Senators call for Khalid Sheikh Mohammed Abuse investigation

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: DonVito

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: DonVito
What I find disgusting is rationalizing and minimizing torture and murder in the name of "freedom." Dozens of detainees, including the Iraqi Air Force Chief of Staff (who was beaten to death), have been fatally tortured since 9/11, according to the DoD Inspector General. It's not as though all we've done is water boarding.

I will never diminish the seriousness of the crimes uncovered by the IG; but, I do take issue with those who consistently present such examples as the rule, rather than the exception.

I'm all for punishing those interrogators who deserve it, and I am genuinely saddened by the overall damage those cases have done to the DoD's image; but those of you who continue to purport this as the norm, or the rule, must also be ridiculed and corrected.

The problem is that we, the taxpaying public, have no way of knowing what the "norm" is, since for the most part the torture is outsourced through extraordinary rendition or the use of civilian contractors. I don't disagree that generally military interrogators are principled people who do their jobs ethically and professionally, but the reality is that these interrogators are denied many high-value subjects, who are instead deliberately sent to countries that do not criminalize torture, or interrogated by contractors/mercenaries.

How do you feel about threatening detainees with extradition to a "not so friendly" place? Or threatening to hand them over to the local police if they continue to be uncooperative?

What if the threat of such a trip, based on pre-conceived notions the detainee may have of said place - NOT on explicit details given by the interrogator - is enough to get them to speak? Is that OK? Does that constitute "torture"?

just curious...

scenario #2: What if the "not so friendly place" has legitimate jurisdiction over a detainee? Are we liable for everything that happens to the detainee after we hand them over?

Then, what happens if the "not so friendly place" uncovers information vital to US interests during the course of the detainee's stay with them? Should we say "no thank you," and refuse to accept the information? What if the information this they uncover results in our own desire to speak with the detainee again, and the "not so friendly place" is willing to hand the detainee back over to our control? Should we simply ignore the potentially vital information AND the detainee, all as a matter of principle?

These are some examples of the scenarios you must think long and hard about before passing judgment on our entire intelligence gathering system.

 

[Termagant]

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: DonVito

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: DonVito
What I find disgusting is rationalizing and minimizing torture and murder in the name of "freedom." Dozens of detainees, including the Iraqi Air Force Chief of Staff (who was beaten to death), have been fatally tortured since 9/11, according to the DoD Inspector General. It's not as though all we've done is water boarding.

I will never diminish the seriousness of the crimes uncovered by the IG; but, I do take issue with those who consistently present such examples as the rule, rather than the exception.

I'm all for punishing those interrogators who deserve it, and I am genuinely saddened by the overall damage those cases have done to the DoD's image; but those of you who continue to purport this as the norm, or the rule, must also be ridiculed and corrected.

The problem is that we, the taxpaying public, have no way of knowing what the "norm" is, since for the most part the torture is outsourced through extraordinary rendition or the use of civilian contractors. I don't disagree that generally military interrogators are principled people who do their jobs ethically and professionally, but the reality is that these interrogators are denied many high-value subjects, who are instead deliberately sent to countries that do not criminalize torture, or interrogated by contractors/mercenaries.

How do you feel about threatening detainees with extradition to a "not so friendly" place? Or threatening to hand them over to the local police if they continue to be uncooperative?

What if the threat of such a trip, based on pre-conceived notions the detainee may have of said place - NOT on explicit details given by the interrogator - is enough to get them to speak? Is that OK? Does that constitute "torture"?

just curious...

scenario #2: What if the "not so friendly place" has legitimate jurisdiction over a detainee? Are we liable for everything that happens to the detainee after we hand them over?

Then, what happens if the "not so friendly place" uncovers information vital to US interests during the course of the detainee's stay with them? Should we say "no thank you," and refuse to accept the information? What if the information this other place uncovers results in our own desire to speak with that detainee again, and the "not so friendly placE" is willing to hand the detainee back over to our control? Should we simply ignore the potentially vital information AND the detainee as a matter of principle?

These are some examples of the scenarios you must think long and hard about before passing judgment on our entire intelligence gathering system.

If our principles are so weak, then yes, we should whore American morality out to Syria, Iran, et al. Would we turn over a Chinese person requesting asylum just because China has legitimate jurisdiction over them even though we know they will be tortured? Didn't the American right wing whine about Elian Gonzales going back to Cuba? But when some evidence can conveniently come to light by outsourcing torture, there is encouragement for the policy.

I guess I answered my own question regarding principles when it comes to America's right wing torture lovers.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: palehorse74

How do you feel about threatening detainees with extradition to a "not so friendly" place? Or threatening to hand them over to the local police if they continue to be uncooperative?

What if the threat of such a trip, based on pre-conceived notions the detainee may have of said place - NOT on explicit details given by the interrogator - is enough to get them to speak? Is that OK? Does that constitute "torture"?

just curious...

scenario #2: What if the "not so friendly place" has legitimate jurisdiction over a detainee? Are we liable for everything that happens to the detainee after we hand them over?

Then, what happens if the "not so friendly place" uncovers information vital to US interests during the course of the detainee's stay with them? Should we say "no thank you," and refuse to accept the information? What if the information this they uncover results in our own desire to speak with the detainee again, and the "not so friendly place" is willing to hand the detainee back over to our control? Should we simply ignore the potentially vital information AND the detainee, all as a matter of principle?

These are some examples of the scenarios you must think long and hard about before passing judgment on our entire intelligence gathering system.

I do not consider threatening to release detainees to another authority to be torture. I don't think any of the detainees who've died in US custody have died from fear of rendition - am I wrong?

I believe that once we have custody of a subject, we are responsible for not knowingly extraditing them to a country where they will predictably be tortured. I also believe that the nod-and-wink "lending" of suspects you describe is improper, in that it is essentially just handing people over to be tortured so we don't have to do it ourselves.

I am pretty comfortable with passing judgment on our intelligence gathering system in that it has proven to work SO poorly, be so ridden with incompetence and corruption, and to protect us in such a haphazard way. It's part and parcel with the White House and Pentagon's buffoonish handling of the war - they really are the Gang That Couldn't Shoot Straight.

 

[palehorse]

@ Termagant & DonVito >

so, you are saying that we should refuse other countries who have legitimate jurisdiction over a detainee? even if the US no longer has a right or good reason to hold the person?

example: A gitmo detainee has a warrant for his arrest in Egypt. After two years in US custody at Gitmo, a tribunal determines that we will no longer hold said detainee. Egypt catches wind of this and requests that we send said prisoner back to Egypt to face trial for whatever crime he is wanted for.

Should the US refuse Egypt's legitimate claim of jurisdiction simply because we know that their prisons are not exactly "friendly"...?

That doesnt seem to make much sense in terms of foreign relations, does it?

Sooo, now what? Who gets on your short list of countries we're allowed to send detainees to?

This example is much more realistic than you seem to know...

 

[CitizenKain]

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: CitizenKain

Originally posted by: daniel49
half you morons would have set Hitler free given the chance.

And you would have fought with him, after all, HE tortured people, so he couldn't have been that bad.

Again, when there are chunks of flesh missing tell me and I?ll be the first to call for vengeance against our people who committed REAL crimes. Until that happens, you?re frivolously assaulting this nation during a time of war for political reasons. You undermine our effort to fight militant Islam; you may as well the fighting for them for all the trouble you cause with vicious lies.

Nothing angers me more.

No you wouldn't, you'd wave your tiny American flags and proclaim "Well, we might torture and brutally assault someone, BUT THEY do it worse!" What kind of moral high ground is that? If we send someone to lower Dirthumpistan for the purpose the locals will do anything to someone with a pair of pliers for 100 bucks, how can we look at someone else and claim what they are doing is wrong?

Don't pull that "we're at war" crap. If anything, now is the time when we look at ourselves and reflect one what we are doing. We should look at who we are fighting ideology behind it, and take the higher road. That isn't the same capitulating.

Lets take a step back and examine WW2. Now, a lot of German infantry troops found that it was better to surrender, as they would get a trip back to the US and treated fairly. Now, how many lives were saved when Germans decided to just give up arms and surrender instead of fighting to the last man? Compare that to the Eastern Front, where both sides treated the other like dirt and routinely tortured/starved the captured prisoners. Thats how I want the US to act. I want people to look to the US as a beacon of how things should be. That is how you win.

If you think believing that this country should itself to higher ideals then its enemies is something approaching treason, then you have severe problems.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: palehorse74
@ Termagant & DonVito >

so, you are saying that we should refuse other countries who have legitimate jurisdiction over a detainee? even if the US no longer has a right or good reason to hold the person?

example: A gitmo detainee has a warrant for his arrest in Egypt. After two years in US custody at Gitmo, a tribunal determines that we will no longer hold said detainee. Egypt catches wind of this and requests that we send said prisoner back to Egypt to face trial for whatever crime he is wanted for.

Should the US refuse Egypt's legitimate claim of jurisdiction simply because we know that their prisons are not exactly "friendly"...?

That doesnt seem to make much sense in terms of foreign relations, does it?

Sooo, now what? Who gets on your short list of countries we're allowed to send detainees to?

This example is much more realistic than you seem to know...

I don't see the relevance of your example to this discussion, since that's not what's going on when we knowingly render detainees to, say, Syria, specifically BECAUSE they will be tortured there, for our benefit and at our expense.

To answer your question, though, I think it's a case-specific question, but broadly speaking I think we'd handle that situation like any other extradition of a prisoner, and extradite to any country with whom we have an extradition treaty. I am certainly not conceding that
extraordinary rendition is in any way the same thing as standard extradition of prisoners.

 

[rickn]

so they want to investigate the abuse of a terrorist, but don't do anything to free prisoned border patrol agents keeping out drug dealers? This is one screwed up country we live in. And I imagine it's only gonna get a lot worse.

So when does everyone think the next popular uprising in America will take place? CW2. Better yet, we can just outsource ourselves to the chinese. we will probably be forced to learn mandarin in the next 10yrs anyway

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: DonVito

Originally posted by: palehorse74
@ Termagant & DonVito >

so, you are saying that we should refuse other countries who have legitimate jurisdiction over a detainee? even if the US no longer has a right or good reason to hold the person?

example: A gitmo detainee has a warrant for his arrest in Egypt. After two years in US custody at Gitmo, a tribunal determines that we will no longer hold said detainee. Egypt catches wind of this and requests that we send said prisoner back to Egypt to face trial for whatever crime he is wanted for.

Should the US refuse Egypt's legitimate claim of jurisdiction simply because we know that their prisons are not exactly "friendly"...?

That doesnt seem to make much sense in terms of foreign relations, does it?

Sooo, now what? Who gets on your short list of countries we're allowed to send detainees to?

This example is much more realistic than you seem to know...

I don't see the relevance of your example to this discussion, since that's not what's going on when we knowingly render detainees to, say, Syria, specifically BECAUSE they will be tortured there, for our benefit and at our expense.

To answer your question, though, I think it's a case-specific question, but broadly speaking I think we'd handle that situation like any other extradition of a prisoner, and extradite to any country with whom we have an extradition treaty. I am certainly not conceding that
extraordinary rendition is in any way the same thing as standard extradition of prisoners.

ok, then, on the surface, what's the difference between the two situations? After all, if we send a detainee to Egypt after a fruitless stay in Gitmo, and he suffers torture at their hands, how is that our responsibility?

If said torture reveals information that is vital to US intelligence, should we ignore it? What if Egypt offers the detainee back to us, for further questioning, in light of the newly acquired information? What should we do then? refuse? Write them a stern letter of reprimand?

Do you have any links to proof that the US has ever purposely sent a detainee off to be tortured by another nation? Anything more than pure speculation and assumption would be nice...

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Do you have any links to proof that the US has ever purposely sent a detainee off to be tortured by another nation? Anything more than pure speculation and assumption would be nice...

This has to be a joke, right? You can't seriously be in intel and not know about the Special Removal Unit, can you? This has been common knowledge for years. You can Google "extraordinary rendition," or just start here.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: DonVito

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Do you have any links to proof that the US has ever purposely sent a detainee off to be tortured by another nation? Anything more than pure speculation and assumption would be nice...

This has to be a joke, right? You can't seriously be in intel and not know about the Special Removal Unit, can you? This has been common knowledge for years. You can Google "extraordinary rendition," or just start here.

LOL.. oh, I certainly know all about the various "special units" who exist in the minds of left-wing "journalists" the world over.

What I was hoping for was one shred of genuine proof that we export detainees to be purposely tortured in/by other nations.

My other goal here was to see you admit that there are times when these exact circumstances exist without any ill intent on the part of the US. You did admit as much, so thank you and :thumbsup:

next...

 

[GarfieldtheCat]

How about this?

Or this one?

Or how about this one?

I think there is ample public evidence that shows that the US government was exporting people to various secret locations in various countries to be able to at the very least keep them "beyond the law" if not in fact to explicitly torture them for information.

The EU report shows that over 1000 flights went through the EU, that's a lot of transfers.

The Canadian government also admitted the case of the Canadian citizen linked above.

Exactly what branch of the gov did it is irrelevant, as the US government is ultimately responsible (read: Bush)

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: DonVito

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Do you have any links to proof that the US has ever purposely sent a detainee off to be tortured by another nation? Anything more than pure speculation and assumption would be nice...

This has to be a joke, right? You can't seriously be in intel and not know about the Special Removal Unit, can you? This has been common knowledge for years. You can Google "extraordinary rendition," or just start here.

LOL.. oh, I certainly know all about the various "special units" who exist in the minds of left-wing "journalists" the world over.

What I was hoping for was one shred of genuine proof that we export detainees to be purposely tortured in/by other nations.

My other goal here was to see you admit that there are times when these exact circumstances exist without any ill intent on the part of the US. You did admit as much, so thank you and :thumbsup:

next...

That is a non-answer that suggests to me you are unaware of the program. This is well documented stuff.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: DonVito

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: DonVito

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Do you have any links to proof that the US has ever purposely sent a detainee off to be tortured by another nation? Anything more than pure speculation and assumption would be nice...

This has to be a joke, right? You can't seriously be in intel and not know about the Special Removal Unit, can you? This has been common knowledge for years. You can Google "extraordinary rendition," or just start here.

LOL.. oh, I certainly know all about the various "special units" who exist in the minds of left-wing "journalists" the world over.

What I was hoping for was one shred of genuine proof that we export detainees to be purposely tortured in/by other nations.

My other goal here was to see you admit that there are times when these exact circumstances exist without any ill intent on the part of the US. You did admit as much, so thank you and :thumbsup:

next...

That is a non-answer that suggests to me you are unaware of the program. This is well documented stuff.

of course it is... the tinfoil crowd loves to write!

 

[johnnobts]

That is a non-answer that suggests to me you are unaware of the program. This is well documented stuff.


of course it is... the tinfoil crowd loves to write!
__________________
yeah, unicorns are well documented too, I have books and books about them.

 

[johnnobts]

well documented by whom exactly? for instance, was watching o'reilly tonight and he debated some loon who said there have been over 600,000 iraqi deaths during the last 4 years using her source. BUT, according to the UN the iraqi death toll was less than 60,000.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: johnnobts
well documented by whom exactly? for instance, was watching o'reilly tonight and he debated some loon who said there have been over 600,000 iraqi deaths during the last 4 years using her source. BUT, according to the UN the iraqi death toll was less than 60,000.

First of all, getting any information from O'reilly is probably a bad idea. He's not a credible source.

Secondly they were comparing apples to oranges. The UN measures clearly attributable deaths due to bombings, etc... etc. The 600,000 figure is not a death rate caused directly, but is actually referred to in the study as "excess mortality". Excess mortality being babies that died due to poorer medical care after the invasion, people that died due to loss of power, increased pollution, the sadness that they couldn't get those sweet Iraqi government TV channels anymore... whatever. That's why the numbers are so different.

It's generally a safe bet that you're not going to want to take anything you heard on Fox News and try to use it to bolster your argument.

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: Martin
Can I ask how many of your torture fans are Christians?

Christian here that does not support torture.

It is sad you even have to ask.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: palehorse74

of course it is... the tinfoil crowd loves to write!

Ridiculous. I don't know if your sentiment comes from ignorance or stubbornness - in either case you don't seem to know about things that are VERY basic in the intel world.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: DonVito

Originally posted by: palehorse74

of course it is... the tinfoil crowd loves to write!

Ridiculous. I don't know if your sentiment comes from ignorance or stubbornness - in either case you don't seem to know about things that are VERY basic in the intel world.

sure thing... and you learned about these "things" how? on the History channel? some book? A "documentary" on HBO?

Holiday Inn Express?

Like I said, the tinfoil crowd just LOVES to write... and write... and write.

You have gone straight to ludicrous speed Donvito... congrats.

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: rickn
so they want to investigate the abuse of a terrorist, but don't do anything to free prisoned border patrol agents keeping out drug dealers? This is one screwed up country we live in. And I imagine it's only gonna get a lot worse.

So when does everyone think the next popular uprising in America will take place? CW2. Better yet, we can just outsource ourselves to the chinese. we will probably be forced to learn mandarin in the next 10yrs anyway

Perhaps the next time Islam strikes us.

Mandarin?s the wrong idea, I think it?s tacos.

 

[Stoneburner]

APparently very few people actually know anything about KSM besides what the govt has claimed. According to Ron Suskind, the CIA considers KSM a joke.. he's a delusional schizo with no real value as a source. The less people on this board know the stronger their opinions are.

 

[gclg2000]

we need to get Jack Bauer on dat' ass....

 

[jman19]

Originally posted by: gclg2000
we need to get Jack Bauer on dat' ass....

"WHERE'S THE BOMB??"

*Smacks KSM around*