Justice department launches new investigations of GWB era torture policy.

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: eskimospy
Ah ha, so now instead of there being 'no court cases' as you previously falsely claimed, you have now retreated to the argument that you think they won't succeed. I happen to agree that he is unlikely to win, but the ruling will most likely have nothing to do with whether or not the techniques authorized were torture or not.

You are jumping the gun. A judge has agreed to allow a civil suit to proceed. there is no actual case yet.

You keep shrieking about how the CIA program is somehow different and we keep asking you how it is different in a material way from waterboarding in the past that would somehow keep it in bounds. You continue to flee from this question or provide cosmetic differences that do nothing to change the underlying technique.

And you keep insisting that the CIA used waterboarding just as any others have done in the past. The released memos that detail the CIAs methods throws cold water on that claim. Your complete and utter refusal to acknowledge that fact is your problem, not mine.

Christopher Hitchens underwent the mildest form of waterboarding possible and says he still has psychological after effects today. Exactly the sort of 'prolonged mental harm' that torture requires. I guarantee what he underwent was far easier on him than ANYTHING the CIA did. No matter how many people who have undergone it come out and say that it's unequivocally torture, no matter how many organizations who are experts in the matter tell you it's unequivocally torture, you keep clinging to your claim that because of cosmetic changes it's somehow differen't and there's no way to know! What is wrong with your ability to use reason? You can't possibly apply these standards to the rest of your life, because you would be dead by now if you had. How much more evidence needs to be shoved in your face before you can make the rational conclusion?

That Hitchen's opinion, not a legal ruling on the issue.

btw, has Hitchens exhibited any prolonged mental harm from his ordeal? If so, maybe he can make a legal case that waterboarding is torture. If not, his opinion doesn't jibe with US law regarding the definition of "torture."

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: eskimospy
No, we're saying your points are dumb.

That's no surprise. Your modus operandi in this forum is to exclaim that anyone who doesn't see eye-to-eye with you is dumb. It seems you believe your opinion somehow carries far more weight than anyone elses.

For the purposes of rational discussion there is zero evidence that the CIA's method of waterboarding materially differed from the types of waterboarding that people were convicted of in the past. Because of this, reasonable people can say that the CIA's methods were almost certainly illegal. While it cannot be said with certainty, not much in life can be. To say that you can't make a determination because you are not 100% certain is silliness, and to apply that standard to everything would make rational discourse impossible.

They restricted the amount of time a prisoner could be waterboarded, the repetitions, an observer kept an eye on the person being waterboarded for signs of physical o mental harm. Hell, the water they used had to be a certain temperature. So stop with the bullshit claim that the CIA methods were not materially different. Of course they were. Your refusal to acknowledge that fact does not change it.

That's why we are calling you out. Do you have Aspergers or something? (I'm not insulting you, I'm serious) That would explain your difficulty in understanding how people discuss things pretty well.

You don't "discuss" anything in here. You tell people what and how they should think because, in your not so humble opinion, you believe yourself to be absolutely right and anyone that disagrees is horribly wrong. We've seen that behavior from you time and time again in P&N.

So maybe you need to look in the mirror for the source of the problem instead of assuming it's inherent in others?

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: eskimospy
Ah ha, so now instead of there being 'no court cases' as you previously falsely claimed, you have now retreated to the argument that you think they won't succeed. I happen to agree that he is unlikely to win, but the ruling will most likely have nothing to do with whether or not the techniques authorized were torture or not.

You are jumping the gun. A judge has agreed to allow a civil suit to proceed. there is no actual case yet.

You keep shrieking about how the CIA program is somehow different and we keep asking you how it is different in a material way from waterboarding in the past that would somehow keep it in bounds. You continue to flee from this question or provide cosmetic differences that do nothing to change the underlying technique.

And you keep insisting that the CIA used waterboarding just as any others have done in the past. The released memos that detail the CIAs methods throws cold water on that claim. Your complete and utter refusal to acknowledge that fact is your problem, not mine.

Christopher Hitchens underwent the mildest form of waterboarding possible and says he still has psychological after effects today. Exactly the sort of 'prolonged mental harm' that torture requires. I guarantee what he underwent was far easier on him than ANYTHING the CIA did. No matter how many people who have undergone it come out and say that it's unequivocally torture, no matter how many organizations who are experts in the matter tell you it's unequivocally torture, you keep clinging to your claim that because of cosmetic changes it's somehow differen't and there's no way to know! What is wrong with your ability to use reason? You can't possibly apply these standards to the rest of your life, because you would be dead by now if you had. How much more evidence needs to be shoved in your face before you can make the rational conclusion?

That Hitchen's opinion, not a legal ruling on the issue.

btw, has Hitchens exhibited any prolonged mental harm from his ordeal? If so, maybe he can make a legal case that waterboarding is torture. If not, his opinion doesn't jibe with US law regarding the definition of "torture."

There's no such thing as 'allowing a case to proceed' without there being a case. Judges can only rule on motions put before them, and if you're going to somehow divide these motions to sue as something other than a 'case' you are using a different definition of 'case' than anyone else on the planet.

Once again you mention that the CIA is somehow using a different form of waterboarding. Once again I will request that you show how this form is materially different than previous implementations. You've been asked this over and over and over.

Yes, Hitchens specifically has stated that he has experienced prolonged mental harm from his ordeal. Again, our disagreement centers around one of the elements of proving waterboarding to be torture, specifically that of it causing 'prolonged mental harm'. I have provided you with direct evidence of this technique causing it in his case, and you know as well as I do that his experience was kinder than anything we did to actual detainees. He states that he now has mild panic attacks when forced to breathe hard and has recurring nightmares of being smothered. That is 'prolonged mental harm' by any rational definition.

So in short, if you are looking for proof of the technique causing 'prolonged mental harm' no matter how mild its implementation, there you have it. That is the element of the crime in dispute, and now hopefully we can dispense with that dispute.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: eskimospy
No, we're saying your points are dumb.

That's no surprise. Your modus operandi in this forum is to exclaim that anyone who doesn't see eye-to-eye with you is dumb. It seems you believe your opinion somehow carries far more weight than anyone elses.

For the purposes of rational discussion there is zero evidence that the CIA's method of waterboarding materially differed from the types of waterboarding that people were convicted of in the past. Because of this, reasonable people can say that the CIA's methods were almost certainly illegal. While it cannot be said with certainty, not much in life can be. To say that you can't make a determination because you are not 100% certain is silliness, and to apply that standard to everything would make rational discourse impossible.

They restricted the amount of time a prisoner could be waterboarded, the repetitions, an observer kept an eye on the person being waterboarded for signs of physical o mental harm. Hell, the water they used had to be a certain temperature. So stop with the bullshit claim that the CIA methods were not materially different. Of course they were. Your refusal to acknowledge that fact does not change it.

That's why we are calling you out. Do you have Aspergers or something? (I'm not insulting you, I'm serious) That would explain your difficulty in understanding how people discuss things pretty well.

You don't "discuss" anything in here. You tell people what and how they should think because, in your not so humble opinion, you believe yourself to be absolutely right and anyone that disagrees is horribly wrong. We've seen that behavior from you time and time again in P&N.

So maybe you need to look in the mirror for the source of the problem instead of assuming it's inherent in others?

You're the one that so frequently ends up in threads flailing against a host of people trashing you. Either there's something wrong with everyone else, or there's something wrong with you. Your choice of who to blame is interesting to say the least.

Now that I've gotten you to detail what you think makes it materially different I can show you how absurd your argument is. Nowhere in any of the legal judgments against people convicted of waterboarding is there any mention of the repetition being a determining factor in the decision, nor the amount of time, nor the presence of medical personnel, nor the temperature of the water. It is the act of forcing water into someone's lungs through their nose that was the torture. None of your factors had anything to do with it. Do you have anything actually relevant?

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: eskimospy
Ah ha, so now instead of there being 'no court cases' as you previously falsely claimed, you have now retreated to the argument that you think they won't succeed. I happen to agree that he is unlikely to win, but the ruling will most likely have nothing to do with whether or not the techniques authorized were torture or not.

You are jumping the gun. A judge has agreed to allow a civil suit to proceed. there is no actual case yet.

You keep shrieking about how the CIA program is somehow different and we keep asking you how it is different in a material way from waterboarding in the past that would somehow keep it in bounds. You continue to flee from this question or provide cosmetic differences that do nothing to change the underlying technique.

And you keep insisting that the CIA used waterboarding just as any others have done in the past. The released memos that detail the CIAs methods throws cold water on that claim. Your complete and utter refusal to acknowledge that fact is your problem, not mine.

Christopher Hitchens underwent the mildest form of waterboarding possible and says he still has psychological after effects today. Exactly the sort of 'prolonged mental harm' that torture requires. I guarantee what he underwent was far easier on him than ANYTHING the CIA did. No matter how many people who have undergone it come out and say that it's unequivocally torture, no matter how many organizations who are experts in the matter tell you it's unequivocally torture, you keep clinging to your claim that because of cosmetic changes it's somehow differen't and there's no way to know! What is wrong with your ability to use reason? You can't possibly apply these standards to the rest of your life, because you would be dead by now if you had. How much more evidence needs to be shoved in your face before you can make the rational conclusion?

That Hitchen's opinion, not a legal ruling on the issue.

btw, has Hitchens exhibited any prolonged mental harm from his ordeal? If so, maybe he can make a legal case that waterboarding is torture. If not, his opinion doesn't jibe with US law regarding the definition of "torture."

There's no such thing as 'allowing a case to proceed' without there being a case. Judges can only rule on motions put before them, and if you're going to somehow divide these motions to sue as something other than a 'case' you are using a different definition of 'case' than anyone else on the planet.

Once again you mention that the CIA is somehow using a different form of waterboarding. Once again I will request that you show how this form is materially different than previous implementations. You've been asked this over and over and over.

Yes, Hitchens specifically has stated that he has experienced prolonged mental harm from his ordeal. Again, our disagreement centers around one of the elements of proving waterboarding to be torture, specifically that of it causing 'prolonged mental harm'. I have provided you with direct evidence of this technique causing it in his case, and you know as well as I do that his experience was kinder than anything we did to actual detainees. He states that he now has mild panic attacks when forced to breathe hard and has recurring nightmares of being smothered. That is 'prolonged mental harm' by any rational definition.

So in short, if you are looking for proof of the technique causing 'prolonged mental harm' no matter how mild its implementation, there you have it. That is the element of the crime in dispute, and now hopefully we can dispense with that dispute.

The only thing that was ruled on was that Padilla is allowed to sue. The judge did not rule on any merits of the Padilla's complaint. Currently his lawyer hasn't officially filed a suit so there is no case as of yet. He'll STILL have to find a judge willing to rule on the suit when he actually tries to file.

Once again, I have already told you a while back how the CIA method was different from previous implementations. Fern mentioned it before I did. I don't give a rat's ass about your inconsequential qualifier of "materially." That's nothing more than your own lame attempt to narrow the scope so you can claim 'Aha, I don't see anything "materially" different. You lose.' Homey don't play that assinine shit.

Hitchens specifically stated that he experienced prolonged mental harm? Link please, because I can't seem to find any such statement from him. Instead he claims to suffer from panic attacks and night terrors, which is unlikely to qualify as prolonged mental harm. Your little hand waving final statement is hilarious as well. It's typical eskimospy. eskimospy has spoken, the last thing that need be said has been said. Man you're just the height of arrogance.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: eskimospy
Ah ha, so now instead of there being 'no court cases' as you previously falsely claimed, you have now retreated to the argument that you think they won't succeed. I happen to agree that he is unlikely to win, but the ruling will most likely have nothing to do with whether or not the techniques authorized were torture or not.

You are jumping the gun. A judge has agreed to allow a civil suit to proceed. there is no actual case yet.

You keep shrieking about how the CIA program is somehow different and we keep asking you how it is different in a material way from waterboarding in the past that would somehow keep it in bounds. You continue to flee from this question or provide cosmetic differences that do nothing to change the underlying technique.

And you keep insisting that the CIA used waterboarding just as any others have done in the past. The released memos that detail the CIAs methods throws cold water on that claim. Your complete and utter refusal to acknowledge that fact is your problem, not mine.

Christopher Hitchens underwent the mildest form of waterboarding possible and says he still has psychological after effects today. Exactly the sort of 'prolonged mental harm' that torture requires. I guarantee what he underwent was far easier on him than ANYTHING the CIA did. No matter how many people who have undergone it come out and say that it's unequivocally torture, no matter how many organizations who are experts in the matter tell you it's unequivocally torture, you keep clinging to your claim that because of cosmetic changes it's somehow differen't and there's no way to know! What is wrong with your ability to use reason? You can't possibly apply these standards to the rest of your life, because you would be dead by now if you had. How much more evidence needs to be shoved in your face before you can make the rational conclusion?

That Hitchen's opinion, not a legal ruling on the issue.

btw, has Hitchens exhibited any prolonged mental harm from his ordeal? If so, maybe he can make a legal case that waterboarding is torture. If not, his opinion doesn't jibe with US law regarding the definition of "torture."

There's no such thing as 'allowing a case to proceed' without there being a case. Judges can only rule on motions put before them, and if you're going to somehow divide these motions to sue as something other than a 'case' you are using a different definition of 'case' than anyone else on the planet.

Once again you mention that the CIA is somehow using a different form of waterboarding. Once again I will request that you show how this form is materially different than previous implementations. You've been asked this over and over and over.

Yes, Hitchens specifically has stated that he has experienced prolonged mental harm from his ordeal. Again, our disagreement centers around one of the elements of proving waterboarding to be torture, specifically that of it causing 'prolonged mental harm'. I have provided you with direct evidence of this technique causing it in his case, and you know as well as I do that his experience was kinder than anything we did to actual detainees. He states that he now has mild panic attacks when forced to breathe hard and has recurring nightmares of being smothered. That is 'prolonged mental harm' by any rational definition.

So in short, if you are looking for proof of the technique causing 'prolonged mental harm' no matter how mild its implementation, there you have it. That is the element of the crime in dispute, and now hopefully we can dispense with that dispute.

The only thing that was ruled on was that Padilla is allowed to sue. The judge did not rule on any merits of the Padilla's complaint. Currently his lawyer hasn't officially filed a suit so there is no case as of yet. He'll STILL have to find a judge willing to rule on the suit when he actually tries to file.

Once again, I have already told you a while back how the CIA method was different from previous implementations. Fern mentioned it before I did. I don't give a rat's ass about your inconsequential qualifier of "materially." That's nothing more than your own lame attempt to narrow the scope so you can claim 'Aha, I don't see anything "materially" different. You lose.' Homey don't play that assinine shit.

Hitchens specifically stated that he experienced prolonged mental harm? Link please, because I can't seem to find any such statement from him. Instead he claims to suffer from panic attacks and night terrors, which is unlikely to qualify as prolonged mental harm. Your little hand waving final statement is hilarious as well. It's typical eskimospy. eskimospy has spoken, the last thing that need be said has been said. Man you're just the height of arrogance.

Wait, what? You don't think that panic attacks and night terrors qualifies as 'prolonged mental harm'? You can't possibly be serious. Recurring panic attacks qualify as a disorder under the DSM-IV, so apparently psychiatrists think that it's a problem. On what earthly basis are you claiming that these are 'unlikely to qualify as prolonged mental harm'? Probably the same basis from which you've brought the rest of your arguments... absolutely zero evidence.

You don't have to give a rat's ass about my qualifier of a material difference. Rational people do, but I already know you aren't rational about this... you've long ago lost the ability to look at this issue that way. Hell, or even look at discussions with me that way. You the guy who threatened to beat me up one time for making fun of you. You, a middle aged man. If they use a pink rag to help smother the person instead of a blue one that's a difference, but the difference is immaterial. None of the qualifiers Fern mentioned in any way influenced the details of the crime that people had previously been convicted under. I don't care what game you play, I already know you'll never admit to being wrong. You're TLC.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: eskimospy
Wait, what? You don't think that panic attacks and night terrors qualifies as 'prolonged mental harm'? You can't possibly be serious. Recurring panic attacks qualify as a disorder under the DSM-IV, so apparently psychiatrists think that it's a problem. On what earthly basis are you claiming that these are 'unlikely to qualify as prolonged mental harm'? Probably the same basis from which you've brought the rest of your arguments... absolutely zero evidence.

I guess this is where I should be taking a ploy straight from the eskimospy debating handbook where I ask if you are backtracking since your original claim was that Hitchen "specifically" said he suffered prolonged mental harm. I won't do that though because it's stupid on the face of it.

No, I don't think it qualifies because it has to be "severe" and I'm not convinced panic attacks and night terrors qualify as "severe."

You don't have to give a rat's ass about my qualifier of a material difference. Rational people do, but I already know you aren't rational about this... you've long ago lost the ability to look at this issue that way. Hell, or even look at discussions with me that way. You the guy who threatened to beat me up one time for making fun of you. You, a middle aged man. If they use a pink rag to help smother the person instead of a blue one that's a difference, but the difference is immaterial. None of the qualifiers Fern mentioned in any way influenced the details of the crime that people had previously been convicted under. I don't care what game you play, I already know you'll never admit to being wrong. You're TLC.

Look, bubba. You are the only one between the two of us that can possibly be wrong in the first place. You keep insisting only one outcome is possible while I entertain that both are possible. You still can't quite grasp that there's a possibility, if this issue ever even goes to court, that a court might not find that the CIA method was illegal and qualifies as torture.

The problem here is that you are way too cocksure and imagine you somehow can divine the legal future, a future that likely will never come in the first place. Your ego is getting the better of you in this discussion and this thread has really put it on display.

But thanks for demonstrating clearly to so many what some of us already knew about you.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

You keep insisting only one outcome is possible while I entertain that both are possible.

U.S. law says you are wrong. International law says you are wrong. History proves you are wrong.

In continuing to pimp the same tired bullshit you dishonor every human value our nation has held sacred for over 230 years. You dishonor our nation, our history and our people. You demean the value of every American life sacrificed in the name of defending our nation against the very evil you would have us become.

You are one with evil embodied in the horrific crimes committed by your EX-Traitor In Cheif and his criminal cabal of traitors, murderers, tortureres and war criminals.

You are pathetic, you are sick, you are degenerate and you are dangerous. :|

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: eskimospy
Wait, what? You don't think that panic attacks and night terrors qualifies as 'prolonged mental harm'? You can't possibly be serious. Recurring panic attacks qualify as a disorder under the DSM-IV, so apparently psychiatrists think that it's a problem. On what earthly basis are you claiming that these are 'unlikely to qualify as prolonged mental harm'? Probably the same basis from which you've brought the rest of your arguments... absolutely zero evidence.

I guess this is where I should be taking a ploy straight from the eskimospy debating handbook where I ask if you are backtracking since your original claim was that Hitchen "specifically" said he suffered prolonged mental harm. I won't do that though because it's stupid on the face of it.

No, I don't think it qualifies because it has to be "severe" and I'm not convinced panic attacks and night terrors qualify as "severe."

You don't have to give a rat's ass about my qualifier of a material difference. Rational people do, but I already know you aren't rational about this... you've long ago lost the ability to look at this issue that way. Hell, or even look at discussions with me that way. You the guy who threatened to beat me up one time for making fun of you. You, a middle aged man. If they use a pink rag to help smother the person instead of a blue one that's a difference, but the difference is immaterial. None of the qualifiers Fern mentioned in any way influenced the details of the crime that people had previously been convicted under. I don't care what game you play, I already know you'll never admit to being wrong. You're TLC.

Look, bubba. You are the only one between the two of us that can possibly be wrong in the first place. You keep insisting only one outcome is possible while I entertain that both are possible. You still can't quite grasp that there's a possibility, if this issue ever even goes to court, that a court might not find that the CIA method was illegal and qualifies as torture.

The problem here is that you are way too cocksure and imagine you somehow can divine the legal future, a future that likely will never come in the first place. Your ego is getting the better of you in this discussion and this thread has really put it on display.

But thanks for demonstrating clearly to so many what some of us already knew about you.

If you want to view the endorsement of false equivalence and a false dichotomy as somehow insulating you from being wrong that's fine. You're just deluding yourself, but that's fine. Once again you are simply using creationist debate tactics, asking that both sides be given consideration despite the fact that only one has evidence to support it. I am most certainly not saying that only one outcome is possible. There are hundreds of possible outcomes. What I'm saying is that the waterboarding is torture under US law and that you have provided zero evidence to support your claim that the CIA's use of the waterboard differed from the descriptions of the crime as given by the court in those previous convictions.

Saying something that has been repeatedly ruled a crime is suddenly not a crime without addressing the attributes of it that led to prior convictions is not rational and is not a reasonable argument. I've asked you over and over again to address it. If you could have, you would have. I'm sorry that I require you to provide 'evidence' to support your positions, particularly when they run counter to the evaluation of nearly every expert on the planet along with the entirety of established legal precedent. It must be my ego talking. Want to threaten to beat me up again?

 

[Baked]

I was listening to NPR today and they're talking about CIA doing water board torture on terrorists. Apparently it doesn't work on the al-queda terrorists. I think they're just doing it wrong. They should send some CIA agents to China and take some "torturing your prisoner and getting what you want" courses.

 

[LunarRay]

Does anyone have an update on Spain v Bybee et. al. ?

"The Spanish criminal court now may seek the arrest of any of the targets if they travel to Spain or any of the 24 nations that participate in the European extraditions convention (it would have to follow a more formal extradition process in other countries beyond the 24). The Bush lawyers will therefore run a serious risk of being apprehended if they travel outside of the United States."

This link
have named Bybee, Yoo, Feith, Addington, Gonzales, Haynes and I expect others as being 'about' to be...

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: Baked

I was listening to NPR today and they're talking about CIA doing water board torture on terrorists. Apparently it doesn't work on the al-queda terrorists. I think they're just doing it wrong. They should send some CIA agents to China and take some "torturing your prisoner and getting what you want" courses.

I hope you were being sarcastic, and, of course, there's the Bushwhackos' idiocy, front and center. "Torturing your prisoner and getting what you want" doesn't apply if what you want is the truth. :Q

To avoid sending you all the way back to my post in this thread, three days ago, I'll repost the following, which I've posted also in other threads...

In 2002, Donald Rumsfeld's attorney, William Haynes, requested info from S.E.R.E., the U.S. Airforce's Survival, Evasion, Resistance, Escape program regarding administration's intended use of "enhanced interrogation" techniques.

This is a small specialized career field in the US Air Force comprised of approximately 325 enlisted personnel. Air Force SERE Specialists train aircrew members and high risk of capture personnel from all branches of the military. The students are trained in skills which allow them to survive in all climatic conditions as well as how to survive while being held captive.

Per their name, the purpose of S.E.R.E. is to train our troops who may be captured to survive possible torture by, and to resist giving any helpful information to, our enemies. Their mission is specifically NOT to describe or define methods to be used by our own intelligence agencies to interrogate possible enemies captured by U.S. forces.

S.E.R.E is the specific military group tasked to understand and teach our troops to resist torture.

S.E.R.E is NOT tasked to develop means and methods of torturing those we capture.

S.E.R.E's report to Haynes explicitly:

1. labels "enhanced interrogation" techniques TORTURE.
   
2. says "enhanced interrogation" techniques DO NOT WORK.
   
3. says "enhanced interrogation" techniques could have "potential impact on the safety of U.S. personnel captured by current and future adversaries."

Here's the complete report from S.E.R.E. to Haynes.

OPERATIONAL ISSUES PERTAINING TO THE USE of PHYSICAL/PSYCHOLIGCAL [sic] COERCION [sic] IN INTERROGATION
An Overview

(U) INTRODUCTION: Throughout history, interrogation has frequently involved the application of various physical anellor psychological means of inducing duress. The objective of this application was to elicit information, compel the prisoner to produce propaganda, submit to political conversion, and or as a vehicle for intimidation. Throughout most of recorded history, the rights of prisoners were limited at best. The concept of international law that governs the treatment of prisoners is a modem phenomenon that remains the topic of continuing debate. This discussion is not intended to address the myriad legal, ethical, or moral implications of torture; rather, this document will seeks to describe the key operational considerations relative to the use of physical and psychological pressures.

(U) PRIMARY OBJECTIVE of INTERROGATION: The primary objective of interrogation within the context of intelligence is the collecting of timely, accurate, and reliable information. The question that should immediately come to mind is whether the application of physical and/or psychological duress will enhance the interrogator's ability to achieve this objective. The requirement to obtain information from an uncooperative source as quickly as possible-in time to prevent, for example, an impending terrorist attack that could result in loss of life has been forwarded as a compelling argument for the use of torture. Conceptually, proponents envision the application of torture as a means to expedite the exploitation process. In essence, physical and/or psychological duress are viewed as an alternative to the more time-consuming conventional interrogation process. The error inherent in this line of thinking is the assumption that, through torture, the interrogator can extract reliable and accurate intelligence. History and a consideration of human behavior would appear to refute this assumption. (NOTE: The application of physical and or psychological duress will likely result in physical compliance. Additionally, prisoners may answer and/or comply as a result of threats of torture. However, the reliability and accuracy information must be questioned.)

(U) OPERATIONAL CONCERNS:

(U) As noted previously, upwards of 90 percent of interrogations have been successful through the exclusive use of a direct approach, where a degree of rapport is established with the prisoner. Once any means of duress has been purposefully applied to the prisoner, the formerly cooperative relationship can not be reestablished. In addition, the prisoner's level of resolve to resist cooperating with the interrogator will likely be increased as a result of harsh or brutal treatment.

(U) For skilled interrogators, the observation of subtle nonverbal behaviors provides an invaluable assessment of the prisoner's psychological and emotional state. This offers important insights into how the prisoner can be most effectively leveraged into compliance. Further, it often enables the interrogator to form a reasonably accurate assessment of the prisoner's veracity in answering pertinent questions. The prisoner's physical response to the pain inflicted by an interrogator would obliterate such nuance and deprive the interrogator of these key tools.

(U) The key operational deficits related to the use of torture is its impact on the reliability and accuracy of the information provided. If an interrogator produces information that resulted from the application of physical and psychological duress, the reliability and accuracy of this information is in doubt. In other words, a subject in extreme pain may provide an answer, any answer, or many answers in order to get the pain to stop.

1. (U) In numerous cases, interrogation has been used as a tool of mass intimidation by oppressive regimes. Often, the interrogators operate from the assumption (often incorrect) that a prisoner possesses information of interest. When the prisoner is not forthcoming, physical and psychological pressures are increased. Eventually, the prisoner will provide answers that they feel the interrogator is seeking. In this instance, the information is neither reliable nor accurate (note: A critical element of the interrogation process is to assess the prisoner's knowledgeability. A reasoned assessment of what the prisoner should know, based on experience, training, position, and access should drive the questioning process.)

(U) Another important aspect of the debate over the use of torture is the consideration of its potential impact on the safety of U.S. personnel captured by current and future adversaries. The unintended consequence of a U.S. policy that provides for the torture of prisoners is that it could be used by our adversaries as justification for the torture of captured U.S. personnel. While this would have little impact on those regimes or organizations that already employ torture as a standard means of operating, it could serve as the critical impetus for those that are currently weighing the potential gains and risks associated with the torture of U.S. persons to accept torture as an acceptable option.

(U) CONCLUSION: The application of extreme physical and/or psychological duress (torture) has some serious operational deficits, most notably, the potential to result in unreliable information. This is not to say that the manipulation of the subject's environment in an effort to dislocate their expectations and induce emotional responses is not effective. On the contrary, systematic manipulation of the subject's environment is likely to result in a subject that can be exploited for intelligence information and other national strategic concerns.

HQ JPRA·CC/25 Jut 02JOSN 654-2509
CLASSIFIED BY: MULTIPLE SOURCES
REASON: EO 12958 (A, C)
DECLASSIFY: Xi or X4

Key sentences and phrases:

• The question that should immediately come to mind is whether the application of physical and/or psychological duress will enhance the interrogator's ability to achieve this objective.
  
• The error inherent in this line of thinking is the assumption that, through torture, the interrogator can extract reliable and accurate intelligence. History and a consideration of human behavior would appear to refute this assumption.
  
• The application of physical and or psychological duress will likely result in physical compliance. Additionally, prisoners may answer and/or comply as a result of threats of torture. However, the reliability and accuracy information must be questioned.
  
• Once any means of duress has been purposefully applied to the prisoner, the formerly cooperative relationship can not be reestablished. In addition, the prisoner's level of resolve to resist cooperating with the interrogator will likely be increased as a result of harsh or brutal treatment.
  
• For skilled interrogators, the observation of subtle nonverbal behaviors provides an invaluable assessment of the prisoner's psychological and emotional state. This offers important insights into how the prisoner can be most effectively leveraged into compliance. Further, it often enables the interrogator to form a reasonably accurate assessment of the prisoner's veracity in answering pertinent questions. The prisoner's physical response to the pain inflicted by an interrogator would obliteratesuch nuance and deprive the interrogator of these key tools.
  
• ... a subject in extreme pain may provide an answer, any answer, or many answers in order to get the pain to stop.
  
• The unintended consequence of a U.S. policy that provides for the torture of prisoners is that it could be used by our adversaries as justification for the torture of captured U.S. personnel.

There you have the express statement from S.E.R.E., THE authority on the subject, that labels the "enhanced interrogation" techniques defined and specified in Haynes' request, including waterboarding, as TORTURE. It is immoral, it is unethical, it is illegal under U.S. and international law, and it isn't the least bit effective for the purpose of gaining useful, accurate information.

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: LunarRay
Ok... so really all you are saying is; Gonzales, Mukasey, OLC and whichever Legal Scholars supportive of the OLC opinion got it right..

My position is they did not... They did not under any of the Status senarios enjoyed by the detainees... (POW, Criminal etc. under US umbrella or not)

Now for the reasons they did not get it right we need not debate further.. the entire body of legal opinion rendered by folks far more able than you or I have done that for us... We agree or not... It will be for the Final determiners to decide that issue...

So... ergo, I support your right to that view... heck two or more Attorneys General and some top notch lawyers do also... It would seem to me that the Lee case ought to have been dispositive to the chore the OLC was given.

At least we can kind of agree on something.

First, no, I'm not claiming that they got it right. I'm saying they might have gotten it right. I'm not in a position to state my opinion as fact, nor is anyone else in this place.

LR Responds: Right.... They might have gotten it right but they were about 60/70 odd yrs too late and in the wrong venue to have been certain to have gotten it right.

As far as the legal opinion goes, I don't put a lot of stock into citing the numbers that have spoken out against using waterboarding. Now, I'm not saying their opinion is worthless. No doubt their opinion is as valid as any other opinion. It has to do with the penchant for people to be outspoken when they are against something. People love to bitch. People don't like speaking out in support as much. NHC is one hot-button issue where that is readily apparent. iow, issues, particularly emotional ones, tend to attract detractors in far larger numbers.

LR Responds: Ah .. well.. yeah.. people will be people all right.. Some defend the indefensible using tactics that confound. Some confound using indefensible tactics. And still others sit back and ask for someone to pass the pepper..
I agree in principle that we each are allowed to have our own opinion the value of which is enhanced by factors a listener might find credible.
I also tend to agree that folks tend not to argue in support of an issue because it stands on its own two feet... they are secure in that knowledge, usually... Let the facts speak for themsleves.. so to speak.
Waterboarding, for instance... folks don't often exclaim... wait.. Does the UN Charter apply to us. Are we required as a matter of Law comply with that treaty? Right here in the USA regarding Citizens of the USA or anyone for that matter? hmmmmm

All we can do is sit and wait. For whatever reasons, the legal scholars in the Obama admin have chosen, thus far, not to pursue the issue of whether the EITs were legal or illegal. All we can do is assume the why of that as well.

LR Responds: Well... EITs by definition we already know that answer... it seems. Most anything is legal if implemented until some judicial event occurs to say it ain't and we've a bag full of that... All over the world are the answers to these questions. Treaties sorta become our law too... it seems.

I simply have a major issue with looking at the OLC duck... watching it waddle back and forth betwixt the Whitehouse and Justice... Quacking obsurd (imo) Quackery and then see it referred to as a beautiful Swan... I can't conceive of a duck ever looking like a swan... to anyone but the blind - no reference to you - but dang it... Ducks ain't Swans ... but to an alien they may be simply birds...

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: LunarRay

Ducks ain't Swans ... but to an alien they may be simply birds...

That alien may even think that bird was a chicken... Or at least, it might TasteLike one. :laugh:

 

[GarfieldtheCat]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Evidence or "real" facts. lol. All I see from you are the same old talking points. Where is your evidence that the CIA waterboarding method will be ruled illegal? It's like exclaiming in the early 1900s, black and women will never get the right to vote. No court has ever allowed it. It's a shallow and stupid argument. Things change, situations change. In the case of CIA waterboarding, courts are presented with a different situation that has not been encountered previously.

btw, you CONTINUE to misrepresent what I am saying. I AM NOT FUCKING SAYING that waterboarding is legal. But your so blinded by your bias that you still can't figure out that little fact. You're so drunk on your own kool-aid that you can't look around and ascertain what I am saying because you have no clue how to respond, which is precisely why you resort to the tiresome old talking points on waterboarding instead. You continue to imagine that you're making some kind of rebuttal to me when all you are doing is looking foolish because you apparently can't quite grasp the points I am making.

No, we're saying your points are dumb.

For the purposes of rational discussion there is zero evidence that the CIA's method of waterboarding materially differed from the types of waterboarding that people were convicted of in the past. Because of this, reasonable people can say that the CIA's methods were almost certainly illegal. While it cannot be said with certainty, not much in life can be. To say that you can't make a determination because you are not 100% certain is silliness, and to apply that standard to everything would make rational discourse impossible.

That's why we are calling you out. Do you have Aspergers or something? (I'm not insulting you, I'm serious) That would explain your difficulty in understanding how people discuss things pretty well.

This.

As long as you are pouring water down a guys throat, it's waterboarding and torture. Of course TLC will never admit it, but it's pretty irrelevant, since he has already admitted that waterboarding and torture is OK since "they deserve it" for committing terrible acts, so any logical discussion goes out the window.

I don't know what is worse really, him trying to say waterboarding is legal by his magic "it's different, I just can't tell you how" , or the fact that he really doesn't care, since "they deserve it". I think the latter is worse, since it really goes to the emotional scared response, and it throws all rational thinking out of the window. And that response is just what Bush and his group count on, so they could get away with whatever they want.

But you are right, he will never admit he is wrong, or that he is afraid, despite his own posts here shows his disregard for our laws. Sad really.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: LunarRay

Ducks ain't Swans ... but to an alien they may be simply birds...

That alien may even think that bird was a chicken... Or at least, it might TasteLike one. :laugh:

I'll take your word on what aliens think, Harvey. No doubt you've met them.

 

[LunarRay]

Ya.. know... I've thought a lot about what I'd do if I knew that a certain Al Q guy in my custody had info that could save the lives of 3000 or 2000 or even 2 American lives. I wrestled with the law and what is right and to believe in our American values and came away from that thinking that IF I had that potential confronting me that I'd have to act on it...
I reconciled that he was the enemy trying to kill Americans in a war... a conflict with real guns and where people die... It didn't matter at that point how it all began but, rather, that it was real and now.

I'd have gotten the very best minds on interrogation and techniques and employed them what ever they were. Then I'd have asked if I violated that persons rights... and if so... oh well... I did it..
I hope that I'll never be in that position but if I were... I'd do what I could to save lives first and hope that mitigated what would be my struggle with what is right and wrong...

IF only the others who may have felt the same way would fess up... I would understand... I would hate the sin... but forgive the sinner...

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: LunarRay
Ya.. know... I've thought a lot about what I'd do if I knew that a certain Al Q guy in my custody had info that could save the lives of 3000 or 2000 or even 2 American lives. I wrestled with the law and what is right and to believe in our American values and came away from that thinking that IF I had that potential confronting me that I'd have to act on it...
I reconciled that he was the enemy trying to kill Americans in a war... a conflict with real guns and where people die... It didn't matter at that point how it all began but, rather, that it was real and now.

I'd have gotten the very best minds on interrogation and techniques and employed them what ever they were. Then I'd have asked if I violated that persons rights... and if so... oh well... I did it..
I hope that I'll never be in that position but if I were... I'd do what I could to save lives first and hope that mitigated what would be my struggle with what is right and wrong...

IF only the others who may have felt the same way would fess up... I would understand... I would hate the sin... but forgive the sinner...

It's too bad most people don't put such thought into how to avoid the wars in the first place - who they vote for, the policies they support.

That's the easy part - vote for 'the guy you want to have a beer with', at leas the one you think you would based on the manufactured image by the media team.

And then the guy you vote for, always telling you you did the right thing, follows an agenda that might put you in the position of deciding whether to torture someone.

The point to this reply isn't to say what I think of the conclusion you reached - one which is understandable. But now put yourself in the captured guy's shoes, too.

How many wars have we fought where the guys on each side have a lot more in common than they do with the leaders who put them there for the usual reasons of greed.

Maybe it was a President who thought we'd like half of Mexico, or maybe it was corporations telling the President they'd like a ruler put out, or maybe Cheney's oil policy.

Or maybe it was when you are fighitng to get out from under a greedy king, like Geore Washington, who ordered that prisoners not be tortured for infomration.

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: LunarRay
Ya.. know... I've thought a lot about what I'd do if I knew that a certain Al Q guy in my custody had info that could save the lives of 3000 or 2000 or even 2 American lives. I wrestled with the law and what is right and to believe in our American values and came away from that thinking that IF I had that potential confronting me that I'd have to act on it...
I reconciled that he was the enemy trying to kill Americans in a war... a conflict with real guns and where people die... It didn't matter at that point how it all began but, rather, that it was real and now.

I'd have gotten the very best minds on interrogation and techniques and employed them what ever they were. Then I'd have asked if I violated that persons rights... and if so... oh well... I did it..
I hope that I'll never be in that position but if I were... I'd do what I could to save lives first and hope that mitigated what would be my struggle with what is right and wrong...

IF only the others who may have felt the same way would fess up... I would understand... I would hate the sin... but forgive the sinner...

It's too bad most people don't put such thought into how to avoid the wars in the first place - who they vote for, the policies they support.

That's the easy part - vote for 'the guy you want to have a beer with', at leas the one you think you would based on the manufactured image by the media team.

And then the guy you vote for, always telling you you did the right thing, follows an agenda that might put you in the position of deciding whether to torture someone.

The point to this reply isn't to say what I think of the conclusion you reached - one which is understandable. But now put yourself in the captured guy's shoes, too.

How many wars have we fought where the guys on each side have a lot more in common than they do with the leaders who put them there for the usual reasons of greed.

Maybe it was a President who thought we'd like half of Mexico, or maybe it was corporations telling the President they'd like a ruler put out, or maybe Cheney's oil policy.

Or maybe it was when you are fighitng to get out from under a greedy king, like Geore Washington, who ordered that prisoners not be tortured for infomration.

I have been in the 'other' (reference to the bold above) guys shoes regarding the idealism but not captured bit but knew some who were... going to someone's homeland and helping destroy his home... his family, his dreams and all the rest of it. I believed in the going and was incredibly upset at the tactics employed against our guys... they were the enemy... why don't they just die... How could they torture our guys.. animals they were. Then I grew up... and stuff became more colored... less black and white.. What I say today is not what I'd say back when... not hardly.
I'd not want them to torture my guys today and would consider their actions crimes... but still I'd do what I said I'd do cuz this is all illusion... I'm not in a position of power.. or under threat of torture.. (except the reading of some posts.. kiddin) but sittin here in my chair I can say anything... I'd hope I'd do the right thing if I was sitting in the chair of power... but who knows..

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: LunarRay
I have been in the 'other' (reference to the bold above) guys shoes regarding the idealism but not captured bit but knew some who were... going to someone's homeland and helping destroy his home... his family, his dreams and all the rest of it. I believed in the going and was incredibly upset at the tactics employed against our guys... they were the enemy... why don't they just die... How could they torture our guys.. animals they were. Then I grew up... and stuff became more colored... less black and white.. What I say today is not what I'd say back when... not hardly.
I'd not want them to torture my guys today and would consider their actions crimes... but still I'd do what I said I'd do cuz this is all illusion... I'm not in a position of power.. or under threat of torture.. (except the reading of some posts.. kiddin) but sittin here in my chair I can say anything... I'd hope I'd do the right thing if I was sitting in the chair of power... but who knows..

There's one bit of truth you can rely on in regard to sitting in that chair. Regardless of your decision there would be plenty of armchair power wannabes at the ready, poised to criticize that decision, insist their viewpoint was the correct one, and claim you're absolutely the worst power chair sitter in all of history.

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: LunarRay
I have been in the 'other' (reference to the bold above) guys shoes regarding the idealism but not captured bit but knew some who were... going to someone's homeland and helping destroy his home... his family, his dreams and all the rest of it. I believed in the going and was incredibly upset at the tactics employed against our guys... they were the enemy... why don't they just die... How could they torture our guys.. animals they were. Then I grew up... and stuff became more colored... less black and white.. What I say today is not what I'd say back when... not hardly.
I'd not want them to torture my guys today and would consider their actions crimes... but still I'd do what I said I'd do cuz this is all illusion... I'm not in a position of power.. or under threat of torture.. (except the reading of some posts.. kiddin) but sittin here in my chair I can say anything... I'd hope I'd do the right thing if I was sitting in the chair of power... but who knows..

There's one bit of truth you can rely on in regard to sitting in that chair. Regardless of your decision there would be plenty of armchair power wannabes at the ready, poised to criticize that decision, insist their viewpoint was the correct one. and claim you're absolutely the worst power chair sitter in all of history.

I wonder if I'd even consider that fact... (it is a fact, no bout a doubt it).. Probably I would consider it... seems I always have... It is hard to 'feel' the reality of that kind of situation the angst the flow the lives the penalty all of that makes goose bumps as I sit here pondering.. To have in one hand the lives of 3000 and in the other the rights of 1....
The scales move up and down like a seesaw... up and down... up and down... What strength one must have to actually decide on that issue... OR>> Be driven by something greater... what ever that is...

 

[Lemon law]

Well your opinions are duly noted TLC, as for me I tire are arguing with you, and I will await the results, for not only that Paul Havey rest of the story but the end of the story.

Need I remind you, in terms of your other fanciful prediction, you do not have a good predictive track record TLC.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: LunarRay

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: LunarRay
I have been in the 'other' (reference to the bold above) guys shoes regarding the idealism but not captured bit but knew some who were... going to someone's homeland and helping destroy his home... his family, his dreams and all the rest of it. I believed in the going and was incredibly upset at the tactics employed against our guys... they were the enemy... why don't they just die... How could they torture our guys.. animals they were. Then I grew up... and stuff became more colored... less black and white.. What I say today is not what I'd say back when... not hardly.
I'd not want them to torture my guys today and would consider their actions crimes... but still I'd do what I said I'd do cuz this is all illusion... I'm not in a position of power.. or under threat of torture.. (except the reading of some posts.. kiddin) but sittin here in my chair I can say anything... I'd hope I'd do the right thing if I was sitting in the chair of power... but who knows..

There's one bit of truth you can rely on in regard to sitting in that chair. Regardless of your decision there would be plenty of armchair power wannabes at the ready, poised to criticize that decision, insist their viewpoint was the correct one. and claim you're absolutely the worst power chair sitter in all of history.

I wonder if I'd even consider that fact... (it is a fact, no bout a doubt it).. Probably I would consider it... seems I always have... It is hard to 'feel' the reality of that kind of situation the angst the flow the lives the penalty all of that makes goose bumps as I sit here pondering.. To have in one hand the lives of 3000 and in the other the rights of 1....
The scales move up and down like a seesaw... up and down... up and down... What strength one must have to actually decide on that issue... OR>> Be driven by something greater... what ever that is...

The strength involved in making that decision pales in comparison to having to live with whatever decision you make.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
Well your opinions are duly noted TLC, as for me I tire are arguing with you, and I will await the results, for not only that Paul Havey rest of the story but the end of the story.

Need I remind you, in terms of your other fanciful prediction, you do not have a good predictive track record TLC.

We'll see who's right eventually, LL.

There's one thing I can predict right now. I doubt you'll be happy with those results.

 

[LunarRay]

TLC said
"The strength involved in making that decision pales in comparison to having to live with whatever decision you make."

Now ain't that the truth...

I raised my grandkids... and now have a 2 yr old greatgranddaughter... who calls me Gumpster... She's learning to say Grumpster... hehehehhehe She ran in here to say hi to me while I was reading a post... or I should say reading my most previous post.. about the seesaw going up and down... In that instant I knew what I'd have done... I've no doubt now... Mr. Al Q would have divulged what he knew... dam his rights... or the legality of it all... he's conspiring to kill, if not my, someone's kids, grandkids or great grand kids...
With that anger in mind I'd have violated any law to save the lives of Americans... Sorry.. but that is what it is all about... And although I love the law... America and what it stands for... Lives are worth more than rights...