on the WoT (do you notice I keep repeating this so we can stay on the true topic???), who aren't talking (and, we'd expect them to not cooperate, Period).

You also fail to understand that the ineffectiveness of torture is only one of the many arguments against it. When we want to enlist the aid of other countries with significant Muslim populations (Turkey? Saudi Arabia?) it becomes a lot more difficult when we are so hated. Don't fool yourself into thinking that our record of torture hasn't done this. It destroys our international credibility, and causes damage that far outweighs the benefits (if any) that it provides. You're not thinking big picture.

Oh, Yes, I'm sure it does! That's why we need to drag this out into the public light and show the public of these countries what their Leadership and the hardcore terrorists already know (duh!!!! You think they don't think we torture?!?!?!) That way, we really can whip up support for the US!!! (Yes, I'm being sarcastic here...)

I'm absolutely thinking big picture. And the big picture is that the hardcore terrorists are laughing their @sses off at America because we are 1.) so stupid as to devise our torture techniques, 2.) so weak to publicize it to the World, 3.) show no national unity on the subject (i.e. weak), and 4.) in the end get rid of something that actually works because it makes the hardcore wacko's mentally uncomfortable for as long as they're able to endure it.

That they're licking their chops to wind up their masses and those they want to bring into their circle is a whole nother matter.

Good that you're thinking "big picture" though, I feel better... :roll:

This is a pervasive problem I have noticed with America lately, particularly with the right wing of American politics. They seem to think that if we just get bad-ass enough that we can surely crush all who oppose us. It is incredibly naive.

No, actually we need to do both. We need to be bad@ss enough to not only crush the hardcore nuts, but also merciful enough that when we hit these countries with our armies, we follow-up with an aid package (a real it's here right now where do you want it aid package btw) that makes the public go, Wow, these American's are not like what we've been led to believe.

The harder we squeeze, the worse it will get for us. Your Vietnam comparison implies that you believe that had we just kicked a little more ass in Vietnam that we somehow would have won that war. That is a perfect example of why you do not understand torture now.

You completely missed what I implied about Vietnam...totally missed it.

Chuck

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: eskimospy
Like I said before, it's by no means certain that we have harmed someone while waterboarding, but it IS certain we have harmed people using other interrogation techniques and so it would be somewhat naive to think that we would be above/incapable of doing so.

Your descriptions of interrogation and what is effective are showing me you don't know a lot about the subject. I'm not trying to talk trash, but I really think you need to research it more.

EDIT: I suck with quotes.

So tell us, oh great interragation expert, what tecniques we are using now that have harmed people?

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: eskimospy
Like I said before, it's by no means certain that we have harmed someone while waterboarding, but it IS certain we have harmed people using other interrogation techniques and so it would be somewhat naive to think that we would be above/incapable of doing so.

Your descriptions of interrogation and what is effective are showing me you don't know a lot about the subject. I'm not trying to talk trash, but I really think you need to research it more.

EDIT: I suck with quotes.

So tell us, oh great interragation expert, what tecniques we are using now that have harmed people?

Do you know what techniques we're using now? Does anyone? How is that question even answerable?

As far as before goes. .... of course we don't even know if these techniques persist now as there's no way to konw what we're doing.

Oh and chucky I'm sorry but you're not thinking this all the way through. You don't understand the issue and you are substituting gut feeling for it. I can't argue with that.

 

[jackschmittusa]

Agents of our government are bound by U.S. and international law that forbids torture. Torturing a captive is a crime. No further discussion on this is necessary.

Claiming that water boarding is not torture is foolish.

Destroying evidence to cover up a crime is another crime.

For those of you who do not seem to care how we treat others, I can't see how you would be bothered by how others might treat our guys.

 

[chucky2]

Originally posted by: jackschmittusa
Agents of our government are bound by U.S. and international law that forbids torture. Torturing a captive is a crime. No further discussion on this is necessary.

Claiming that water boarding is not torture is foolish.

Destroying evidence to cover up a crime is another crime.

For those of you who do not seem to care how we treat others, I can't see how you would be bothered by how others might treat our guys.

Funny you bring that up...the other side beheads.

You think that's a crime or covered under the GC??? Nah...evil waterboarding....it's much worse than that.... :roll:

Chuck

 

[jackschmittusa]

chucky2

What an idiotic reply. You're saying that if we stay just this side of how bad they are, it's OK.

With that kind of logic, you could assume that if someone robs a bank, it'd be fine for you to steal a 6 pack since it is so much the lesser evil.

Sorry, but in a civilized world, people who torture are scumbags, no getting around it. Why not just throw all of the rules out and let everybody do what they want.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: chucky2
No, I don't need to research it more. We've already discussed what we all need to know:

1.) Waterboard is effective on hardcore detainees we know to possess valuable intelligence information.

BULLSHIT! The vast majority of experts on terrorism agree that torture does not produce reliable results. The subject will always break, but they'll tell you anything you want them to say to stop the torture.

I suggest we subject chucky to waterboarding until he cracks and admits he's wrong. It should take no more than about ten seconds.

2.) As far as we know, no one in our care that has been subjected to physical harm when we waterboarded them.[/quote]

BULLSHIT! Starting with "as far as we know..." we DON'T know because the CIA destroyed the tapes... the only tapes that existed... as far as we know. Then, there's this small matter that we DON'T know whether anyone in our < gag > "care" has suffered physical harm because the criminals doing the harm won't admit it, and they deleted the only tapes that exist to prove it... as far as we know.

3.) End of story.

BULLSHIT! This isn't going to go away, but considering how willing you are to trash the Constitutional rights guaranteed to all American citizens, you should consider giving up your citizenship and moving to some repressive dictatorship where I'm sure you'll feel right at home. As an American, YOU SUCK! :thumbsdown: :| :thumbsdown:

 

[chucky2]

Originally posted by: jackschmittusa
chucky2

What an idiotic reply. You're saying that if we stay just this side of how bad they are, it's OK.

With that kind of logic, you could assume that if someone robs a bank, it'd be fine for you to steal a 6 pack since it is so much the lesser evil.

Sorry, but in a civilized world, people who torture are scumbags, no getting around it. Why not just throw all of the rules out and let everybody do what they want.

I'm saying that sometimes you need to fight evil with evil. Real world non-torture example: Undercover DEA agent lets drug shipments go through so as to gain trust and work inside. Yes, drugs that are going to harm people are let through (evil). And in the end, Yes, the bad guys are taken down (good).

I'm not saying it should be our primary, secondary, etc. phase of interrogation. On high value captives, when time permits, and/or when other less extreme methods are working, then by all means, don't waterboard. When time at the highest levels is deemed to be of the utmost importance, or when the other methods just straight out haven't been working forever now....then why would we not waterboard a high value captive? And just so high value isn't confused, this is someone who 9x out of 10 we're already going to know who he is, and we're already going to know some facts about him. So after the waterboarding it is easy to ask questions of him you already know the answer to, to not only guage his truthfullness, but also to learn his reaction when lying.

Chuck