Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

The Torture Memos

Options
24567

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,804 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    Pocono Joe wrote: »
    The people of Los Angles... sit in relative safety...
    Yup. Los Angeles would now be a smoking hole on the west coast, if America didn't torture people.

    PJ, I have a rock here you might like to borrow - it keeps away tigers. I know it works, because there are no tigers around here.


  • Options
    #33
    Pocono Joe
    Closed Accounts Posts: 795 ✭✭✭Pocono Joe


    oB... do you have one that keeps away Lefties? Then I would be interested.


  • Options
    #34
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,804 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    I think it does that too - there's nobody in the room more left-wing than me.

    I accept PayPal.


  • Options
    #35
    Pocono Joe
    Closed Accounts Posts: 795 ✭✭✭Pocono Joe


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    I think it does that too - there's nobody in the room more left-wing than me.

    I accept PayPal.

    And yet you are still here LOL.

    Forget PayPal. If interested, I could look into getting some Obama stimulus money so you can perfect your URR (Undesirable Rock Repellent).


  • Options
    #36
    Mr.Micro
    Registered Users Posts: 5,336 ✭✭✭Mr.Micro


    Pocono Joe wrote: »
    The people of Los Angles should be bowing down kissing the feet of Bush and Cheney! Today they sit in relative safety and enjoy the right to criticize and condemn the very people who might just have saved their lives.
    http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=46949

    No they are just grateful that the Bush and Cheney are gone and are waking up to the despicable acts that were carried out in their names. Its incredible the amount of brain washing that seems to have occurred with much of the US population in expecting a terrorist attack, which of course suited Bush and Co as it kept people in fear and allowed them to carry on unquestioned. It appears some posters are still under such an illlusion.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    Pocono Joe wrote: »
    You just got to love Dick Cheney...

    No, and I doubt even torture would change that.
    Pocono Joe wrote: »
    In a recent interview after Obama’s release of the terror memos, Cheney explained the Bush administration's interrogation methods in terms of the situation after 9/11....

    The appeal to fear and outrage. Quelle Suprise.
    Pocono Joe wrote: »
    "One of the things (....)see this debate over the legal opinions."

    ....which of course is a bit of hocus pocus, in that deciding what would be considered valuable information would require a massive overall release of documentation, which will not happen while theres still an Al Qaeda. Of course such a release is already tainted, as we know the CIA have destroyed certain records. Thus, even if nothing appears (in the future, when 'liberals' finally evolve horns) future winged republicans can say the proof was erased.
    Pocono Joe wrote: »
    The people of Los Angles should be bowing down kissing the feet of Bush and Cheney! Today they sit in relative safety and enjoy the right to criticize and condemn the very people who might just have saved their lives.

    Very unlikely.


  • Options
    #38
    Pocono Joe
    Closed Accounts Posts: 795 ✭✭✭Pocono Joe


    Nodin wrote: »
    Very unlikely.

    Finally we agree on something. :)


  • Options
    #39
    Pocono Joe
    Closed Accounts Posts: 795 ✭✭✭Pocono Joe


    My inside sources have informed me that in the spirit of the Obama Administration’s FWI (Four Winds Initiative) for which policy is dictated (and enhanced) based on how the political wind blows, CIA interrogation methods are changing. Now the only CIA interrogation methods allowed for extremists committed to killing innocent Americans will be based solely on the Monty Python "Spanish Inquisition" skit. In extreme cases where a terrorist is highly suspected to contain key information, which if obtained could save countless thousands of lives, the CIA is authorized to use methods up-to-and-including such infamous devices as "The Comfy Chair" and "The Extra Pillow." They are also contemplating a drastic interrogation method referred to as "Confinement With Dick Cheney, but current Whitehouse lawyers are fighting internally as to whether or not it would be considered cruel and unusual punishment.

    In addition, the CIA is now producing posters to be distributed to their worldwide offices (taken from a sign once hanging over the desk of a CIA operative in Rome) that reads "BIG OPS, BIG PROBLEMS... NO OPS, NO PROBLEMS."


    And before the faux outrage starts, my comment was simply satire.


  • Options
    #40
    LostinKildare
    Registered Users Posts: 990 ✭✭✭LostinKildare


    Pocono Joe wrote: »
    And before the faux outrage starts, my comment was simply satire.

    Why do you persist in labeling the opposing view as "faux outrage"? Can you really not accept that others are sincerely and legitimately disgusted by torture, even if you are not?


  • Options
    #41
    Pocono Joe
    Closed Accounts Posts: 795 ✭✭✭Pocono Joe


    LostinKildare wrote: »
    Why do you persist in labeling the opposing view as "faux outrage"? Can you really not accept that others are sincerely and legitimately disgusted by torture, even if you are not?

    Well, I won’t go down the path of what constitutes torture... that one has been done already. My comment was meant for those who in the past have failed to grasp my use of satire, even though some of them often tout the satire used on the Comedy Channel’s two political shows... ergo my use of the term "faux".


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #42
    jank
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 13,018 ✭✭✭✭jank


    Pocono Joe wrote: »
    Well, I won’t go down the path of what constitutes torture... that one has been done already. My comment was meant for those who in the past have failed to grasp my use of satire, even though some of them often tout the satire used on the Comedy Channel’s two political shows... ergo my use of the term "faux".

    So what is your point? The only thing I see is the right trying to legitimize torture.

    No attacks since 9/11, because of the use of torture is like trying to justify that it is good for if its not good then it can only be bad? Right!

    So, yeah for torture. If you are so in favour of it why not advocate to have your local law enforcement agency use it for would be criminal suspects? You wouldn't know it might cut crime and you know less crime is good and its a vote winner too!

    VOTE for ME! I'll torture your ass so we can live in a safe neighborhood!:D


  • Options
    #43
    LostinKildare
    Registered Users Posts: 990 ✭✭✭LostinKildare


    jank wrote: »
    If you are so in favour of it why not advocate to have your local law enforcement agency use it for would be criminal suspects? You wouldn't know it might cut crime and you know less crime is good and its a vote winner too!

    VOTE for ME! I'll torture your ass so we can live in a safe neighborhood!:D

    On that point:
    Philip Zelikow, a prominent member of the Bush administration -- a senior aide to Condi Rice as well as the Director of the 9/11 Commission (so he knew in great detail the specifics of the interrogations of Al Qaeda suspects) wrote a memo warning Bush et al. that according to the flawed “authoritative” legal arguments of the OLC memos, the “enhanced interrogation techniques” would be fine to use on Americans down in the county jail.

    Clearly the White House was alarmed by this: they attempted to collect and destroy every copy of Zelikow’s memo.

    At the time, in 2005, I circulated an opposing view of the legal reasoning. My bureaucratic position, as counselor to the secretary of state, didn't entitle me to offer a legal opinion. But I felt obliged to put an alternative view in front of my colleagues at other agencies, warning them that other lawyers (and judges) might find the OLC views unsustainable. My colleagues were entitled to ignore my views. They did more than that: The White House attempted to collect and destroy all copies of my memo. I expect that one or two are still at least in the State Department's archives. . . .

    The underlying absurdity of the administration's position can be summarized this way. Once you get to a substantive compliance analysis for "cruel, inhuman, and degrading" you get the position that the substantive standard is the same as it is in analogous U.S. constitutional law. So the OLC must argue, in effect, that the methods and the conditions of confinement in the CIA program could constitutionally be inflicted on American citizens in a county jail.

    In other words, Americans in any town of this country could constitutionally be hung from the ceiling naked, sleep deprived, water-boarded, and all the rest -- if the alleged national security justification was compelling. I did not believe our federal courts could reasonably be expected to agree with such a reading of the Constitution.

    Quote from: http://shadow.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2009/04/21/the_olc_torture_memos_thoughts_from_a_dissenter

    Maddow has a great interview with Zelikow here: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908#30335366


  • Options
    #44
    Pocono Joe
    Closed Accounts Posts: 795 ✭✭✭Pocono Joe


    jank wrote: »
    So what is your point? The only thing I see is the right trying to legitimize torture.

    No attacks since 9/11, because of the use of torture is like trying to justify that it is good for if its not good then it can only be bad? Right!

    So, yeah for torture. If you are so in favour of it why not advocate to have your local law enforcement agency use it for would be criminal suspects? You wouldn't know it might cut crime and you know less crime is good and its a vote winner too!

    VOTE for ME! I'll torture your ass so we can live in a safe neighborhood!:D

    Once again, it depends on what you consider torture. Do you personally know anyone who has been waterboarded... I DO!

    Let me ask you a question. If you had children who were in imminent danger of dying from a terrorist threat, but one individual linked to the terrorist event has information which would save their lives, would you be so against waterboarding... or would you let your children die?


  • Options
    #45
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    Pocono Joe wrote: »
    Once again, it depends on what you consider torture.

    The US has been prosecuting people for using those tactics since the Spanish-American war, including its own citizens. Thats over a century of precedent. I believe this has been pointed out before.
    Pocono Joe wrote: »
    Let me ask you a question. If you had children who were in imminent danger of dying from a terrorist threat, but one individual linked to the terrorist event has information which would save their lives, would you be so against waterboarding... or would you let your children die?

    An emotive demagogic argument which presumes you have somebody who knows enough to prevent the attack, that you know he knows this for certain, that you know the attack is imminent, and that you can force him to divulge the information in time to prevent the attack. Of course, if you knew all that, you'd probably be able to prevent the attack by investigating the individual you had' movements and contacts, rather than torturing him.

    As cells and intelligence operatives work on a need to know basis, and are advised to hold out for 24hr-48hrs max whilst those at large change location and move arms, the odds of getting anything worthwhile out in time are minimal, to say the least.


  • Options
    #46
    Pocono Joe
    Closed Accounts Posts: 795 ✭✭✭Pocono Joe


    Nice dodge Nodin... but you didn't answer the question.


  • Options
    #47
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    Pocono Joe wrote: »
    Nice dodge Nodin... but you didn't answer the question.

    It's not a dodge. The fact is that its a 'trick' question which logical thinking demands one say no to, on every level, literal and otherwise.


  • Options
    #48
    Pocono Joe
    Closed Accounts Posts: 795 ✭✭✭Pocono Joe


    Nodin wrote: »
    It's not a dodge. The fact is that its a 'trick' question which logical thinking demands one say no to, on every level, literal and otherwise.

    No it’s not a trick question. It’s a question regarding a specific situation… like the situations in which those 3 terrorists were waterboarded. Not to worry... I understand it can be a troubling delimma when it becomes personal.


  • Options
    #49
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    Pocono Joe wrote: »
    No it’s not a trick question. It’s a question regarding a specific situation….

    Really? Then - presuming you have a person, know theres an "imminent" plot,know hes involved and know he knows enough to prevent it, why couldn't just using the usual methods work?
    Pocono Joe wrote: »
    like the situations in which those 3 terrorists were waterboarded.


    Well it can't be, because there was no imminent plot at the time.


  • Options
    #50
    Mr.Micro
    Registered Users Posts: 5,336 ✭✭✭Mr.Micro


    Pocono Joe wrote: »
    Once again, it depends on what you consider torture. Do you personally know anyone who has been waterboarded... I DO!

    Let me ask you a question. If you had children who were in imminent danger of dying from a terrorist threat, but one individual linked to the terrorist event has information which would save their lives, would you be so against waterboarding... or would you let your children die?

    A hypothesis / dilemma strictly for debate. The only terrorist threats these days are mostly in Iraq, the aftermath of US involvement there. The incompetent intelligent services got it all wrong with WMD and all they could do was go back to the middle ages for inspiration and torture people. Will they be burning witches next? Iraqi people have to live daily with this....



    Iraq: Suicide bombs kill scores

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8014390.stm


  • Options
    #51
    LostinKildare
    Registered Users Posts: 990 ✭✭✭LostinKildare


    Pocono Joe wrote: »
    The people of Los Angles should be bowing down kissing the feet of Bush and Cheney! Today they sit in relative safety and enjoy the right to criticize and condemn the very people who might just have saved their lives.
    http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=46949

    I had to go back for this one, because it's such a great illustration of the desperation that's rising.

    This is a lie. The article alleges that after being waterboarded, Khalid Sheik Mohammad (KSM) gave up information that allowed the govt to thwart a 9/11-style attack on L.A.

    It correctly quotes the May 30, 2005 Bradbury DOJ memo: "You have informed us that the interrogation of KSM -- once enhanced techniques were employed -- led to the discovery of a KSM plot, the 'Second Wave,' to use East Asian operatives to crash a hijacked airliner into a building in Los Angeles." (My emphasis of lawyer's CYA construction)

    In 2007 the White House put out a fact sheet ("Keeping America Safe from Attack" http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2007/05/20070523.html)
    that said "In 2002, we broke up a plot by KSM to hijack an airplane and fly it into the tallest building on the West Coast . . . . KSM stated that the intended target was the Library Tower in Los Angeles." Bush said it in a speech as well.

    KSM wasn't even captured until March (or April?) 2003, and he wasn't waterboarded until August of that year. So the story is demonstrably false.

    Nice try.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #52
    LostinKildare
    Registered Users Posts: 990 ✭✭✭LostinKildare


    There's a must-read op ed in today's New York Times by an FBI special agent who interrogated Zubaydah. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/23/opinion/23soufan.html?_r=1&ref=opinion

    A couple of quotes:
    For seven years I have remained silent about the false claims magnifying the effectiveness of the so-called enhanced interrogation techniques like waterboarding. I have spoken only in closed government hearings, as these matters were classified. But the release last week of four Justice Department memos on interrogations allows me to shed light on the story, and on some of the lessons to be learned.

    One of the most striking parts of the memos is the false premises on which they are based. The first, dated August 2002, grants authorization to use harsh interrogation techniques on a high-ranking terrorist, Abu Zubaydah, on the grounds that previous methods hadn’t been working. The next three memos cite the successes of those methods as a justification for their continued use.

    It is inaccurate, however, to say that Abu Zubaydah had been uncooperative. Along with another F.B.I. agent, and with several C.I.A. officers present, I questioned him from March to June 2002, before the harsh techniques were introduced later in August. Under traditional interrogation methods, he provided us with important actionable intelligence.

    We discovered, for example, that Khalid Shaikh Mohammed was the mastermind of the 9/11 attacks. Abu Zubaydah also told us about Jose Padilla, the so-called dirty bomber. This experience fit what I had found throughout my counterterrorism career: traditional interrogation techniques are successful in identifying operatives, uncovering plots and saving lives.

    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. In addition, I saw that using these alternative methods on other terrorists backfired on more than a few occasions — all of which are still classified. The short sightedness behind the use of these techniques ignored the unreliability of the methods, the nature of the threat, the mentality and modus operandi of the terrorists, and due process.

    Defenders of these techniques have claimed that they got Abu Zubaydah to give up information leading to the capture of Ramzi bin al-Shibh, a top aide to Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, and Mr. Padilla. This is false. The information that led to Mr. Shibh’s capture came primarily from a different terrorist operative who was interviewed using traditional methods. As for Mr. Padilla, the dates just don’t add up: the harsh techniques were approved in the memo of August 2002, Mr. Padilla had been arrested that May.

    One of the worst consequences of the use of these harsh techniques was that it reintroduced the so-called Chinese wall between the C.I.A. and F.B.I., similar to the communications obstacles that prevented us from working together to stop the 9/11 attacks. Because the bureau would not employ these problematic techniques, our agents who knew the most about the terrorists could have no part in the investigation. An F.B.I. colleague of mine who knew more about Khalid Shaikh Mohammed than anyone in the government was not allowed to speak to him.
    Fortunately for me, after I objected to the enhanced techniques, the message came through from Pat D’Amuro, an F.B.I. assistant director, that “we don’t do that,” and I was pulled out of the interrogations by the F.B.I. director, Robert Mueller (this was documented in the report released last year by the Justice Department’s inspector general).

    My C.I.A. colleagues who balked at the techniques, on the other hand, were instructed to continue. (It’s worth noting that when reading between the lines of the newly released memos, it seems clear that it was contractors, not C.I.A. officers, who requested the use of these techniques.)


  • Options
    #53
    Pocono Joe
    Closed Accounts Posts: 795 ✭✭✭Pocono Joe


    LostinKildare... You make some interesting points. I guess we really do need to see the results of harsh interrogation methods that Dick Cheney is requesting be declassified and released, so this can all be sorted out. Do you think Obama will release them, in order to paint a better overall picture of a time when it wasn’t "On a bright, sunny, safe day in April 2009."


  • Options
    #54
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    Pocono Joe wrote: »
    LostinKildare... You make some interesting points. I guess we really do need to see the results of harsh interrogation methods that Dick Cheney is requesting be declassified and released, so this can all be sorted out. Do you think Obama will release them, in order to paint a better overall picture of a time when it wasn’t "On a bright, sunny, safe day in April 2009."

    And thus, the circle of life is complete....
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=59923170&postcount=37


  • Options
    #55
    Pocono Joe
    Closed Accounts Posts: 795 ✭✭✭Pocono Joe


    Nodin, I’m not sure of your point, but if it has to do with your conspiracy theory of "require a massive overall release of documentation," I don’t think that’s the case. Watching Joe Scarborough this morning, he held up one of the pages in question. It was all blacked out. I believe there were less than 20 or so pages in the documents we are talking about.


  • Options
    #56
    The Mad Hatter
    Registered Users Posts: 4,718 ✭✭✭The Mad Hatter


    Pocono Joe wrote: »
    Nice dodge Nodin... but you didn't answer the question.

    Nice dodge, PJ: You didn't address any of the (pertinent) issues be raised in his response.


  • Options
    #57
    LostinKildare
    Registered Users Posts: 990 ✭✭✭LostinKildare


    Pocono Joe wrote: »
    LostinKildare... You make some interesting points. I guess we really do need to see the results of harsh interrogation methods that Dick Cheney is requesting be declassified and released, so this can all be sorted out. Do you think Obama will release them, in order to paint a better overall picture of a time when it wasn’t "On a bright, sunny, safe day in April 2009."

    This is Dick Cheney we're talking about.

    He probably knows full well that those classified documents can't be released for national security reasons. If there exist documents that prove that torture prevented attacks on the US, and those documents can be released without jeopardizing national security, then why didn’t the Bush administration release them before leaving office? When did Cheney ever have a problem declassifying anything if it served his political ends?

    Then again, it wouldn’t surprise me at all if no reports describing good intel actually exist. But he'll swear there are, and claim Obama's withholding them.

    This is a red herring. He's called for the release of these memos because he wants to shift the discourse from “the U.S. does not torture” to “the ends justify the means.” He wants us to engage in a cost-benefit analysis of his illegal acts, and some of us are doing it. That's how far we've sunk.

    It doesn't matter what intel resulted from "enhanced interrogation techniques." Good people don’t torture. It is illegal and immoral, and we have to prosecute those that were involved, and try to repair our damaged standing in the world.

    Cheney needs to slink back to his man-sized safe at his undisclosed location and await his indictment. I hate him for what he's done to our country.


  • Options
    #58
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    Pocono Joe wrote: »
    Watching Joe Scarborough this morning, he held up one of the pages in question. It was all blacked out. I believe there were less than 20 or so pages in the documents we are talking about.

    ...if they exist....Given Cheneys record on truthfullness, I see no reason to take him at his word.

    And yes, there has to be a large release of documentation to determine that the information wasn't already known, and judge its importance in the greater scheme of things.


  • Options
    #59
    Pocono Joe
    Closed Accounts Posts: 795 ✭✭✭Pocono Joe


    Lost..., As I look out the window of my office I notice it’s a bright, sunny, safe day in April 2009.

    Not just Cheney, but several other high level officials stated that they got very good intel from the utilization of enhanced interrogation techniques.

    And I think Cheney should get the Presidential Medal of Freedom for what he has done. And as you stated “await his indictment”… do you think indictments are also due current House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), Rep. Jane Harman (D-Calif.) Sens. Bob Graham (D-Fla.) and John D. Rockefeller IV (D-W.Va.), as well as Rep. Porter J. Goss (R-Fla.) and Sen. Pat Roberts (R-Kan) who were briefed on these methods back in 2002 (regardless of the fuzzy memory crap Ms “I’m not partisan” Pelosi in spouting right now)? <<<Note to self: I didn't think so... looks like a GOP witch hunt to me.>>> If Conservatives retake the government and get abortion outlawed… should they go back and jail every politician, doctor, liberal, participant who partook in pro-choice decisions? Do we go back and examine what Harry Truman did? You do see the slippery slope you are advocating, don’t you?


  • Options
    #60
    Ludo
    Registered Users Posts: 5,015 ✭✭✭Ludo


    As I have pointed out before, Clinton kept America safe from attacks at home for LONGER than Bush and Cheney did. Where are the plaudits for him? Oh right, he is a democrat so he doesnt get any. And torture wasn't needed to do it either.

    Here is a list from the ultimate reliable source (wikipedia)

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism_in_the_United_States#2000-present
    Before 9/11 you gotta go back to 1993 for the previous one on US soil by an Al Queda related group. That is one attack very early in Clintons administration and one earlyish in the Bush administration. If we are going to get into silly debates, then technically Clinton kept America safer for longer than Bush...and he is a democrat...oh my god!


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #61
    Pocono Joe
    Closed Accounts Posts: 795 ✭✭✭Pocono Joe


    Ludo wrote: »
    As I have pointed out before, Clinton kept America safe from attacks at home for LONGER than Bush and Cheney did. Where are the plaudits for him? Oh right, he is a democrat so he doesnt get any.

    Clinton (and most everybody else) didn't even know we were at war with Islamic terrorists. Eyes Wide Shut ended on 9/11. And American's count even if they were not just "at home," as I have pointed out before.


Advertisement