Have you read the torture memos?

[luke warm]

and i think this is ridiculous...

Then you must hold the position that the President and all the executive branch is above the law and there are no checks and balances on that power.

of course i don't... whatever gave you that idea?

Maybe I misunderstood - perhaps you meant that using the international criminal court was the ridiculous part and the charges should be taken up within the U.S. and by the U.S.

bingo, *if* there are charges they should be filed here according to u.s. law... there's no such thing as checks and balances on the executive branch from any entity outside the u.s., despite many who might desire it

 

btw, check out obama's decision to adhere to another bush policy

[jdonn]

btw, check out obama's decision to adhere to another bush policy

But yet he gets lambasted for releasing classified information as well.

 

Damned if he does, damned if he doesn't?

[Winstonm]

btw, check out obama's decision to adhere to another bush policy

But yet he gets lambasted for releasing classified information as well.

 

Damned if he does, damned if he doesn't?

 

there's no such thing as checks and balances on the executive branch from any entity outside the u.s., despite many who might desire it

Btw, this is the reason I like Greenwald. He gives kudos to Obama for releasing the information - and I agree; he also gives Obama hell for sustaining and even enlarging on the Bush state's secret arguments concerning wiretapping cases.

 

 

there's no such thing as checks and balances on the executive branch from any entity outside the u.s., despite many who might desire it

 

True that checks and balances are internal methods to keep the divisions of the government roughly in balance - but there is also international law that can be applied if checks and balances fail to prevent international crimes.

[PassedOut]

One of the great things about Obama's release of the torture memos is that others who knew the truth are now speaking up: Lead FBI Agent Refutes Cheney Lies

 

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.

 

...

 

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.

Of course Cheney, Rice, and the other torturers claim that torture produced results and that "the ends justified the means." But a person willing to torture is surely a person willing to lie.

[Lobowolf]

Of course Cheney, Rice, and the other torturers claim that torture produced results and that "the ends justified the means." But a person willing to torture is surely a person willing to lie.

Would it affect your position if you knew the claim to be true? If, say, waterboarding a known terrorist could be known definitively to have prevented something on the scale of 9-11.

[PassedOut]

Of course Cheney, Rice, and the other torturers claim that torture produced results and that "the ends justified the means." But a person willing to torture is surely a person willing to lie.

Would it affect your position if you knew the claim to be true? If, say, waterboarding a known terrorist could be known definitively to have prevented something on the scale of 9-11.

No.

[hrothgar]

Of course Cheney, Rice, and the other torturers claim that torture produced results and that "the ends justified the means." But a person willing to torture is surely a person willing to lie.

Would it affect your position if you knew the claim to be true? If, say, waterboarding a known terrorist could be known definitively to have prevented something on the scale of 9-11.

I don't accept the premise of the question: These types of idiotic thought experiments are an attempt to distract people from the facts on the ground.

 

"Ticking Bomb" are great fodder for TV shows like "24". They don't occur in real life and they most certainly have NOTHING to do with the criminal abuses perpetrated by Cheney, Bush, and the like.

 

There is a great Op Ed in this morning's Times that speaks directly to this topic.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/23/opinion/...r=3&ref=opinion

 

For convenience, I attaching the complete Op Ed at the close of this post. I also Strongly recommend that folks check out the following:

 

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_...ovie-.html#more

 

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.

 

It was the right decision to release these memos, as we need the truth to come out. This should not be a partisan matter, because it is in our national security interest to regain our position as the world’s foremost defenders of human rights. Just as important, releasing these memos enables us to begin the tricky process of finally bringing these terrorists to justice.

 

The debate after the release of these memos has centered on whether C.I.A. officials should be prosecuted for their role in harsh interrogation techniques. That would be a mistake. Almost all the agency officials I worked with on these issues were good people who felt as I did about the use of enhanced techniques: it is un-American, ineffective and harmful to our national security.

 

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.)

 

As we move forward, it’s important to not allow the torture issue to harm the reputation, and thus the effectiveness, of the C.I.A. The agency is essential to our national security. We must ensure that the mistakes behind the use of these techniques are never repeated. We’re making a good start: President Obama has limited interrogation techniques to the guidelines set in the Army Field Manual, and Leon Panetta, the C.I.A. director, says he has banned the use of contractors and secret overseas prisons for terrorism suspects (the so-called black sites). Just as important, we need to ensure that no new mistakes are made in the process of moving forward — a real danger right now.

 

Ali Soufan was an F.B.I. supervisory special agent from 1997 to 2005.

[Lobowolf]

I don't accept the premise of the question:  These types of idiotic thought experiments are an attempt to distract people from the facts on the ground.

 

"Ticking Bomb" are great fodder for TV shows like "24".  They don't occur in real life and they most certainly have NOTHING to do with the criminal abuses perpetrated by Cheney, Bush, and the like.

As you might expect, I disagree with most of your post.

 

First, the question is extremely useful from the perspective of analytical efficiency; when it's established that there would be opposition even if there was no doubt as to the efficacy, then there's no point in talking about whether or not it's an efficacious technique (which is a less certain question).

 

I also disagree that they "don't occur in real life." Sure, there was no literal "Ticking Bomb" on 9/11, but for all intents and purposes, there was. The plot was planned and set into motion in advance, and it was theoretically possible to thwart it. Discovering the principals, or the specifics of the plan before the planes took off would be, in principle, identical to finding and defusing the "ticking bomb."

 

I also think that the Op-Ed you cited doesn't support your critique of my question. Mr. Soufan goes to great lengths to make the case that the interrogation techniques in question are not useful. That editorial presupposes that the efficacy of the techniques may be a relevant criterion in their evaluation.

 

I was not trying to make a rhetorical point in asking the original question, though. As PassedOut is one of the more rational, nonpartisan WC contributors, I am particularly interested in his opinions on a variety of issues. I was not attempting "to distract people from the facts on the ground," but to get a better understanding of his position.

 

Thanks for answering, PO.

[PassedOut]

I was not trying to make a rhetorical point in asking the original question, though.  As PassedOut is one of the more rational, nonpartisan WC contributors, I am particularly interested in his opinions on a variety of issues.  I was not attempting "to distract people from the facts on the ground," but to get a better understanding of his position.

 

Thanks for answering, PO.

It's true that the opinion I expressed about Cheney and Rice is not germane to my views on torture. I just don't believe that our country's principles should be sacrificed for expediency, even if doing so would make us a little safer.

[hrothgar]

 

First, the question is extremely useful from the perspective of analytical efficiency; when it's established that there would be opposition even if there was no doubt as to the efficacy, then there's no point in talking about whether or not it's an efficacious technique (which is a less certain question).

 

It is "theoretically possible" that you wrote your post to see if it was worthwhile to have a discussion. In practice, this precise same tactic - attempting to derail the conversation by switching from a very concrete set of known actions to some ridiculous hypothetical - is constantly used by Bush apologists who are desperately attempting to run out the clock.

 

You might think that parroting right wing talking points / critiques is clever. In actuality, its pathetically transparent...

 

I also disagree that they "don't occur in real life."  Sure, there was no literal "Ticking Bomb" on 9/11, but for all intents and purposes, there was.  The plot was planned and set into motion in advance, and it was theoretically possible to thwart it.  Discovering the principals, or the specifics of the plan before the planes took off would be, in principle, identical to finding and defusing the "ticking bomb." 

 

Lots of stuff is theoretically possible without being remotely practical. Its theoretically possible that I'll win the PowerBall. I don't bother making elaborate plans regarding how I'm going to spend my ill got gains because it isn't a productive use of time. In a similar vein, I wouldn't start a discussions about how my winnings will change my life unless I was desperate to change the subject.

 

I also think that the Op-Ed you cited doesn't support your critique of my question.  Mr. Soufan goes to great lengths to make the case that the interrogation techniques in question are not useful.  That editorial presupposes that the efficacy of the techniques may be a relevant criterion in their evaluation.

 

I think that you might want to read the editorial more carefully: One of the key points is that there was no ticking bomb scenario. The CIA didn't start torturing Abu Zubaydah until at least five months after the start of interrogations. (The author started questioning AZ in late March. The CIA started torturing him in August.)

[Winstonm]

Would it affect your position if you knew the claim to be true? If, say, waterboarding a known terrorist could be known definitively to have prevented something on the scale of 9-11.

 

I am not attempting to be a wiseass but can someone explain why the above - when addressing a speculative concept - is a valid consideration but when the topic is thermite use in WTCs destruction the speculative becomes invalid?

 

I really don't see any difference myself - other than the beliefs of the ones asking the questions.

[Winstonm]

I just don't believe that our country's principles should be sacrificed for expediency, even if doing so would make us a little safer.

 

 

My thinking as well. Once the concept of self-rule is changed to a monarchy - no matter how benevolent the present or future monarach happens to be - you no longer have the country for which you sacrificed that freedom.

 

 

Personally, I am not a Bush hater. I think Bush had ego problems (typical of alcoholics and other addicts) and solved them with closedminded ideoligical beliefs.

I do think he somewhat wised up toward the end of his Presidency (or maybe he simply started drinking again) and finally learned to say no to Cheney - the Evil One - else we would have had a war with Iran to add to our woes.

 

That is the one person I have an abiding distrust and gut-wrenching dislike for: Dick Cheney. I lay the last 8 years directly at his feet.

[Lobowolf]

Would it affect your position if you knew the claim to be true? If, say, waterboarding a known terrorist could be known definitively to have prevented something on the scale of 9-11.

 

I am not attempting to be a wiseass but can someone explain why the above - when addressing a speculative concept - is a valid consideration but when the topic is thermite use in WTCs destruction the speculative becomes invalid?

 

I really don't see any difference myself - other than the beliefs of the ones asking the questions.

I think you're mostly correct, in principle. My own perception is that it's certainly plausible that questionable interrogation techniques could get useful information. Which is not to say that would necessarily justify those techniques. My perception is also that it's extremely implausible that the WTC destruction was any sort of government conspiracy. Your mileage may certainly vary.

[Lobowolf]

It is "theoretically possible" that you wrote your post to see if it was worthwhile to have a discussion...

 

You might think that parroting right wing talking points / critiques is clever. In actuality, its pathetically transparent

I wrote the post in question because I wanted to know if PO's comment was central to his position, or an aside.

 

I haven't formed a solid enough opinion of my own to want to persuade others on this particular topic.

 

My own inclination is that "Does it work?" is not a relevant big picture question, i.e. the end does not justify the means. However, particularly as weapons technology improves, I'm not completely certain about that.

 

I think these are all interesting and relevant questions, and that certainly one doesn't have to be right-wing or idiotic to raise the questions. As Alan Dershowitz has demonstrated.

[mike777]

Going forward it will be interesting to see, in detail, what techniques of interrogation by spies will be legal per future memos and not called torture.

 

We know that spies kill people directly and indirectly without due process. That may make even more people puke.

 

One can only hope that the right wing running these spies are stopped and the left wing is put in charge.

 

As a sidenote the entire culture of the CIA and NSA seems to be one of breaking the laws of nations and dealing with the scum of the earth, all because the ends justify the means. If you have spies going around breaking numerous laws of most countries how bad can slapping around a guy, screaming loud noises at them or throwing someone into a wall seem to these guys and gals?

 

Now throw the Mastermind of 9/11 into CIA hands and tell them to interrogate him?

[mike777]

Since this thread is about torture and how torture is against the values of America; it seems we are in the process of moving Gitmo to Bagram and continuing to not give due process.

 

 

"The Obama administration is basking in praise for its welcome commitment to shut down the American detention center at Guantánamo Bay. But it is acting far less nobly when it comes to prisoners held at a larger, more secretive military detention facility at Bagram Air Base in Afghanistan."

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/13/opinion/..._r=1&ref=global

[Winstonm]

Going forward it will be interesting to see, in detail, what techniques of interrogation by spies will be legal per future memos and not called torture.

 

We know that spies kill people directly and indirectly without due process. That may make even more people puke.

 

One can only hope that the right wing running these spies are stopped and the left wing is put in charge.

 

As a sidenote the entire culture of the CIA and NSA seems to  be one of breaking the laws of nations and dealing with the scum of the earth, all because the ends justify the means. If you have spies going around breaking numerous laws of most countries how bad can slapping around a guy, screaming loud noises at them or throwing someone into a wall seem to these guys and gals?

 

Now throw the Mastermind of 9/11 into CIA hands and tell them to interrogate him?

I don't seem to remember anything about foreign spies coming into the U.S. and killing people. Is this deal of going around and killing people and breaking nations' laws part of American exceptionalism - good when we do it but no one else gets to play? But for other countries it is called terrorism?

 

And when these other countries adopt our tactics and torture our agents and soldiers - what reason again will we have to protest?

[mike777]

Great point.

 

I see you can never quote anyone coming into usa and killing us or using torture...good point

 

It does seem the USA spies and others do go around breaking laws, even today.

 

I will not even mention those prisoners who we killed in WW1 or WW2 in Europe or the pacific islands.

 

As for Bagram and how we deny human rights in 2009....enough said.

 

As for how we supplied arms to Russia as they killed and raped across Germany, enough said.

[cherdanno]

btw, check out obama's decision to adhere to another bush policy

But yet he gets lambasted for releasing classified information as well.

 

Damned if he does, damned if he doesn't?

It's more like:

- Obama makes a sensible decision, he gets criticized by idiots on the right.

- Obama makes a questionable decision, he gets criticized by reasonable people, partisan or non-partisan.

[hrothgar]

krugman has a great op-ed today

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/24/opinion/...ugman.html?_r=1

 

Greenwald is also well worth reading

 

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/04/24/democrats/

[hrothgar]

bingo, *if* there are charges they should be filed here according to u.s. law... there's no such thing as checks and balances on the executive branch from any entity outside the u.s., despite many who might desire it

 

btw, check out obama's decision to adhere to another bush policy

Saddam Hussein found out that there are checks and balances on the unitary executive. Piss enough people off and folks are going to do something.

 

I don't think that the US has to fear military attach from any force on the planet. However, we'd be royally screwed if (hypothetically) the Europeans and the Chinese decided to adopt an alternative reserve currency.

 

As for your second comment...

 

I said long long ago that I didn't except to agree with every position Obama takes.

 

I'm completely disgusted by his administrations conduct during this whole debate. I think that his decision to try to dissuade prosecution is craven. I think that his vacillation is tactically inept.

 

Still, I consider him a welcome change from compared to both Bush and Clinton.

[Winstonm]

krugman has a great op-ed today

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/24/opinion/...ugman.html?_r=1

 

Greenwald is also well worth reading

 

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/04/24/democrats/

I think I've said in these forums virtually the same thing as Krugman wrote in his piece.

 

Sorry, but what we really should do for the sake of the country is have investigations both of torture and of the march to war. These investigations should, where appropriate, be followed by prosecutions — not out of vindictiveness, but because this is a nation of laws.

 

I must admit it is good to seen my own thinking reflected in the views of others.

I see Greenwald also states the same case I have made.

 

It has to do with the most central premise of the American system of government:  that we are a nation of laws, not men, and all are equal before the law.

[jonottawa]

I said long long ago that I didn't except to agree with every position Obama takes.

 

I'm completely disgusted by his administrations conduct during this whole debate. I think that his decision to try to dissuade prosecution is craven. I think that his vacillation is tactically inept.

 

Still, I consider him a welcome change from compared to both Bush and Clinton.

Obama couldn't carry Clinton's jock-strap. Clinton=greatest president ever.

 

It's funny that they called Clinton 'Slick Willie'. Nobody's slicker than Barry, but I think that's about all he brings to the table. The boy has no balls. No principles. Just a finger in the air and some happy talk.

 

If he ever picks a fight with a powerful and popular interest, I'll be the first to say I was wrong. It won't happen, though.

[Winstonm]

entire culture of the CIA and NSA seems to be one of breaking the laws of nations and dealing with the scum of the earth, all because the ends justify the means

 

Exactly who is it again that is the scum of the earth? Is that something we get to vote on or is it a personal choice? It is certainly a judgement, so is that decided by an international court that these 3 over here in Somalia stealing from ships are scum because they have no job, no chance of a job, no future, and no hope - is that what make them scum?

 

Myself, I don't know any scum - I only know human beings, good, bad, indifferent, well, sick, and in-between.

 

Note to self: Not even Dick Cheney. (Provided it is proven conclusively that he is indeed human.)

[Winstonm]

Clinton=greatest president ever.

 

Sorry to burst your bubble, but she wasn't elected. :rolleyes: