Cheat Sheet
The Best In Brief
Bush Official Admits Torture
Bush may be out of office next week, but the torture issue isn't going away. In an interview with Bob Woodward, Susan J. Crawford, the official charged with deciding whether to bring Guantanamo Bay detainees to trial, says that the United States tortured Mohammed Al Qahtani, the so-called "20th hijacker" from September 11. "His treatment met the legal definition of torture," she says. The techniques used against Al Qahtani included sustained isolation, sleep deprivation, sexual humiliation, and prolonged exposure to cold. Twice, he was hospitalized with bradycardia, a potentially deadly condition where the heart rate falls below 60 beats per minute. "The techniques they used were all authorized, but the manner in which they applied them was overly aggressive and too persistent," Crawford said. "You think of torture, you think of some horrendous physical act done to an individual. This was not any one particular act; this was just a combination of things that had a medical impact on him, that hurt his health. It was abusive and uncalled for."
I guess the first question is how many American and other lives were saved by mistreating this monster. Or have we become so noble or worried about what "the international community" -- snort -- thinks that this is an irrelevancy?
Your ignorant banjo, fact is by torturing this nut you've made you, your countrymen and your servicemen over seas even more vulnerable. Next time I meet some americans I'm going to spit in their faces for electing and allowing bush to do what he wants. You didn't have the guts to take him down in 2004 or call him out over his practices, hell even now you don't even have the backbone to arrest and lock him up for violation of your own laws. The land of the Free, hah how free are you when your leaders can decided to just ignore your laws and do what they deem necessary, maybe even to one of your own citizens, where does it stop, where is that line that they don't cross, and how would you even know if they already crossed it. Your ridiculous, you and your country, smarten up USA.
I guess America will always have twerps who imagine that what happens in the movies is reality. Banjo1 seems to be on of those. Torture is useful for confessions and precious little else. Those who toture always calim that important information was gained but never provide any proof. They can't. It does not exist.
It is well-known by now that the U.S. torture policy has put our troops at great risk and is responsible for many of their deaths. It has made it possible for terror groups to multiply and flourish around the world. And it is also well-known that torture does not bring forth reliable or useful information. We and our allies are less safe than we were eight years ago because of these policies.
Banjo, you must be one of the 20% that still support Bush, and go ga-ga over a nut like Palin.
Sounds as though you folks are painting this guy as a dangerous candy thief! They ought to to hang him upside down by his big toes until he realizes how horrible an act he was involved in. This is war! There should be no rules for torture in war!
What happened to my post? Scopalamine and or LSD mixed with mescaline would have been non tortorous and the prisoneer would have spilled all that he knew.
michaelslevinson
Never voted for Bush, don't like Palin. Talk to the Israelis about the valuable information they have gotten from "martyrs" caught bound for pizza joints or weddings with explosives strapped on. I'm sure Mugly067 up there would prefer a pacifist in the White House in the interests of hastening the restoration of the caliphate, It's either that or he's gone off his meds again.
Contrary to what some of you assert, torture in some cases can produce highly accurate and useful information. (During WWII, the French Resistance asked its members to hold out for 24 hours after capture to allow others to hide.) I certainly hope that this 20th hijacker spilled plenty. It certainly was worth a try. I have no guilt feelings about it and applaud the effort to prevent another 9/11.
Mugly067 you'd be wise to limit your spitting to old ladies; but you probably would without my telling you so.
Such a story, no matter how high-minded the ostensible reasons for printing it, serves to martyr Al Quhtani. Judge Crawford's conclusion that this "has tainted everything going forward" is pure defeatist baloney.
We didn't need to know this, nor did our critics and enemies. Both Crawford and Woodward should be ashamed.
The right thing to do now is send the man back to Saudi Arabia, where he will be rehabilitated and turned into a useful member of society.
I am not in favor of torture but Im also not in favor of terrorism.. If I had to choose torture where a known villein is being tortured for information or a "war" where innocent civilians are injured or killed... I would most defiantly choose torture of the few.
This user is no longer registered.
I thought journalism shied away from 'Dog Bites Man' stories. Now if the headline read 'Al Qaeda Official Admits Torture' ... Oh yeah, that would have been dog bites man.
The Israelis have good success extracting valuable information from Muslims on their way to claiming the 72 virgins due them by gaining martyrdom at pizza parlors or wedding parties. Stop these monsters by any means necessary, I say.
michaelslevinson if you are buying then I will tell you whatever you want to hear. Sounds like you know how to have a good time during your interrogations.
Banjo1 you are a wimpy scared little person just like your president and your party for that matter. The republicans like to talk all tough with that boot up ur as_s stuff but one attack on our soil and you are all ready to throw everything that america stands for out the door.
We are supposed to be the good guys. That means that we stand up for our ideals even if that means we are a little less safe. I live in an area that that is prime for a terrorist attack and I will happily take that risk rather than having the ideals my fore fathers stood for thrown to the curb by a bunch of pu_ssy republicans.
Israel has these people basically in detention camps then attack when they shoot some bottle rockets over the fence. We topple governments to give haliburton a new pipeline then wonder why they do this stuff. The problem is that american's are too innocent, ignorant, naive, distracted by britney's latest breakdown to understand the root of the problem. It is so much easier to send someone else to kill a bunch of random people to make it feel like something is being done as long as we don't have to do anything about it.
Sure if one guy knows where a bomb will go off, cut his nutz off and show them to him. But, if it is that serious someone should be willing to go to jail to get the info.
ok... so we have obviously committed a number of war crimes... who, then, is going to prison? Cheanay? If only...
yeah Bush Cheaney Rumsfeld Rice Rove Card etc should all get a ticket to the Hague and should stand trial in an international court for war crimes just like all the other nazi's
I would gladly pull out a terrorist nails any day and I am not ashamed to say that.
The central issue for me is that torture doesn't work, it doesn't make them "like" you enough to give you good information. An interrogation centered around deprogramming the terrorist and gaining their trust is going to be more effective.
bango: why are you bringing israel into this? this is about the united states and their treatment of terrorists/suspects. it has nothing to do with israel. so dont mix the issues.
as for the bush official's admission, it sounds to me like said official is looking for her 15 minutes of fame. we know that detainees were tortured in gitmo. there is no reason for her to come out with this now.
as for torture in general, aside from sociopaths, i don't think anybody is "pro torture". i don't think anybody wants to torture anybody else. personally, the idea makes me sick to my stomach.
the real question is the benefit of torture to the continued existence of society. for example, if torturing person X will save the lives of 3,000 innocent people, do we engage in said torture?
i think its hard to quantify. i dont know of any statistics regarding the effectiveness of the use of torture to save innocent lives. or how many of the confessions given by the torturee are true.
either way, if torture is deemed "acceptable" in certain situations, then there is a need for very strict guidelines. you should not be able to torture detainees who you are not 100% positive that they are guilty of crimes and are a threat to society. i also think that the types of torture that would be "acceptable" need to be limited to those that are proven to be effective.
the philosophical debate aside, what is horrible about gitmo is not only the method of torture used, but the fact that under the leadership of george bush, the united states tortured people across the board. while this is not only morally wrong, it is also not the way the united states is supposed to behave.
i have to say, the treatment of prisoners at gitmo is one of the things that i am most ashamed about regarding the bush years.
"the united states tortured people across the board."
Really? How many? On what grounds?
penscott: meaning the detainees at gitmo.
your on what grounds question is precisely my point - the us tortured people and detained people with no evidence whatsoever that they were involved in terrorism.
its heinous.
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.