Blogs and Stories
A Turning Point in the Torture Debate
Chip Somodevilla / Getty Images
As Speaker Pelosi accuses the CIA of lying to her about waterboarding, The Daily Beast's Scott Horton asks if the tide is turning in the debate.
Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) opened a hearing on the Bush administration’s torture policy quoting Tallyrand: “The greatest danger in times of crisis comes from the zeal of those who are inexperienced.” Whitehouse promised to separate the “truth” from its “bodyguard of lies.” In doing so, the former federal prosecutor brought the shadowy world of intelligence into Room 226 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building. Former star FBI interrogator Ali Soufan, widely described as the bureau’s best and most effective interrogator working in the Arabic language, testified off-camera and behind a wooden partition. Concerned for his and his family’s security, he made the unusual demand a part of his agreement to appear and testify.
The effort to destroy the Zelikow memo is not just evidence of standard record-keeping practice; it may well spring from recognition that the memo might be used as evidence that the Bush administration was engaged in criminality.
The hearing produced two significant developments as well as a great deal of political rhetoric. Soufan’s testimony focused on the interrogation of Abu Zubaydah. Throughout the history of the torture debate, the Bush administration has cited this as a triumph of its techniques. Sen. Whitehouse read Bush’s September 6, 2006, White House statement making one of these claims. Soufan, who was personally present through the process, called the Bush claims a “half-truth,” accurate as to the circumstances of Abu Zubaydah’s capture and detention, but not as to the claimed successes using highly coercive techniques. One of the Justice Department’s torture memos (from May 2005) contained a similar claim that actionable intelligence was obtained “once enhanced techniques were employed.” Soufan termed this a lie. He also noted that successful interrogations of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and Jose Padilla, which gained useful intelligence, occurred before the introduction of the Bush program and therefore couldn’t be claimed as success stories for it. In his remarks, Soufan sharply repudiated the harsh techniques he observed. “These techniques... are ineffective, slow, and unreliable and, as a result, harmful to our efforts to defeat al Qaeda," he said. He also downplayed claims that there was a dispute between the FBI and CIA about the use of the Bush techniques. CIA interrogators agreed with his assessment, he noted.
Philip Zelikow, a lawyer and history professor who had served as a counselor to Condoleezza Rice at the State Department, testified that the Justice Department had thwarted legislation sponsored by Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) that prohibited cruel, inhuman, and degrading techniques on detainees. He noted that McCain and other sponsors understood the legislation as a prohibition on waterboarding and other harsh techniques, but through legal sleight of hand, Steven Bradbury, then head of the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel, had nevertheless found that the legislation was ineffective to make the expected changes. Zelikow recorded his opposition to this view in his own memo, which he disseminated widely within the Bush administration. It was made clear to him that his memo was not appreciated, and, moreover, an effort was made to collect and destroy copies of the memo. One copy has now been identified in the records of the State Department, he noted. Its declassification and release are anticipated shortly.
The story surrounding the efforts to corral and destroy the Zelikow memo is more than a curious vignette. Lawyers studying the issue of criminal liability of the memo writers are focused on evidence of mens rea—a state of mind that reflects recognition of criminal wrongdoing. The effort to destroy the memo is not just evidence of standard record-keeping practice; it may well spring from recognition that the memo might be used as evidence that the Bush administration was engaged in criminality.
Republicans called two legal experts to offer opinions but no fact witnesses. This raised the question of whether they have a CIA interrogator who is ready or willing to make a case to support Cheney’s claims about the efficacy of torture.
In opening remarks, Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI) leveled a direct attack on former Vice President Dick Cheney, saying he was “misleading the American people” with claims that Bush-era techniques had been effective. “Nothing I have seen—including the two documents to which former Vice President Cheney has repeatedly referred—indicates that the torture techniques... were necessary," Feingold said. Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) entered the debate insisting the hearing was “not really fair to” the Bush administration. “I don't know whether this is actually pursuing the nobility of the law or a political stunt," he said. Graham offered a grilling of the former lead FBI interrogator, insisting that his view was “not the whole picture.” However, Graham stumbled during the hearing, citing a debunked and now-retracted statement by former CIA agent John Kiriakou about the interrogation of Abu Zubaydah and was corrected by the witness for his mistake.
Graham was the only Republican to attend the hearing as a questioner, and the Republican side offered no fact witnesses of their own. Soufan’s and Zelikow’s presentations weren’t refuted or weakened. For now the Republican pushback on the torture issue consists of attacks on the credibility of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi—what she knew and when she was told about the Bush administration techniques. Yet that issue has not caught fire and remains distant from the heart of the controversy. The Senate hearing set the stage for the release of the Justice Department’s ethics report conducted while Bush was still in office. Zelikow called for a special investigation during his testimony and disclosed that evening on MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow Show that the special prosecutor appointed under Bush to probe the destruction of CIA videotapes of torture, John Durham, has expanded to cover the CIA’s failure to provide information to the 9/11 Commission about torture. Sen. Whitehouse has declared that he would chair new hearings featuring the Bush administration lawyers after the release of the Justice Department ethics report. Then the focus will fall on the possible impeachment of former OLC chief Jay Bybee, now a federal appeals judge, and bar discipline of other lawyers. The issue continues to build regardless of what the Obama White House wishes.
Xtra Insight: The Daily Beast's Robert Windrem: Cheney's Role Deepens: His Office Suggested Waterboarding
Scott Horton is a law professor and writer on legal and national security affairs for Harper's Magazine and The American Lawyer, among other publications.
John Talks Joe
Lloyd Grove is editor at large for The Daily Beast. He is also a frequent contributor to New York magazine and was a contributing editor for Condé Nast Portfolio. He wrote a gossip column for the New York Daily News from 2003 to 2006. Prior to that, he wrote the Reliable Source column for the Washington Post, where he spent 23 years covering politics, the media, and other subjects.
The Right Dumps Carrie
Jacob Bernstein is a senior reporter at The Daily Beast. Previously, he was a features writer at WWD and W Magazine. He has also written for New York magazine, Paper, and The Huffington Post.
Geithner's Stock Plummeting
Jeff Madrick is a contributor to the New York Review of Books and a former economics columnist for the New York Times. He is editor of Challenge Magazine, visiting professor of humanities at Cooper Union, and senior fellow at the New School's Schwartz Center for Economic Policy Analysis. He is the author of Taking America, The End of Affluence (Random House) and The Case for Big Government.
Sonia Scores a KO
Scott Horton is a law professor and writer on legal and national security affairs for Harper's Magazine and The American Lawyer, among other publications.
Torture Prosecution Turnaround?
Scott Horton is a law professor and writer on legal and national security affairs for Harper's Magazine and The American Lawyer, among other publications.
Where Iran's Regime Learned Its Tricks
Scott Horton is a law professor and writer on legal and national security affairs for Harper's Magazine and The American Lawyer, among other publications.
If we can use this situation as another way to prove torture doesn't work then we should do so.
It is necessary for someone to know all the facts. It is also necessary for those facts to be used while strengthening the anti interrogation laws.
Actions must have consequences even if you are working in the White House.
I believe you mean anti-torture laws.
No, what that commie wrote is probably exactly what he means.
Hey! Where can I locate the daily advertisement for the Buckley dead parents book?
I think more than a million Nazi soldiers surrendered to the Allies during WWII. We treated our prisoners well.
If you thought I'd torture you if you surrendered (I'm only limited to what I imagine the feeling of organ failure might be combined with what I imagine you are feeling) don't you think you'd fight back harder?
The Bush administration were savages who undermined civilization.
Unfortunately you are comparing prisoners who fought for a country's army (in uniform) during a conventional war. Clearly that does not apply to combatting the Islamic jihad that has been waged against the United States for the last few decades. As obedient and loyal as the German soldiers were during WW II, they didn't (and would never) strap explosives to their (civilian attired) bodies and kill innocent men women and children. That's a huge difference.
This user is no longer registered.
These torturous techniques were used on soldiers of the regular Iraqi army, as well as irregulars.
This user is no longer registered.
You certainly know your WW II hsitory, particularly the German army and its operations. I think you missed my point though. I was trying to make a distinction between an army of a nation in uniform as opposed to the Islamic terrorists who are non-descript and are comprised of ruthless killers from different countries with various ethnicities and races. It's a different ballgame.
This user is no longer registered.
Call me back when you and your family are blown up or die from a poisoned water supply. Oh, that's right, you won't be able to. Maybe right before you expire, you'll think to yourself "Where are Barack and Nancy, and the UN? They promised that the terrorists were our friends now."
First of all, Josh-Narins, those million captured soldiers in WW2 were simply Germans, not Nazis. And most were conscripted.
More to the point, they were legitimate soldiers, in uniform. And abhorrent as the Nazi regime was, the German military conformed with the Geneva Convention, including and especially in the case of Prisoners of War.
Terrorists not in uniform, not even properly recognizable as guerillas, are not POWS and not covered by the Geneva convention.
I'd like to hear some on the Left get as upset about the videotaped beheadings practiced by these enemies of ours as they are about water-boarding.
Again, I must repeat that these techniques were used by th C.I.A. against Iraqi soldiers. As to your second point, we are not supposed to be terrorists, we are a democracy and they represent a despotic theocracy. Making complaints in our system helps to change things while making complaint in thiers gets you a spot in the line for the cutting board. That is supposed to be a difference. Furthermore, we have freakin' aircraft carriers etc, isn't that enough of an advantage where we can afford to follow our own rules?!?!?
Wow we weren't worse than the worst people we could imagine! I guess we should get a gold star for that. Despite evidence to the contrary American Exceptionalism imagines that we are better than that, that no American should torture anyone. Even higher minded wingers believe that.
All this quite aside from being stupid. Torture only works to elicit lies, so unless lies are the goal, or you get sexual thrills from it, there is no reason to torture anyone.
Further heinous acts lost support from Muslims who were not Islamists and would have won the day for us until the crazy right wing Islamists justified themselves by citing people like you, and the Bush administration.
There is so much evidence out there, it's time for these hearings to become formal legal ones.
This user is no longer registered.
Did you read the article? It says, "One copy has now been identified in the records of the State Department, he noted. Its declassification and release are anticipated shortly."
Let it build, we need to repudiate the philosophy that anyone is above the law substantially and successfully so future leaders won't even consider breaking the letter, let alone the intent of the laws of America
It's a he said she said, if the memo was destroyed who can say what it may or may not have said.
This is akin to the Salem witch hunts, let's get them all.
Time to give it a rest and get on with the real problems at hand,it's the economy stupid, like the Clinton hearings a waste of time and resource.
Did you read the article? It says: "One copy has now been identified in the records of the State Department, he noted. Its declassification and release are anticipated shortly."
LOL, you just keep saying that. Eventually somebody will go back and read the article. Don't you wonder why people post based on the headlines or other posts only?
You need to read the article again. He didn't say the memo was destroyed, he said the Bush Administration made an effort to destroy all copies of the memo.
Thus, when in the article he states that a surviving copy of the memo was found and will be brought to light, we can easily see what was said on this memo.
I find it hard to believe that anyone can doubt the Bush administration played fast and loose with the constitution. The fact that this memo, whose existence was fought so vigorously by the Bush administration, shows they knew they were beyond the pale.
To all you republicans out there. When you justify Bush's actions, what you are saying is that what his administration did was acceptable. So, if Obama's administration were to deny people civil rights, put Republican activists on secret terrorist watch lists, and all the rest of the unprincipled actions that came out of the executive branch over the last eight years, you Republicans are saying that this is okay with you.
A wrong is a wrong is a wrong whether it be done by republican or democrat. I am most shocked at the hypocrisy of the religious conservatives, who seem eager to ignore all manner of sins in the rush to defend their political leaders.
Jesus threw the money changers out of the temple, he didn't excuse them because they were conservative money changers. A wrong is a wrong is a wrong.
Born Again Christians must feel so proud that Bush has now been added to the list of the worlds worst sadists
Stalin
Hitler
Pol Pott
Bush/Cheney
As a Christ follower I find no joy in the lack of veracity that the previous administration is being proven to have (not have). The thing that saddens me the most though, is that there are people like you that believe this is what Christians desire. Anything that sullies the name of Christ is heartbreaking to those of us who follow Him. My prayer is that whoever/whatever caused you to have such vitriolic statements doesn't prevent you from realizing that Christ came to save the world not to torture it.
I hope that justice is served and the wrongdoers are made responsible for the crimes that they committed, but I also pray that your 'gross' generalizing of who Christians are changes.
I am sorry that there is so much confusion as to just what is and who are Christians. The power greed and nastiness of so many of the religious right and their involvement in politics over the last few decades has done great damage to any understanding of the truths of the Christian faith. I hope this can change. But I fear that the shrill tone of the Born Again Christians involvd in politics will continue to drive people away from being interested in the Christian message. A very sad state of affairs.
This user is no longer registered.
Get a grip Munodi.
People murdered:
Stalin 31 million
Hitler 15 million
Pol Pot 1.6 million
It would appear that your hatred and disgust for Bush/Cheney (no matter how well placed) have blinded your objectivity. You can add to your pantheon of sadists Hirohito, Mao, Castro, Tamarlane and many, many more whose misdeeds far outshine Bush/Cheney.
However ignorant and disgusting Bush/Cheney may be, their so-called sadism in no way rises to the level practiced by the other despicable figures you cite. Your comparison, rather than being a cogent observation of the misdeeds of Bush/Cheney, is a reflection of your incredible ignorance of history. And your incredible perverted sense that somehow slapping a few enemy combatants equates to lining up literally millions of human beings and killing them in the most grotesque possible ways trivializes in the extreme the crimes committed by Stalin, Hitler and Pol Pot.
However perverted the acts of Bush/Cheney may have been, I am certain that every one of the victims of your sadistic heroes would have gladly traded places with the Bush/Cheney "victims".
What makes you so certain misterdon? I'm sure the last thing on someone's mind when they're being waterboarded is "well thank my lucky stars I'm being tortured by Americans!"... torture is torture, and what our interrogators did to those people- which went WAY beyond head-slapping- was not only morally reprehensible and criminal, but weakened our own national security by providing a recruiting tool to terrorist organizations, producing false confessions, and destroying our moral authority in the world. You weaken your own argument by minimizing what was done in our name (head slapping? seriously?) dehumanizing those tortured ("enemy combatants" are still human beings) and attacking the messenger (Munodi's sadistic heros? WTF?) displaying your own ignorance of both logic and current events. Personally I could care less whether or not Bush&Cheney compare to history's biggest villains; fact is, they did more to destroy America than any terrorist could ever hope.
colinjames: You are an idiot. You need to travel to Auschwitz, Katyn or the killing fields of Cambodia. Your argument trivializes the true horror and torture of those places. I am in no way an advocate of the American policies which are the subject of all of this kvetching. I thoroughly understand the moral issues involved.
But idiots like you who would make comparisons with Hitler et al or who would suggest that America's actions "did more to destroy America than any terrorist ever could hope" are at least as sick and perverted as Mr. Cheney. Tell me more about the immorality of our brutality. Tell Ms. Pearl about the moral ground upon which our enemy stood when they sawed her husband's head off. Tell the families who watched their loved ones leap to certain death from the Trade Center.
"Torture is torture". B.S. Slapping someone on the face is not the equivalent by any measure of attaching someone's testicles to a wire plugged into the wall. There IS a spectrum here -- not a bright line.
For that matter, if we really want to talk morality here, by your reasoning killing combatants for any reason is immoral. Just because a lawyer says it's ok to gut-shoot an enemy does not really make it moral. It is simply a recognition of a practical (and immoral) reality.
Finally, a study of history will show that acts of the "criminals" who order the killing of people and violate their human rights (like Roosevelt and Truman) is an outcome which can be reasonably expected when their predecessors fail to act in a timely fashion to respond to the proximate causes of wars. There was a time when America was a "moral" country prior to our entry into WWII -- eschewing involvement in conflicts which were inconsistent with our "values". I suggest you read "Should America Go To War?" by James Schneider. It is an account of our foreign policy debate from 1939 through 1941. The opponents of sullying America's values by becoming involved certainly, like you and many others, preserved our place on the moral high ground. But their quest for morality ultimately resulted in us facing moral choices that were unimaginable in 1941.
This user is no longer registered.
Munodi, this characterization is only being made by the Left. Which has evolved in this country to control most media outlets including TV shows, movies, and news in every medium.
The two big exceptions-- Fox Cable News and talk radio are routinely demonized by Leftists. Meaning, the spokesmen for the Democratic Party, and most of the meida.
Bush/Cheney saved your sorry ass, Munodi. And that of 300 million Americans. We'll see how well the Democrats and Obama do at that.
You see Obama backing down daily, as he did on the photo issue. I bet he doesn't really close Guantanamo, either. Nor bring terrorists from there to the American mainland. Becuase if he does, the Dems will lose in '10 and '12.
More Americans have been killed by terrorist during the Bush/Cheney regime than any time in history. Bush/Cheney stopped the program BEFORE the start of their second term. So Cheney made the country "less safe" for his last 4 years? Maybe FOX can spin those facts for you and while they're at it, they can tell us all exactly how Bush/Cheney saved the 3,000 asses in the twin towers that day. To be a moron is one thing, but to choose to be a moron, well that makes you special.
Oh, I thought your name said Robot. You do sound like one.
P-Tirebiter:
"To be a moron is one thing, but to choose to be a moron, well that makes you special."
It's so good, I gotta hope it's yours!! Google will soon tell me.
That is outrageous. You people are over the top. Stalin? Hitler? Pol Pot? Please. Get a grip on reality.
What a stretch. Stalin and Hitler and Pol Pott murdered millions and mutilated millions of others in 'cold blood' without regard to pain, family , feelings or situations. Facts should help people make a distinction and not just generalizations.
Scott,
I noticed, too, that Senator Whitehouse informed Keith Olbermann that he has read the memo, and it is currently being "declassified". It is sure to be an exhibit in evidence.
What struck me was Sen. Graham's incessant chant that boils down to the opinion that the notion of war crimes is a "democrat stunt" ...
http://blogdredd.blogspot.com/2009/05/when-theres-nothing-right-left-to- do.html
The difference between us and them is the key to the discussion here. THEY are terrorists. THEY are the butchers who destroy peoples' lives to advance their cause and to strike fear into the hearts of those who oppose them. THEY are the ones who don't care about human rights and decency.
WE are the ones who are the opposite to all that THEY are. When WE use torture or EITs to gain anything, WE are no different than THEY are.
I heard one supporter of the Bush era pose the quandry, "If you say you would never use torture, what if they had your child and the only way to get the child back was to use torture, would you condone it then?" This is a loaded question. Substitute "If you would never smoke crack", or "If you would never prostitute yourself" or "If you would never...." do any outrageous act, you can see the ridiculousness of that argument. The difference between them and us is crossing that line.
Are we going to let Spain be the arbiter of decent human treatment or will we continue to be the country whos leadership is the model for all the rest of the world?
We avoided torture then openly admitting it since the day of our nation's birth until the Bush II regime.
And we fought real wars, not bully operations where the largest military power slaps little nations around.
The reason we avoided it was who we were until our reputation was soiled.
Shame on the voodoo:
http://blogdredd.blogspot.com/2009/05/voodoo-interrogations-torture.html
I agree that torture is wrong in principle and should never be practiced.. The whole "what if" scenario that is intended to put you in the mindset of a victim of terrorism presents a false choice: in the US we don't allow justice to be meted out by the victims of crime precisely because they do not have the emotional distance to make the choice that is consistent with our values as a society. "What if" my child was killed by terrorists or other criminals? Let's just say that society is better served by it being illegal for me to seek revenge.
So SICK of this debate. Fact is, most of these 'terrorists' and insurgents' were responding to OUR shock and awe and the invasion and occupation of their country. Who amongst us would not be 'terrorists' if we were invaded and tortured and humiliated by a foreign power? Why aren't we talking more about this? AND the real reasons WHY we invaded (oil and profits) -- and who should be going to jail (Bush, Cheney, Rummy, Rice, Wolfowitz) for the suffering of millions of innocents? Why are we talking about Nancy Pelosi?
JohnnyAppleseed: A copy of Zelikow's memo has been found. He stated this on the Maddow show last night. It appears that someone didn't quite make it to the shredder. Doh!
What good are moral principals if you can't live up to them when the pressure's on, especially as a leader...George Washington once made a speech disciplining his troops for abusing captured Hessian soldiers, maintaining that this new country unlike the old world, was better than that...It looks like Cheney's torture was about retribution, not information gathering and has more to do with the legacy of the Nuremberg trials than the Salem witch hunt.
I doubt there is such a thing as a "smoking gun" in this case. That phrase implies that if some fact comes out, everyone will suddenly agree there's a crime here. I think a vast majority of pople on both sides of the issue already assume that Bush and his senior team did directly know about the methods, who they were being used on, that their "effectiveness" was subjective and that their legalality was subject to very selective, controversial interpretation. So what would the smoking gun suddenly show that would change this? The core issue is some people are okay with all this and some people are not. I am with the "not" camp but I can't imagine any evidence changing the minds of those on the other side, who are fundamentally offended that this issue is even questioned.
The evidence will be that Cheney ordered waterboarding on an Iraqi detainee who was NOT a terrorist. He wanted the detainee to make the Saddam Hussein/Al-Qaeda link. The legal memos provided the right to torture ONLY terrorists....This is the smoking gun.
I can't imagine how you will ever get such proof. It's like disproving a negative -- how can you prove that he had certain knowledge that the person was not a terrorist. Sure, you can prove that he didn't have proof the person was a terrorist -- we already know they regularly used "enhanced techniques" on people on speculation without such proof in the hopes that the torture would get them to admit they were. But it would be surprising if they had some definite proof the person was totally innocent even before they applied pressure then left a paper trail about it. Don't hold your breath.
citivas
The purpose of the memo wasn't to justify using harsh techniques against anyone you thought was a terrorist to get any info you wanted: Supposedly it was to justify getting information about an imminent terrorist attack. The point is that they weren't asking about possible terrorist attacks: They were asking about a link between Al-Qaeda and Saddam Hussein. The interrigators were getting good info from him on a number of topics, including the location of top officials, but they weren't getting the link the White House wanted. That's when it was suggested that they had going too easy on the guy and to start using harsher methods.
Forget the controversy around the torture memos and legal justifications that were manufactured by the Bush administration, isn't the fact that Cheney admittedly authorized actions that were deemed torture and thus illegal by US law enough? I mean the guy has confessed to committing a crime.....whether you agree with the action or not, it was and continues to be illegal to waterboard anyone.
I do want the fact to come out, but I do not want any ongoing intelligence operations or covert agents exposed by this inquiry.
We need to be very, very careful here, people. Before we get too self-righteous because we don't like the political ideology of one side or the other, we need to remember that there may be lives still at stake here.
And we need to remember that hindsight is 20-20.
I do not consider it a foolish question to think what I would do to save my child. I am not sure that there are any lines I would not cross for my child.
But I would want clear, irrefutable evidence that the person in question was indeed involved in an immediate and deadly threat to my child, and that only the quick recovery of information only he could provide would save my child.
After my child was saved, I would take the consequences for my choices.
Think, folks: what would you have been willing to do to stop 9-11?
"What would you have been willing to do to stop 9-11?" How about : pay attention to the information & warnings that the previous president, Clinton, gave; not spend almost the majority of the beginning of a presidential term on vacation; pay attention and react to the memo that specified 'Al-Qaida determined to strike in US," getting off my butt when an aide informs me we've just been attacked, instead of continuing to sit there reading "My Pet Goat" to schoolchildren; not running away and hiding, trying to protect MY sorry butt while it is America that needs protecting; and not using measures like torture that make us less safe.
I believe Nancy Pelosi, was given a slight hint, so they could say she was briefed.She is adamant that was wasn't fully briefed, I believe her.
This user is no longer registered.
Well, there's the answer. If we are a country that uses torture (ie, EITs), what's stopping us from expanding the waterboarding technique? Let's move right on to suspending those that we accuse of terrorism from bridges, burning them and chopping off their heads. Those EITs will surely make us safe from another attack or two. It would probably make terrorists embrace us and declare that we were right from the beginning. Freedom aint free buddy.
Right, because Yarrow has no right to an opinion or to voice said opinion. Only if one agrees with twodogs should one speak.
(A) I am not an admirer of Pelosi, but, (B) I'm also not so stupid and naive as to think the CIA tells the truth to Congress at all times.
I have no idea if she's lying or not and neither do you. Let the guilty be found out, regardless of party affiliation. Let them be charged and prosecuted. Just don't tell me that knowing about a torture program is a greater offense than planning and carrying out said program. And, please, don't give me any crap about how becoming torturers and terrorists, becoming the enemy, is necessary to defend America.
This user is no longer registered.
What would I have been willing to do to stop 9-11? Lots. Stop de-stabilisations and outright invasions that 'our' government engaged in all over the world.
Be willing to exist as ONE of the nations on earth, rather than as THE nation that has to have more than any other.
I'd be willing, even tho I no longer call myself a Christian, to behave, as a nation, as my parents, both Marines who served in WWII, lived, according to the New Testament.
I began fearing an attack like 9-11 shortly after I left grammar school, and began studying actual history, not the sort of Disney version that the weapons-manufacturer-owned 'press' ( i.e. NBC, MSNBC, = GE=nuclear weapons parts) give out.
These imaginary scenarios in which a life, or lives, depend on torturing someone are the wet-dreams of consumerism. In real life they don't happen. They are there as an excuse for cowardice, nothing more.
All of this hair-splitting and fakery ignore the reason for the illegal and immoral butchery that was committed by any and all "Americans" who have participated in, or failed to try to stop; that is, the murder of perhaps 1 million Iraqis who never did anything to us, so that we could have control of their oil.
t
Not included in Mr. Horton's report is the fact that Senator L Graham brought up a now defunct CIA operative statement that actionable intelligence was acquired with torture. Mr. Soufan accurately pointed out the assertion was withdrawn as it was totally debunked.
Decades ago, we prosecuted Nazi's as war criminals to the fullest extent of the law at the well documented Nuremburg Trials. Now, that we are engaged in this type of war crime, there's not even a whisper from our new adminsitration about prosecutions.
If you or I murdered hundreds of people via torture (The Army has classified nearly 100 torture deaths as homicides) we would get the death penalty and no one would be hush hush about prosecuting us nor would anyone be advising that we go slow because it could affect our personal safety.
These techniques don't work for actionable intel, never have worked and never will work! Remember that the SERE training given to Navy Seals was to offset these torture techniques used by Vietnam, North Korea, etc to get FALSE confessions from POW's (now called enemy combatants). Is that what we wanted from Binyam Mohamed (released from Gitmo without charge) when we sliced up his genitalia as part of his torture? What in the world would get any American to support such activity under any guise?
This user is no longer registered.
It has been accepted largely without question by the media that pouring water over handkerchief-covered mouths is "torture" of the first order. This is absurd. Have we then "tortured" over 10,000 of our own military and intelligence professionals who undergo the practice as part of their training? This is a semantic game of hypocritical sanctimony. As historian Andrew Roberts points out on this site today, enhanced interrogation techniques more sever than waterboarding have been used to save lives in every conventional war (including by England in WWII, contra Obama's rhetoric). Imagine how Pelosi and her Demagogue party would be railing against Bush & Co. had they failed to use EITs and it had contributed to allowing another attack on Los Angeles. The hue and cry then would be, why didn't our government do everything it could--including pouring water over terrorists--to protect the lives of innocent civilians? It is disingenuous for the far left to cry about protecting terrorists--or even alleged terrorists--to the exclusion of any consideration of innocents. When a civilization becomes this self-loathing and incongruously self-righteous, it cannot long have the strength to protect itself.
You are confusing advanced training with torture. The program here was used to train agents to resist such techniques. There is a big difference between "OK, here's what we are going to do, we are only going to do it for a short time, and this is how you resist it." and "This is what we are going to do and we are not going to stop until you tell us what we want to hear."
Did the CIA lie to Nancy Pelosi?
Is Nancy Pelosi lying to us?
Will Obama lie to everyone
And throw Nancy under the bus?
This user is no longer registered.
There is a great difference between the torture tactics and mass murder by people like People Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, Castro, Mao, Saddam Hussein and yes Bin Laden and indirectly at least by Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (responsible for the 911 massacres).
None of those regimes was using torture or enhance interrogation techniques to try to extract information from terrorists to protect innocent people from future attacks (with the possible/partial exception that Hitler was at least engaged in a conventional war, in addition to his death camps). While the distinction between "torture" and "enhanced interrogation techniques" is a matter of gradation not susceptible to bright line legal distinctions, it is worth noting that waterboarding, as something that does not threaten the lives nor cause permanent damage to a person, is at the Nerf end of the spectrum of aggressive interrogation. When we think of torture, we have typically thought of things more like thumb-screws and the rack - not pouring water over cloth-covered mouths. This has the feel more of fraternity hazing. I am sure it is unpleasant. And that is the point. But it was only used to protect innocent people from what was believed to be another future mass murder attack. And indeed, intelligence officials did learn of another planned attack on L.A.
My point here is that people who reflexively compare the narrow use of waterboarding to protect innocents from being killed to ruthless dictators who have mercilessly tortured their own people and others for the cause of self-preservation of their power--and/or for their own pleasure--have not thought it through very carefully. The comparison is a bad one and it doesn't speak well of people who make it.
You have been misinformed. The lead interrogator of Khudayr said today in hearings that the 'soft' approach was working very well, and the EITs shut him down. In fact, he had to be called back in after the EITs were introduced to get Khudayr talking again.
Seems to me that shoots your whole argument down.
I won't wait to hear you say you were wrong.
Sorry, it wasn't Khudayr, it was Zubaydah.
This user is no longer registered.
Maybe we should water-board them all, to find out who is lying.
Madame Pelosi is a power hungry trapped animal and the walls are caving. Perhaps they should use highly coercive techniques to extract the truth from her. What these islamic fanatics did to innocent people in this country and throughout the world only warrants what has been done, and what will be done to them. These so called people should be treated in a manner in which they deal their pain and suffering and let that act as a deterent to these animals. As we all know by now Mr. Obama is finding out the gross reality that it is far to easy to campaign then it is to govern. His idea of a transparency is harder to accomplish then he may have thought. Thats why he did the right thing not release the photos.
This user is no longer registered.
Nancy Pelosi is more credible than the CIA of that time. It was lead by Porter Goss and Dusty Foggo who "got caught with their pants and everything else down":
http://blogdredd.blogspot.com/2009/02/foggy-mountain-boyz-out-to-waterga te.html
Thank you.
As a first time user, your comment has been submitted for review. It can take anywhere from a few hours to a day or two for your comment to be reviewed, depending on the time of week and the volume of comments we receive.
Please log in to leave comments.