of course they did. the torture was just so they could beat something out of them to justify their invasion.

Hobodeluxe: of course they did. the torture was just so they could beat something out of them to justify their invasion.

Pretty much, They really went balls deep in sadistic behavior to justify these wars. A real Al-Qaeda member would have 2 questions for every answer given.

But did we truly know Khalid Sheik Mohamed?

I suppose a full throated public discussion about the many benefits and risks of an American pro-torture policy is inevitable.

Wouldn't it have been beneficial to just say that to begin with? It would make AQ look bad because it portrays them as a bunch of canaries, and at the same time we wouldn't be torturing people which makes us look like sadistic, godless assholes. This is a PR war for christsakes

SnakeLee: Wouldn't it have been beneficial to just say that to begin with? It would make AQ look bad because it portrays them as a bunch of canaries, and at the same time we wouldn't be torturing people which makes us look like sadistic, godless assholes. This is a PR war for christsakes

The issue was not that the captured Al Qaeda suspects weren't spilling everything to us. They were, the moment that they were captured they monologued like pulp action villain, confident in the idea that Allah would guarantee their victory anyway.

The issue was that they were not telling the interrogators from the CIA what they wanted to hear, which was the links between Iraq and Al Qaeda. And one thing that torture is very good for (as was proven on our soldiers in the Korean and Vietnam wars) is getting people to say what you want them to say.

Code_Archeologist: The issue was not that the captured Al Qaeda suspects weren't spilling everything to us. They were, the moment that they were captured they monologued like pulp action villain, confident in the idea that Allah would guarantee their victory anyway.

Allahu Akbar: )

Check out Clint Eastwood in the opening of "Kelly's Heroes". THAT is how you question a prisoner.

Death to New Rome: Code_Archeologist: The issue was not that the captured Al Qaeda suspects weren't spilling everything to us. They were, the moment that they were captured they monologued like pulp action villain, confident in the idea that Allah would guarantee their victory anyway.

Allahu AkbarAckbar: )


FTFY.

Well duh. If they had just given us the information we were looking for in the first place we wouldn't have needed to torture them. So really, it's kinda their own fault.

Honesty? Pish.

Dick Cheney and Bush should go on Maury:

You said you weren't wiretapping... and it turns out that was a lie (more than 5,000,000 times).

You said you didn't wiretap Americans... and it turns out that was a lie.

You said you didn't torture people... and it turns out that was a lie. (more than 5 times!)

You said you got good intel from the torture... and it turns out that was a lie.

...

can't say i'm surprised.

Jesus H. Christ. I knew that the attack on the LA Library Tower being averted was bullshiat, but now it turns out that every piece of valuable information we got from the people we tortured was obtained through standard interrogation techniques?

So why the fark did they want to torture them, then? Shiats and giggles?

Hender: So why the fark did they want to torture them, then?

Code_Archeologist: The issue was that they were not telling the interrogators from the CIA what they wanted to hear, which was the links between Iraq and Al Qaeda

Any questions?

timmy_the_tooth: Hender: So why the fark did they want to torture them, then?

Code_Archeologist: The issue was that they were not telling the interrogators from the CIA what they wanted to hear, which was the links between Iraq and Al Qaeda

Any questions?

Yes, just one. Can someone stop the world? I'd like to get off for a bit. I'll get back on when my stomach's feeling better. Too many corn dogs.

timmy_the_tooth: Dick Cheney and Bush should go on Maury:

You said you weren't wiretapping... and it turns out that was a lie (more than 5,000,000 times).

You said you didn't wiretap Americans... and it turns out that was a lie.

You said you didn't torture people... and it turns out that was a lie. (more than 5 times!)

You said you got good intel from the torture... and it turns out that was a lie.

Dick, you are NOT a decent human being!!!!

timmy_the_tooth: Hender: So why the fark did they want to torture them, then?

Code_Archeologist: The issue was that they were not telling the interrogators from the CIA what they wanted to hear, which was the links between Iraq and Al Qaeda

Any questions?

I should have been more specific in that statement.

The Al Qaeda leaders that the CIA was torturing were not telling the interrogators the imagined links between Al Qaeda and Iraq that they wanted to hear.

BTW, there was some info revealed recently which is even more damning... the legal fig leaf to protect the administration and CIA agents from criminal prosecution for torture and war crimes was written after they had already begun torturing Khalid Sheik Mohamed and and Abu Zubaydah. This means that those CIA agents in particular, and the administration officials who gave the orders to them, are not protected by Obama's statement that he does not want to prosecute people who were following orders that they thought were legal because of the "torture memo". It also implicates the lawyers who wrote that memo, if they knew that they wrote their advice with the knowledge that the actions that they were defending had already been carried out.

Code_Archeologist: . the legal fig leaf to protect the administration and CIA agents from criminal prosecution for torture and war crimes was written after they had already begun torturing Khalid Sheik Mohamed and and Abu Zubaydah.

I heard that on NPR.

I also heard that they routinely violated their own written orders. So, when the memo said "you can hang a prisoner by handcuffs but for no more than 2 hours" they were doing it for, like, 2 weeks.

Someone has to take the fall for this. This isn't America the way I think of America. It was like we were being run by some kind of secret police.farking terrifying.

How would an FBI agent know anything about it? HUMINT is the CIA's business, and if any "torturing" were to be done, it would be them that would do it, not the FBI.

timmy_the_tooth: Code_Archeologist: . the legal fig leaf to protect the administration and CIA agents from criminal prosecution for torture and war crimes was written after they had already begun torturing Khalid Sheik Mohamed and and Abu Zubaydah.

I heard that on NPR.

I also heard that they routinely violated their own written orders. So, when the memo said "you can hang a prisoner by handcuffs but for no more than 2 hours" they were doing it for, like, 2 weeks.

Someone has to take the fall for this. This isn't America the way I think of America. It was like we were being run by some kind of secret police.farking terrifying.

Get these SOBs to The Hague. I don't care if people biatch about sovereignty, these were crimes against humanity.

"There was no actionable intelligence gained from using enhanced interrogation techniques on Abu Zubaydah that wasn't, or couldn't have been, gained from regular tactics."

Speculation.

But since this agent's speculation aligns with the liberals' ideology, I assume they will take this as proof that it was unnecessary to subject the individual to enhanced interrogation techniques.

Popcorn get your popcorn only costs one session of waterboarding...popcorn

kleppe: How would an FBI agent know anything about it? HUMINT is the CIA's business, and if any "torturing" were to be done, it would be them that would do it, not the FBI.

I came here to say this...WTF would the FBI know about it.

Also Subby, you're not helping the credibility of the story by linking to the KOS write-up instead of the actual Op-Ed piece.

Steigen: Also Subby, you're not helping the credibility of the story by linking to the KOS write-up instead of the actual Op-Ed piece.

I love this logic.

I'm a little ashamed to have worn the uniform of this country in a time of war when I hear this shiat. How could we be so farking stupid? The image of America as the bright, shining standard has been our greatest weapon in history. Even though it's mostly bullshiat, it has held. We had to go and destroy that too.

This is why we can't have nice things. I don't care if the world is burning, prosecute these assholes. They are not Americans. They couldn't understand America if you stuffed the U.S.S. Constitution up their ass, sideways.

It is that Republicans don't understand legal precedent or is it that they can't read? farking disgrace.

Conservatives: *Fingers in the ears* NO THEY DIDN'T LA-LA-LA-LA-LA-LA-LA-LA!

kleppe: I assume they will take this as proof that it was unnecessary to subject the individual to enhanced interrogation techniques.


Tortured them...

The emperor has no cloths now.

AnotherDisillusionedCollegeStudent: Get these SOBs to The Hague. I don't care if people biatch about sovereignty, these were crimes against humanity.

They should be tried right here. Fark the Hague. If we want to restore our dignity our own justice system must be the one to hold responsible those who ordered and carried out crimes.

kleppe: How would an FBI agent know anything about it? HUMINT is the CIA's business, and if any "torturing" were to be done, it would be them that would do it, not the FBI.

Some FBI guys were present for the procedures in the beginning. Until one agent left one interrogation and reported back to the FBI what was going on. From that poing forward, Director Mueller forbade any agents from participating.

kleppe: "There was no actionable intelligence gained from using enhanced interrogation techniques on Abu Zubaydah that wasn't, or couldn't have been, gained from regular tactics."

Speculation.

But since this agent's speculation aligns with the liberals' ideology, I assume they will take this as proof that it was unnecessary to subject the individual to enhanced interrogation techniques.

Since when did "torture is wrong" become a "liberal" ideology? No wonder the GOP got a smack down last election...

Also, it's not speculation. Interrogation tactics have been studied for decades, and torture has been shown to be a terrible interrogation technique.

Deal with it.

kleppe: How would an FBI agent know anything about it? HUMINT is the CIA's business, and if any "torturing" were to be done, it would be them that would do it, not the FBI.

The FBI questioned Zubaydah initially. When the CIA got involved, the FBI pulled out, saying what the CIA was doing was torture, probably illegal, and they didn't want to be involved.

keylock71: kleppe: I assume they will take this as proof that it was unnecessary to subject the individual to enhanced interrogation techniques.


Tortured them...

The emperor has no cloths now.

"Torture" is an act done as revenge or punishment with the end goal of simply causing pain. That does not apply here.

impaler: kleppe: "There was no actionable intelligence gained from using enhanced interrogation techniques on Abu Zubaydah that wasn't, or couldn't have been, gained from regular tactics."

Speculation.

But since this agent's speculation aligns with the liberals' ideology, I assume they will take this as proof that it was unnecessary to subject the individual to enhanced interrogation techniques.

Since when did "torture is wrong" become a "liberal" ideology? No wonder the GOP got a smack down last election...

Also, it's not speculation. Interrogation tactics have been studied for decades, and torture has been shown to be a terrible interrogation technique.

Deal with it.

While I completly agree with your point I find your nick of Impaler ironic in this context.
/just had to say something

Prosecute those who tortured. Prosecute those who authorized torture.

Well, they also tortured these terrorists after they got good information from them to figure out just how FAR they could torture someone before they died.

How do you think those memos got so detailed as to where to hit someone, and how often? Do you think they just randomly picked those locations and numbers?

They were using the prisoners as human guinea pigs in their sadistic torture experiments. Shades of the Japanese and Germans in WWII...

ObRightWingTroll: What kind of a name is "Ali Soufan?"

kleppe: keylock71: kleppe: I assume they will take this as proof that it was unnecessary to subject the individual to enhanced interrogation techniques.


Tortured them...

The emperor has no cloths now.

"Torture" is an act done as revenge or punishment with the end goal of simply causing pain. That does not apply here.

You keep telling yourself that, Sunshine...

It is the only way to be sure.





FBI is bunch of pansy asses

Torture has historically been used to get false confessions, not real ones.

timmy_the_tooth: Code_Archeologist: . the legal fig leaf to protect the administration and CIA agents from criminal prosecution for torture and war crimes was written after they had already begun torturing Khalid Sheik Mohamed and and Abu Zubaydah.

I heard that on NPR.

I also heard that they routinely violated their own written orders. So, when the memo said "you can hang a prisoner by handcuffs but for no more than 2 hours" they were doing it for, like, 2 weeks.

If you look at the Justice Dept memos, it's clear that they massively violated their own rules with Zubaydah. And if you look at the dates, it's clear that they started waterboarding him before they wrote the memos.

torture is only good for propaganda. Getting someone to admit to false crimes, or speak out against something they were previously for (or the opposite).

Torture is bad for getting intel. This is nothing new. Many Many people who know, experts and professionals have said so explicity.

Hell, one soldier killed themselves to get out of the torture racket:

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/columns/pressingissues_display.jsp?vnu_ c ontent_id=1003965876

And the Republicans wonder why the President has been "apologizing" around the world.

/when you make terrible mistakes, you fix them and you apologize

kleppe: "Torture" is an act done as revenge or punishment with the end goal of simply causing pain. That does not apply here.

Any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.

- U.N. Convention Against Torture, Article 1.1

moralpanic: Torture has historically been used to get false confessions, not real ones.

I guess it depends on what kind of confessions the administration needed...

Okay so how do I summon the torture appologist to the thread so they can explain to us how torture made us safe?
I would just love to hear that one again......

impaler: kleppe: "There was no actionable intelligence gained from using enhanced interrogation techniques on Abu Zubaydah that wasn't, or couldn't have been, gained from regular tactics."

Speculation.

But since this agent's speculation aligns with the liberals' ideology, I assume they will take this as proof that it was unnecessary to subject the individual to enhanced interrogation techniques.

Since when did "torture is wrong" become a "liberal" ideology? No wonder the GOP got a smack down last election...

Also, it's not speculation. Interrogation tactics have been studied for decades, and torture has been shown to be a terrible interrogation technique.

Deal with it.

'It has been plausibly suggested that, whereas pain inflicted on a person from outside himself may actually focus or intensify his will to resist, his resistance is likelier to be sapped by pain which he seems to inflict upon himself. "In the simple torture situation the contest is one between the individual and his tormentor (.... and he can frequently endure). When the individual is told to stand at attention for long periods, an intervening factor is introduced. The immediate source of pain is not the interrogator but the victim himself. The motivational strength of the individual is likely to exhaust itself in this internal encounter.... As long as the subject remains standing, he is attributing to his captor the power to do something worse to him, but there is actually no showdown of the ability of the interrogator to do so."'

What you are referring to is this:

"Intense pain is quite likely to produce false confessions, concocted as a means of escaping from distress. A time-consuming delay results, while investigation is conducted and the admissions are proven untrue. During this respite the interrogatee can pull himself together. He may even use the time to think up new, more complex "admissions" that take still longer to disprove."

...

"If an interrogatee is caused to suffer pain rather late in the interrogation process and after other tactics have failed, he is almost certain to conclude that the interrogator is becoming desperate. He may then decide that if he can just hold out against this final assault, he will win the struggle and his freedom. And he is likely to be right. Interrogatees who have withstood pain are more difficult to handle by other methods. The effect has been not to repress the subject but to restore his confidence and maturity."

This should never have happened, but it's a nonpartisan disaster. Legislators from both parties, including chairmen and ranking members of the intelligence committees in Congress, were fully briefed on this. Congress could have stopped it.

Whether it worked or not is not the issue.

It is illegal.

Hopefully, we are still torturing the fark outta them. Hell, we should televise it.

Gotta love KOS.

kleppe: keylock71: kleppe: I assume they will take this as proof that it was unnecessary to subject the individual to enhanced interrogation techniques.


Tortured them...

The emperor has no cloths now.

"Torture" is an act done as revenge or punishment with the end goal of simply causing pain. That does not apply here.

WTF? No, it isn't. You're omitting one key element of the definition.