FBI Agent will testify against almost everything Dick Cheney has said about torture and it's effectiveness

[Phokus]

http://andrewsullivan.theatlan...sking-cheney.html#more

Soufan will directly contradict key claims by torture apologists that the techniques elicited high-value information. He will say flat out that the claim that Abu Zubaydah didn?t start giving up info until August 2002, when he was waterboarded, is false. ?The truth is that we got actionable intelligence from him in the first hour of interrogating him,? Soufan will say.

Soufan will also contradict claims that waterboarding got Abu Zubaydah to cough up info leading to the capture of so-called ?dirty bomber? Jose Padilla. He will point out that waterboarding wasn?t approved until August of 2002, while Padilla was captured in May of 2002.

And Soufan will deny yet another key claim of torture apologists: That torture revealed Khalid Shaikh Mohammed?s involvement in 9/11. ?That was discovered in April 2002, while waterboarding was not introduced until almost three months later.? Soufan will say.

Call me crazy, but something tells me that if you put a man of dubious character like Cheney who's been caught in a perpetual state of lying ever since assuming the vice presidency vs. this FBI agent, Cheney's house of cards will crumble.

The question is, will the scumbag conservatives who have been parroting Cheney's lies finally admit they were wrong about torture? (rhetorical question, unfortunately).

 

[StageLeft]

Fvck Cheney.

 

[DealMonkey]

Quick! Someone alert Cheney that he's flat-out wrong. As usual. Oh and tell him that perhaps he should STFU and go retire like a good boy.

Ali Soufan, an FBI special agent from 1997 to 2005, told members of a key Senate Judiciary subcommittee that such "techniques, from an operational perspective, are ineffective, slow and unreliable, and harmful to our efforts to defeat al Qaeda."

His remarks followed heated exchanges between committee members with sharply differing views on both the value of the techniques and the purpose of the hearing itself.

Soufan, who was involved in the interrogation of CIA detainee Abu Zubaydah, took issue with former Vice President Dick Cheney, who has said that enhanced interrogation techniques helped the government acquire intelligence necessary to prevent further attacks after September 11, 2001.

The techniques, which were approved by the Bush administration, are considered torture by many critics. Watch analysts discuss harsh interrogations and torture »

"From my experience -- and I speak as someone who has personally interrogated many terrorists and elicited important actionable intelligence -- I strongly believe that it is a mistake to use what has become known as the 'enhanced interrogation techniques,' " Soufan noted in his written statement.

Such a position is "shared by many professional operatives, including the CIA officers who were present at the initial phases of the Abu Zubaydah interrogation."

Lots to digest here:

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITI...ion.hearing/index.html

 

[Pens1566]

But, but, but, the tortu .... er, ehanced techniques work!!!!!!!

 

[Fear No Evil]

Why doesn't Obama release the documents and prove it once and for all? This is an FBI agents word against the VP's word..

 

[DealMonkey]

Buh, buh, nuh, nuh, Nancy Pelosi knew too! </duh>

 

[PokerGuy]

While I'm 100% opposed to torture (including waterboarding), and I think it's shameful that people like Cheney pushed the country down this path, I don't see how the opinion of this guy matters or is of any consequence. So he says "EIT's" don't work. Big deal, someone else says that they do. It means nothing.

 

[Fern]

This is old news, the FBI and CIA have been arguing this for a while.

The FBI claims they were succeeding, the CIA claims they had to step-in with enhanced interogation because the FBI was getting no where.

Listening to the two sides argue about it is getting old. It's not much more than a bunch "was so", "was not"... over and over again.

IIRC, I thought I heard that the Senate is setting up a special panel to investigate the matter. Ordinarily I'd be inclined to think this good as they could examine the memos etc in private and weigh both sides claims; however given the state of Washington DC I'm expecting this to be politicized. We'll get a majority (Dem) report saying one thing, then a minority (Repub) report saying the opposite.

Fern

 

[Robor]

Originally posted by: Fear No Evil
Why doesn't Obama release the documents and prove it once and for all? This is an FBI agents word against the VP's word..

I'll take the FBI agent's word over a known lying scumbag human being.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: PokerGuy
While I'm 100% opposed to torture (including waterboarding), and I think it's shameful that people like Cheney pushed the country down this path, I don't see how the opinion of this guy matters or is of any consequence. So he says "EIT's" don't work. Big deal, someone else says that they do. It means nothing.

I'm afraid I have to agree. This is why we need this issue thoroughly investigated and trials held if laws are found to have been broken.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Robor

Originally posted by: Fear No Evil
Why doesn't Obama release the documents and prove it once and for all? This is an FBI agents word against the VP's word..

I'll take the FBI agent's word over a known lying scumbag human being.

It doesn't matter, the subject needs independent investigation and analysis.

 

[LTC8K6]

Yes, let's get to the bottom of it and stop lobbing grenades via the press. Let's get under oath and tell the truth. Where's Patrick Fitzgerald?

If I were a betting man, I'd bet that Cheney still has far more knowledge, power, and pull than an FBI agent, and will win the argument.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: LTC8K6
Yes, let's get to the bottom of it and stop lobbing grenades via the press. Let's get under oath and tell the truth. Where's Patrick Fitzgerald?

If I were a betting man, I'd bet that Cheney still has far more knowledge, power, and pull than an FBI agent, and will win the argument.

If he could get anybody to believe him.

 

[Robor]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: Robor

Originally posted by: Fear No Evil
Why doesn't Obama release the documents and prove it once and for all? This is an FBI agents word against the VP's word..

I'll take the FBI agent's word over a known lying scumbag human being.

It doesn't matter, the subject needs independent investigation and analysis.

I completely agree but FNE insinuated the VP should be trusted over an FBI agent simply because of his position (at least that's how I interpreted it).

 

[Thump553]

You're dreaming if you think Cheney will ever testify to ANYTHING voluntarily under oath. He even refused to testify about 9/11 (before the 9/11 Commision) unless it was specifically not under oath, and in the format of a joint interview with Bush.

 

[PokerGuy]

Originally posted by: Thump553
You're dreaming if you think Cheney will ever testify to ANYTHING voluntarily under oath. He even refused to testify about 9/11 (before the 9/11 Commision) unless it was specifically not under oath, and in the format of a joint interview with Bush.

And that makes a lot of sense. I would do the exact same thing, no matter if I had anything to hide or not. If you're Cheney, you know there's a bunch of left wing zealots that want your head on a plate, and you're not going to do anything that might allow them to do that.

 

[Fear No Evil]

Originally posted by: Robor

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: Robor

Originally posted by: Fear No Evil
Why doesn't Obama release the documents and prove it once and for all? This is an FBI agents word against the VP's word..

I'll take the FBI agent's word over a known lying scumbag human being.

It doesn't matter, the subject needs independent investigation and analysis.

I completely agree but FNE insinuated the VP should be trusted over an FBI agent simply because of his position (at least that's how I interpreted it).

I said no such thing. I said its the word of an FBI agent vs. the word of the former VP.. thats it..

 

[JS80]

Ali Soufan? ALI? cmon...zero credibility there

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: PokerGuy
While I'm 100% opposed to torture (including waterboarding), and I think it's shameful that people like Cheney pushed the country down this path, I don't see how the opinion of this guy matters or is of any consequence. So he says "EIT's" don't work. Big deal, someone else says that they do. It means nothing.

I'm afraid I have to agree. This is why we need this issue thoroughly investigated and trials held if laws are found to have been broken.

The fact that the FBI and CIA disagree as to whether waterboarding worked is beside the point. U.S. law doesn't say, "Torture is legal if it works," and determining if laws were broken therefore has NOTHING to do with whether the methods worked.

U.S. law says:

USC Title 18, Part 1, Chapter 113C, Section 2340

(1) ?torture? means an act committed by a person acting under the color of law specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions) upon another person within his custody or physical control;
(2) ?severe mental pain or suffering? means the prolonged mental harm caused by or resulting from?
(A) the intentional infliction or threatened infliction of severe physical pain or suffering;
(B) the administration or application, or threatened administration or application, of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or the personality;
(C) the threat of imminent death; or
(D) the threat that another person will imminently be subjected to death, severe physical pain or suffering, or the administration or application of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or personality;

Waterboarding causes the detainee to believe they're drowning. Other articles have said waterboarding causes, "the sensation of drowning," which amounts to the same thing. Believing you're drowning is the same as believing you're about to die. It doesn't matter if a rational observer could argue, "But of course he knows we're not actually going to kill him." A person in the desperate moments he's being subjected to waterboarding IS drowning, and that's his frame of mind: "I'm dying."

Ipso facto, waterboarding is an "act committed by a person acting under the color of law specifically intended to inflict . . . the threat of imminent death . . . upon another person within his custody or physical control."

Waterboarding is CLEARLY torture under U.S. law, and is therefore illegal. Whether or not it's effective is utterly irrelevant.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: PokerGuy
While I'm 100% opposed to torture (including waterboarding), and I think it's shameful that people like Cheney pushed the country down this path, I don't see how the opinion of this guy matters or is of any consequence. So he says "EIT's" don't work. Big deal, someone else says that they do. It means nothing.

I'm afraid I have to agree. This is why we need this issue thoroughly investigated and trials held if laws are found to have been broken.

The fact that the FBI and CIA disagree as to whether waterboarding worked is beside the point. U.S. law doesn't say, "Torture is legal if it works," and determining if laws were broken therefore has NOTHING to do with whether the methods worked.

U.S. law says:

USC Title 18, Part 1, Chapter 113C, Section 2340

(1) ?torture? means an act committed by a person acting under the color of law specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions) upon another person within his custody or physical control;
(2) ?severe mental pain or suffering? means the prolonged mental harm caused by or resulting from?
(A) the intentional infliction or threatened infliction of severe physical pain or suffering;
(B) the administration or application, or threatened administration or application, of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or the personality;
(C) the threat of imminent death; or
(D) the threat that another person will imminently be subjected to death, severe physical pain or suffering, or the administration or application of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or personality;

Waterboarding causes the detainee to believe they're drowning. Other articles have said waterboarding causes, "the sensation of drowning," which amounts to the same thing. Believing you're drowning is the same as believing you're about to die. It doesn't matter if a rational observer could argue, "But of course he knows we're not actually going to kill him." A person in the desperate moments he's being subjected to waterboarding IS drowning, and that's his frame of mind: "I'm dying."

Ipso facto, waterboarding is an "act committed by a person acting under the color of law specifically intended to inflict . . . the threat of imminent death . . . upon another person within his custody or physical control."

Waterboarding is CLEARLY torture under U.S. law, and is therefore illegal. Whether or not it's effective is utterly irrelevant.

I completely agree with this. The position is out there, however, that torture works. I do not believe it does, nor do I believe there are or have ever been any instances where instant torture is necessary to save hundreds or thousands of people. All this is a diversion to keep alive the notion that torture is OK and that is why I want the matter thoroughly investigated and the real facts of what we have done made known. Cheney has successfully blurred the issue with his claim that torture works. I heard a Republican Senator say on the radio today that if waterboarding didn't work it wouldn't have hung around for 500 years. The scum who torture need to have the lies they hide behind exposed or I need to have my beliefs shown to be wrong. It will matter not at all of torture is illegal if it works much better than other means.

 

[Robor]

Originally posted by: Fear No Evil

Originally posted by: Robor

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: Robor

Originally posted by: Fear No Evil
Why doesn't Obama release the documents and prove it once and for all? This is an FBI agents word against the VP's word..

I'll take the FBI agent's word over a known lying scumbag human being.

It doesn't matter, the subject needs independent investigation and analysis.

I completely agree but FNE insinuated the VP should be trusted over an FBI agent simply because of his position (at least that's how I interpreted it).

I said no such thing. I said its the word of an FBI agent vs. the word of the former VP.. thats it..

Ok, one is a known liar. Why value his word?