Obama to decide today on torture memos

[Xavier]

I don't even know what to think about waterboarding really.

Like... I almost want to set it up and try it just to see for myself what it's really like.


It seems like it wouldn't even be like... anything at all, but apparently it's so damn effective the U.S. stopped even bothering to attempt to train people to resist because it was worthless to even try resisting.

Simulates drowning, rather quickly.

-----------------------------------

I would say that "interrogation" has been proven effective over the years. But interrogation is not synonymous with torture. You can interrogate someone without inducing so much pain they want to die.

Its hard to tell, when someone would say anything to stop the pain, whether or not what they've said is the truth, or what you wanted to hear. Clearly the policy should be to kick their ass after you find out they lied to you, not to kick their ass in order that they lie to you.

[GeneJackit]

I have never been attacked by bears since I start breathing, I guess me breathing oxygen is quite effective in deterring bear attacks.

once again...


how has breathing oxygen ever prevented bear attacks?


To Kuya:

Too much text....and honestly I really dont care all that much. "Torture" should be reserved for cases that will probably cause permanent mental / physical damage to a person...it goes back to that idea that "I know it when I see it."

I dont think I ever said anything about supporting torture...I dont care that they released these memos...good for them, there is no such thing as a dangerous truth


we'll never agree on what "torture" is, but really...if you equate sleep deprivation w/ things like electrocution, forced rape, dismemberment, then you are really really wrong

[0ni0n]

once again...


how has breathing oxygen ever prevented bear attacks?

When has torture ever prevented 9/11 style attacks? Lets not bring up 24. I am trying to show the fallacy in gene's logic, just because it hasn't happened since, it doesn't mean it's effective.

[Kuya]

"Torture" should be reserved for cases that will probably cause permanent mental / physical damage to a person...it goes back to that idea that "I know it when I see it."

Why? Because it's convenient for you?

I know a LOT of people who are flipping out that Yoo and Bybee are getting a walk from this - for me especially Bybee because he's a goddamn Federal Judge now

I did not know this...

[GeneJackit]

When has torture ever prevented 9/11 style attacks? Lets not bring up 24. I am trying to show the fallacy in gene's logic, just because it hasn't happened since, it doesn't mean it's effective.

you're asking me to really prove something that is really hard to prove....i would say damn near impossible. I think that it isn't much of a logical leap that:

A) there are people that want to do 9/11 style attacks

B) there hasn't been 9/11 style attacks since 9/11 (or even anything in the USA since 9/11)

so...I mean, is it wrong to try and figure out what has been going on for (B) to exist? Doesn't it make sense that we have been doing something right? Or do you think it makes sense that we have just been lucky? Comparing Bear attacks to breathing or Volcanic eruptions to human sacrifice makes no sense, b/c no one in their right mind would argue that those are related in any way, shape, or form. However, I think most people would equate w/ investigations, interrogations of POWs/criminals/terrorists w/ getting the information to prevent said people from doing what they want to do ie....kill us.

If you really expect me to write this down and prove it beyond any doubt...then fine, you win...but that is a wholly unreasonable expectation.

[Kuya]

Note how we're talking about interrogations, and how we say it's not the same thing as torture. Note how we can interrogate someone, without using torture, which is morally and legally reprehensible. Note that, torture is unnecessary and it goes hand in hand with denying habeas corpus rights.

edit: i heard there were psychologists involved in these events. I really hope they have their abilities to practice psychology stripped away, considering they made an oath to do no harm.

[GeneJackit]

Note how we're talking about interrogations, and how we say it's not the same thing as torture. Note how we can interrogate someone, without using torture, which is morally and legally reprehensible. Note that, torture is unnecessary and it goes hand in hand with denying habeas corpus rights.

I agree, torture is wrong...I think i would even be against torturing someone w/ the "ticking time bomb" scenario...


I guess it comes back to...

<,<

>.>

<,<

semantics...

[0ni0n]

you're asking me to really prove something that is really hard to prove....i would say damn near impossible. I think that it isn't much of a logical leap that:

A) there are people that want to do 9/11 style attacks

B) there hasn't been 9/11 style attacks since 9/11 (or even anything in the USA since 9/11)

so...I mean, is it wrong to try and figure out what has been going on for (B) to exist? Doesn't it make sense that we have been doing something right? Or do you think it makes sense that we have just been lucky? Comparing Bear attacks to breathing or Volcanic eruptions to human sacrifice makes no sense, b/c no one in their right mind would argue that those are related in any way, shape, or form. However, I think most people would equate w/ investigations, interrogations of POWs/criminals/terrorists w/ getting the information to prevent said people from doing what they want to do ie....kill us.

If you really expect me to write this down and prove it beyond any doubt...then fine, you win...but that is a wholly unreasonable expectation.

My understanding is that the legitimate use of torture or "aggressive interrogation techniques" solely hinges on whether it can prevent future attacks from recurring. Your and anyone's conclusion on its effectiveness is ambiguous at best and disingenuous at worst trying to justify such a hideous act. Also, I don't think it's a disputable fact that we tortured. The only question is how far up the rank. Did the administration know or perhaps authorize? That's the real question.

[Demosthenes11]

bad arguments are bad mr gene
nothing more really needs to be said

[Plow]

Simulates drowning, rather quickly.

The way I understood it was they'd basically cover your face so the water wouldn't even be actually touching you (which is extremely effective on its own), but yeah apparently it's also done by actually just covering your face with a cloth or even just your mouth so that there's actually water going in and it can potentially do a lot of damage.

[Kuya]

I think we're in an interesting situation where we have to defend Obama from a raging wave of absurd critics, because releasing those memos was the right thing to do, legally and morally speaking, but at the same time we have to try and persist that not prosecuting anyone over this is absurd. If someone does something illegal, is is ridiculous to say that they should not be made an example of, not acting basically makes us complicit with what they did, and that's not something anyone should allow their government to do. For starters, Obama is not the one who is going to prosecute, so his promises to the CIA mean nothing, it is Eric Holder whom we have to, in any way possible, push to hold these people accountable and show that no US government is permitted to do this and think it can get away with it. I mean, for heaven's sake, a man who was involved in illegal activities is now a federal judge, what the fuck? I know how ridiculous petitions can be, but for anyone who can't be arsed to do anything else, it is the least one can do.

edit: just think, do you think a middle class or working class American citizen could get away with water boarding someone, slamming them into walls, depriving them of sleep? No, and they shouldn't either. If this whole banking crisis and the bailout have had any meaning is that if people want to be respected, then they have to fight for it.

[Elvis]

In the past couple of months some African president/leader/dictator (don't remember his name) was being charged or being considered to be charged with war crimes.

Some of the counterarguments were that indicting the leader would be like indicting the government. You're basically putting that body politic on trial.

I think it's great Obama is making this stuff public but he is not going to go far enough in terms of doing what's right morally.

It's inherently unfair because of the institutional pressures.

Those top level people will not get in trouble for purely political reasons.

Just look at those soldiers who raped that Iraqi girl and killed her entire family.

A) the crime was fucking evil and B) they are just 'grunts' in the eyes of a politician = so they can be sent to jail for 100 years (parole in 20 tho).

There's a lot of (obvious) political context to the 'justice' that's carried out internally.

[Kuya]

Pirates and emperors.

[Khamsin]

I think it's more of a statement saying "It was wrong, and now that we are out in the open with it and acknowledge that it's wrong, it will no longer be tolerated."

Meaning, that future incidences of this sort of thing WILL be prosecuted. Or at least, should be.

[quannum]

YouTube - Watch Christopher Hitchens Get Waterboarded (VANITY FAIR)

[Kuya]

LET'S LOOK FORWARD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

CIA interrogators used the controverisal waterboarding technique 183 times on Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the mastermind behind the September 11, 2001, attacks and 83 times on another al-Qaeda suspect, according to The New York Times.

A 2005 Justice Department memorandum revealed that the simulated drowning technique was used on Mohammed 183 times in March 2003.

Abu Zubaydah, the first prisoner questioned in the CIA's overseas detention programme in August 2002, was waterboarded 83 times, although a former CIA officer had told news organisations that he had been subjected to only 35 seconds under water before agreeing to tell everything he knew.

A footnote to another 2005 Justice Department memo said that waterboarding was used both more frequently and with a greater volume of water than the CIA rules permitted, the newspaper claimed, while a separate footnote said that the use of the harshest techniques appeared to have been “unnecessary” in Abu Zubaydah's case.

On Saturday, The New York Times claimed that Abu Zubaydah had already given all the information he knew before he was subjected to waterboarding.

Officials in the Bush Administration had claimed that harsh interrogation techniques were necessary to get information but the number of times Mohammed was subjected to waterboarding will raise questions about its efficacy and about assertions from officials that the methods were used under strict guidelines.

Mr Obama, who will make his first visit to the CIA headquarters today, does not intend to prosecute Bush Administration officials who devised the policies that led to the harsh interrogation techniques, the White House Chief of Staff, Rahm Emanuel, said on Sunday.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8I2wU_jcDGc

Pirates and emperors people, pirates and emperors.

[Kuya]

BBC NEWS | Americas | CIA torture exemption 'illegal'

The UN special rapporteur on torture, Manfred Nowak, says the US is bound under the UN Convention against Torture to prosecute those who engage in it.
Mr Obama released four "torture memos" outlining harsh interrogation methods sanctioned by the Bush administration.

Mr Nowak has called for an independent review and compensation for victims.
"The United States, like all other states that are part of the UN convention against torture, is committed to conducting criminal investigations of torture and to bringing all persons against whom there is sound evidence to court," Mr Nowak told the Austrian daily Der Standard.

Mr Obama on Thursday said he would not prosecute under anti-torture laws CIA personnel who relied in good faith on Bush administration legal opinions issued after the 11 September attacks.

Mr Nowak - who is due to travel to Washington to meet with officials - said that could be a mitigating factor, but does not absolve those involved.
"The fact that you carried out an order doesn't relieve you of your responsibility," he was quoted as saying by AP news agency.

Might we also remember that in the Nuremberg trials the US held the position that even following orders made you accountable for crimes.

[Correction]

lol@the UN telling America what to do. Good one.

[Odesseiron]

Who the fuck cares? They're terrorists! They are getting off light.

[Kuya]

Yea, who do they think they are, trying to hold the US accountable for pacts it made along with many other nations when in the past it aggressively pursued soldiers who were just following orders. The nerve of them!

Who the fuck cares? They're terrorists! They are getting off light.

Yea, fuck rules and laws!

edit: no but seriously you guys, 183 times in one month, he must have had a lot of information.