CIA Tactics Endorsed In Secret Memos
Waterboarding Got White House Nod
The Bush administration issued a pair of secret memos to the CIA in 2003 and 2004 that explicitly endorsed the agency's use of interrogation techniques such as waterboarding against al-Qaeda suspects -- documents prompted by worries among intelligence officials about a possible backlash if details of the program became public.
The classified memos, which have not been previously disclosed, were requested by then-CIA Director George J. Tenet more than a year after the start of the secret interrogations, according to four administration and intelligence officials familiar with the documents. Although Justice Department lawyers, beginning in 2002, had signed off on the agency's interrogation methods, senior CIA officials were troubled that White House policymakers had never endorsed the program in writing.
The memos were the first -- and, for years, the only -- tangible expressions of the administration's consent for the CIA's use of harsh measures to extract information from captured al-Qaeda leaders, the sources said. As early as the spring of 2002, several White House officials, including then-national security adviser Condoleezza Rice and Vice President Cheney, were given individual briefings by Tenet and his deputies, the officials said. Rice, in a statement to congressional investigators last month, confirmed the briefings and acknowledged that the CIA director had pressed the White House for "policy approval."
The repeated requests for a paper trail reflected growing worries within the CIA that the administration might later distance itself from key decisions about the handling of captured al-Qaeda leaders, former intelligence officials said. The concerns grew more pronounced after the revelations of mistreatment of detainees at the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq, and further still as tensions grew between the administration and its intelligence advisers over the conduct of the Iraq war.
"It came up in the daily meetings. We heard it from our field officers," said a former senior intelligence official familiar with the events. "We were already worried that we" were going to be blamed.
A. John Radsan, a lawyer in the CIA general counsel's office until 2004, remembered the discussions but did not personally view the memos the agency received in response to its concerns. "The question was whether we had enough 'top cover,' " Radsan said.
Tenet first pressed the White House for written approval in June 2003, during a meeting with members of the National Security Council, including Rice, the officials said. Days later, he got what he wanted: a brief memo conveying the administration's approval for the CIA's interrogation methods, the officials said.
Administration officials confirmed the existence of the memos, but neither they nor former intelligence officers would describe their contents in detail because they remain classified. The sources all spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not cleared to discuss the events.
The second request from Tenet, in June 2004, reflected growing worries among agency officials who had just witnessed the public outcry over the Abu Ghraib scandal. Officials who held senior posts at the time also spoke of deteriorating relations between the CIA and the White House over the war in Iraq -- a rift that prompted some to believe that the agency needed even more explicit proof of the administration's support.
"The CIA by this time is using the word 'insurgency' to describe the Iraq conflict, so the White House is viewing the agency with suspicion," said a second former senior intelligence official.
As recently as last month, the administration had never publicly acknowledged that its policymakers knew about the specific techniques, such as waterboarding, that the agency used against high-ranking terrorism suspects. In her unprecedented account to lawmakers last month, Rice, now secretary of state, portrayed the White House as initially uneasy about a controversial CIA plan for interrogating top al-Qaeda suspects.
After learning about waterboarding and similar tactics in early 2002, several White House officials questioned whether such harsh measures were "effective and necessary . . . and lawful," Rice said. Her concerns led to an investigation by the Justice Department's criminal division into whether the techniques were legal.
But whatever misgivings existed that spring were apparently overcome. Former and current CIA officials say no such reservations were voiced in their presence.
In interviews, the officials recounted a series of private briefings about the program with members of the administration's security team, including Rice and Cheney, followed by more formal meetings before a larger group including then-Attorney General John D. Ashcroft, then-White House counsel Alberto R. Gonzales and then-Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld. None of the officials recalled President Bush being present at any of the discussions.
Several of the key meetings have been previously described in news articles and books, but Rice last month became the first Cabinet-level official to publicly confirm the White House's awareness of the program in its earliest phases. In written responses to questions from the Senate Armed Services Committee, Rice said Tenet's description of the agency's interrogation methods prompted her to investigate further to see whether the program violated U.S. laws or international treaties, according to her written responses, dated Sept. 12 and released late last month.
"I asked that . . . Ashcroft personally advise the NSC principles whether the program was lawful," Rice wrote.
Current and former intelligence officials familiar with the briefings described Tenet as supportive of enhanced interrogation techniques, which the officials said were developed by CIA officers after the agency's first high-level captive, al-Qaeda operative Zayn al-Abidin Muhammed Hussein, better known as Abu Zubaida, refused to cooperate with interrogators.
"The CIA believed then, and now, that the program was useful and helped save lives," said a former senior intelligence official knowledgeable about the events. "But in the agency's view, it was like this: 'We don't want to continue unless you tell us in writing that it's not only legal but is the policy of the administration.' "
One administration official familiar with the meetings said the CIA made such a convincing case that no one questioned whether the methods were necessary to prevent further terrorist attacks.
"The CIA had the White House boxed in," said the official. "They were saying, 'It's the only way to get the information we needed, and -- by the way -- we think there's another attack coming up.' It left the principals in an extremely difficult position and put the decision-making on a very fast track."
But others who were present said Tenet seemed more interested in protecting his subordinates than in selling the administration on a policy that administration lawyers had already authorized.
"The suggestion that someone from CIA came in and browbeat everybody is ridiculous," said one former agency official familiar with the meeting. "The CIA understood that it was controversial and would be widely criticized if it became public," the official said of the interrogation program. "But given the tenor of the times and the belief that more attacks were coming, they felt they had to do what they could to stop the attack."
The CIA's anxiety was partly fueled by the lack of explicit presidential authorization for the interrogation program. A secret White House "memorandum of notification" signed by Bush on Sept. 15, 2001, gave the agency broad authority to wage war against al-Qaeda, including killing and capturing its members. But it did not spell out how captives should be handled during interrogation.
But by the time the CIA requested written approval of its policy, in June 2003, the population of its secret prisons had grown from one to nine, including Khalid Sheik Mohammed, the alleged principal architect of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. Three of the detainees had been subjected to waterboarding, which involves strapping a prisoner to a board, covering his face and pouring water over his nose and mouth to simulate drowning.
By the spring of 2004, the concerns among agency officials had multiplied, in part because of shifting views among administration lawyers about what acts might constitute torture, leading Tenet to ask a second time for written confirmation from the White House. This time the reaction was far more reserved, recalled two former intelligence officials.
"The Justice Department in particular was resistant," said one former intelligence official who participated in the discussions. "They said it doesn't need to be in writing."
Tenet and his deputies made their case in yet another briefing before the White House national security team in June 2004. It was to be one of the last such meetings for Tenet, who had already announced plans to step down as CIA director. Author Jane Mayer, who described the briefing in her recent book, "The Dark Side," said the graphic accounts of interrogation appeared to make some participants uncomfortable. "History will not judge us kindly," Mayer quoted Ashcroft as saying.
Participants in the meeting did not recall whether a vote was taken. Several weeks passed, and Tenet left the agency without receiving a formal response.
Finally, in mid-July, a memo was forwarded to the CIA reaffirming the administration's backing for the interrogation program. Tenet had acquired the statement of support he sought.
Staff researcher Julie Tate contributed to this report.
Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
Technorati
147 Comments so far
Show AllTo Bayani,
Thank you for taking my question seriously and for the Lady Broadoak link.
I *had* seen something about that committee to prosecute Bush a while back-
but somehow I'd forgotten all about it. Very good reminder!
It gives me hope that this group is dedicated to doing something about the Bush War Crimes!!
All good luck to them in that pursuit, and it can't happen soon enough!!
call for executive order banning torture
http://www.nrcat.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=211&Itemid=160
And this headline is somehow supposed to be a revelation?
Question: Fox News spins and endorses torture. So here is my question------shouldn't Fox news be shut down as aiding and abetting informational ,terrorism?
There is no such thing as good guys and bad guys as both use fear and violence as a means of achieving their goals. Torture is wrong there is no justification at all for its use, ever.
The only thing violence achieves is to breed more hatred and resentment resulting in more violence, a vicious downward circle of destruction which those who control society seem to want to perpetuate so that they can cling to their power with us all living in fear so they can gather all resources with their need to fuel their lust for greed.
It is no use thinking that the continuation of the system we are part of will do anything else but continue the cycle of violence, the only way to stop it is to end this system and end the domination of the Ruling Elite over us.
The whole eye-for-an-eye mentality only achieves a blinded population. This so-called idea of justice has been brainwashed into us by the servants of the Ruling Elite through politicians, mainstream media and religion.
We are all one, one suffers we all suffer.
It is time to take control of our own lives and our own destiny and end the current system and create a new one which is based on complete equality.
Revolution Now! Equalitism Now!
peace and love
all is illusion...there is no government
Here is a moral truth: TORTURE is ALWAYS WRONG.
Vlad the Impaler, Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, ... Bu$h the inferior, Shotgun Dick and all tortures past and future use the same tired excuses.
Torture saves us from a worse evil.
Our race is threatened if we don't.
The other guy is doing it.
They will rape your women.
Torture saves lives of our soldiers.
Its not really torture.
We are not like THEM.
The reality is that those who torture, do it because they LIKE IT.
Those who support the terrorists like torture and use the excuse that they are good and the others are evil.
NO SLACK, NO EXCUSES: TORTURE IS EVIL AND THOSE WHO SUPPORT IT ARE EVIL.
Thomas More,October 15th, 2008 3:21 pm, SnowWolf, and all the rest who expressed their view in such a civilized and informative way in one thread, (except for the negative way one addressed SnowWolf) I just want to say thanks. It was such a pleasure reading your posts. You started my day in a positive way.
What a kind thing to say. I know that certainly starts our mornings off right!
I notice how the Washington post carefully avoids the use to the word illegal and does not describe all the laws that Bush and his cronies have broken.
Considering the subject matter this is a very tame report from a completely discredited "news" source.
These are serious questions:
- Can't the International Court do something?
- Isn't there a nation on earth that can arrest & prosecute the Bush admin.?
Does anybody out there know?
What they have done so FAR exceeds the crimes of past presidents (Nixon as one example), that you would think there is someone, somewhere, who can bring these evildoers to justice.
We have all the evidence we need! Don't we?
I would suggest to you that any government official can be prosecuted after they leave office, including the President.
I believe Impeachment is to remove from offioce though, so it wouldn't be needed after he leaves office.
International courts have no jurisdiction or power over the United States, but any nation or court could try him/them if they wanted. It just wouldn't mean anything.
Do not know about the international courts. I DO know they have considered prosecution, but their fear is no less than the average American. Here's an earlier post you may have missed. This blogspot has about as much info as I have found anywhere. It's long and takes time to load, but if you search carefully, you will likely find an answer.
Bayani October 15th, 2008 11:57 am
As I said before, it's never too late for impeachment and JUSTICE. This would go a long way toward healing what is left of our country. PROSECUTION is NOT off the table. The following link is courtesy of ladybroadoak.blogspot.com.
http://ladybroadoak.blogspot.com/2008/10/committee-to-prosecute-bush-rev...
121 postings
To bad the people running for prez are no different than the ones leaving. Remember not all of Bush hench men pervs are leaving a new inner circle will still be in place against everything WE THE PEOPLE SAY
What memos came out of the CIA office to the IAFF and EMS workers of America that gives them the right to use cointel pro surviellance and stalking tactics to create suspects of value to grow the national spy network???????
Torture, is what they are using on innocent Americans.
Cointel Pro tacitics are Torture.
BornFreeMen IAFF Cointel Pro torture survivor
"The methods and photos from Abu Grahib and Guantanamo were no shock to any Palestinian who had been in prison between 1967 and the ‘80’s.
"All the methods used in Abu Grahib were normal procedures against Palestinians. In 1999 Internationals, Palestinians and Israelis for human rights threatened a boycott against Israel and that is what forced the Supreme Court to address the torture issue.
"They did not ban torture and the General Prosecutor can choose not to prosecute those who still use it."- Ala Jaradat of Addameer/Arabic for conscience, January 6, 2006, to me while in Ramallah
Eileen Fleming, Citizen Journalist, Author,
Producer "30 Minutes With Vanunu" and
"13 Minutes with Vanunu" FREELY STREAMING
http://www.wearewideawake.org/
If you knew torture was going on, and continued to pay for it, does that count as an endorsement... Obama?
and the best part is you'll be paying for it at a higher rate under Obama...*S*
.Only if you make over $250,000 he says....
.
We see things, not as they are, but as we are.
Anais Nin
Torture is a good thing. What about the pillory? It's time to bring it back.
There's a world full of investment bankers and share market spivs who are begging to be shackled then humiliated, to be pelted with rotten fruit and eggs by the people who've been ripped off.
Problem is that whole forests would have to be chopped down to keep up with the demand and there mightn't be enough rotten things to throw. Check out:
www.dangerouscreation.com
Al Qaeda SUSPECTS. Some of these are people turned in to get a bounty or satisfy a grudge.
I believe the preppy f**k-up and his minions knew about and condoned torture. I want to see the next president close all non-standard facilities such as Abu Gharaib, bring charges against the inmates, conduct Constitutional trials, follow standard rules of evidence and release those found innocent with a big fat public apology. Perhaps the apologizers should be in the nude in a pile on the floor to illustrate their sincerity.
Joe
Jeevee
NOW we have it in this country: FASCISM.
I'd like to say I don't agree with SnowWolf on this point, but if you can't disagree with someone in a civil fashion, why clutter the landscape with insults?
I hope we aren't reaching the point where someone can't express their opinon freely, sure cuts down on the knowledge exchange.
I've learned quite a bit from folks here that don't agree on some things but do others.
Thomas...
I am totally amazed that I would ever be in a position of defending torture...I was one of the "Good Guys" and the Good Guys don't do that...
but I can see (now) in some scenarios where it would be justifiable...So perhaps I have traded in my White Hat for a Black one...I just know I couldn't face a bunch of family members of the deceased and say...well..."We COULD have stopped what happened to your loved ones but it would have meant infringing on this Guys Civil Rights"...
That one sits kinda funny with me
NOT like Abu Ghraib...That was a failure of Leadership and its well documented as such...
and insults from Lefties don't offend me...I just giggle when they call themselves persons of tolerance and diversity
I don't think you have a black hat, but what if it were Matt? And these guys are someones Matt.
Consider this, why torture these guys for information that is suspect at best and leave our borders wide open by choice to provide cheap labor to business. Delivering an attack would be no problem , heck I could drive an armored division across and be in Kansas City before anyone found out.
The story just doesn't make sense to me. But I don't believe for one minute that George is responsible for no more attacks on our mainland. I personally believe their success scared the devil out of them.
I am SO in agreement about the borders...I just shake my head sometimes about that
I think it was on just this subject that I found Myself Joining here and commenting...
If these Guys (Al Qaida) weren't pulling this stuff on us there would be no need at all...for any of it
I still feel that it is sometimes a necessary evil and I think the President and the President alone should be the one to make that call...
and yes, professionally speaking the Sept 11th attack was brilliant...I thought so at the time and still do
Matt has told me "We (Americans) think these Guys are Stupid...they are NOT Stupid"
You know, there is no real evidence that the organization known as Al Quaeda actually exists; that it is merely a construct of the CIA (and other US "intelligence" groups). Afterall, Osama bin Laden was originally hired and paid by the CIA and encouraged by Berezenski(sp?) to keep the Soviets occupied in Afghanistan long enough to 'cause them serious damage. Plus, the bin Laden family has had connections with the Bush Crime Family for decades.
And, there is a lot of evidence that 9/11 - specifically the actual destruction of those 3 buildings, was perpetrated by elements within our own gov't. If you spend some time reading (start with the PNAC docs) and watching videos, you will at least become very skeptical, if not convinced. We also know for sure that the Iraq war is based on myriad LIES - there was no WMD, no reason to invade except to steal their oil and build permanent military bases
Tenet is a coward and just wanted to cover his ass - as he knew what Cheney, Rumsfeld et al were having his guys do was illegal, and not very useful. The folks in the Bush administration are evil, and it makes them happy to see others suffer, so torture is just a little game for them.
Now that there is actual evidence that these illegal and despicable policies were approved by people in the adminsitration, they should all be rounded up, idicted, convicted and incarcerated - but, maybe just a little waterboading would be nice, first. Americans need to wake up and realize that the folks who've been running this country are the real terr'ists.
.It seems an American tradition to look down upon those who dress, speak and act differently from us. Some of us, hopefully a dreadful few, think it permissable to torture andmurder them.
.
We see things, not as they are, but as we are.
Anais Nin
it came from a failure of Leadership and the Clinton practice of using the Military for Social Engineering (I was on Active Duty when he was the President and I saw it firsthand)
When you mandate an unwritten policy of promoting 25% Women and Minorities regardless of qualifications this is the end result
Enjoy it (He did it all for you)
.Checking under your bed to see if Clinton lurks there speaks volumes about you and not very much at all about him. The greatest failure of leadership has been displayed, not by Bill Clinton, but by the current administration. Clinton had his own flaws and foibles to be certain, yet he balanced the budget, brought full employment to this nation and is still beloved around the world. Cheney and Bush cant even travel to certain locales for fear of an arrest warrant being served on them.
.
We see things, not as they are, but as we are.
Anais Nin
Allow me to remind you both that without the repeal of Glass-Stegall, initiated by Gramm and passed by a Republican Congress, signed by Clinton most of the fininancial chicanery would have been impossible.
There is plenty of blame for the financial mess.
SnowWolf is right about the military under Clinton, but remember that under Rumsfield the damage was doubled. Again plenty of blame for both sides.
.Is it not true that the repeal of that act was buried in an Omnibus Bill at the very end of the lame duck Presidency? This doesnt excuse Clinton, as he is responsible for what he signed, but.....the blame should fall squarely upon Phil Gramm who rammed it home ( mental image suitable!).
.
We see things, not as they are, but as we are.
Anais Nin
That is a total "Straw Man"
We had those years of prosperity because of the fall of the Soviet Union (Sole Superpower status) and we had just won a Major War (Gulf War I)
you might even say we had them in SPITE of Bill Clinton's Presidency...it was the policies of the Republican Congress (Lower Tax rates and Welfare reform)...
The real boom years didn't begin until control of the Congress switched parties in '94
I know...I'm all wrong...
.If you know you are wrong why bother?
Our military budget was not decreased after the fall of the USSR, thus it is hard to understand how that could have affected our economy.
You guys always use the same old tired lines. Anything good is a slow effect from a previous ( read GOP) administration or got better because of an incoming (GOP) congress...This is an illogical condition as both cannot be true. The simple fact is that Clinton's policies, mostly Greenspan's, were the cause, not only of our boom economy, but of the balanced budget as well.
If Bush had been left to founder in a one term Presidency ( damn you Osama) we would probably be still experiencing a downturn due to deregulation of Wall Strret and overweaning greed, but it would not be near as dramatic and potentially disasterous as we wouldnt have anything near a record deficit....
.
We see things, not as they are, but as we are.
Anais Nin
The "ticking time bomb" scenario has ben one used over and over by this (and other) administratin(s), just to cover their ass. They could not give one example of "if you knew there was another bomb, and you knew the guy you had knew wher it was"---its just bullshit. How woud you know?
But, they will let the "grunts" etc. go to prison, even when it is something obviously dreamed up at the top---it was to "uniform" across different areas to be "individual"--what,. theyre saying tha MPs at GITMO and Abu Gharib, just "thought up" the same stuff at the same time by coincidence? Dont you believe it.
The entire "executive branch" knew, and so did the Councils of Congress. If they wouldve awdmitted it early on, saying that they wer "afraid because of the attack", it might have gone better for them. But, they didnt, because that is not how it was.
"But, they will let the "grunts" etc. go to prison, even when it is something obviously dreamed up at the top"
I don't think you realize how LIVID the Military Leadership was when Abu Ghraib Broke..there was no way that they would sanction behavior like that because they knew what a Political Disaster it would be, not only on the Arab Street but Worldwide ...it was a Propaganda bonanza for Al Qaida because all sorts of foreign fighters answered the jihad call over that...
They were JUST starting to get some order back after the initial invasion and things were calming down...that act set the civil affairs plans on their ear and lengthened the chaos there by easily, 2-3 years
The Joint Chiefs didn't plan this, endorse this or look the other way...it did NOT help the War Effort...it hurt it deeply
That is what I meant---I didnt think this came from the brass--it came from Rummy and Co. , from what I can tell.
It is a downright tragedy for our military.
After watching all this nonsense... They tell me that God asked all his angels to bow down to man - I can sympathize with Ibliss' refusal. The tosseled haired goddess that brings the dawn had more sense than `ol Jove.
You might consider that the basis of most justice....and at the least, justice in the United States is "innocent until proven guilty"; not guilty until proven guilty through torture.
Sorry, Thomas...anyone that condones TORTURE IMHO does not deserve civility. EVERYONE has their limitations. Unfortunately, most Americans have unlimited tolerance to criminality and abuse of human rights. If they did not, DC will have been stormed by now. I'll call a wrong a wrong when I see it and in no uncertain terms ...worrying about civility later.
Hi every poster,
If you want to reply to a comment, please click on the word “reply” under that comment, so that everyone would know which comment you are replying to. Posting your reply as a new post messes up everything. Thanks.
Normally I do that...but if its at the bottem of the page its a pain to have to keep scrolling down...I do try to keep it to a bare minimum...and point taken...thank you
*sheepish grin*
So what? The one who has committed crimes against peace and against humanity, destroyed the Constitution, spied on his own people, and...and...and...
Now torture is just a drop in a bucket.
Must We-The-People send the entire Bush Administration and the CIA off to the ICC for processing? Our Congress, whose sworn duty is to impeach these high crimes, has shunned it's duty. Is it going to be off to the ICC with them too or just 'off with their heads', as spoke the queen of hearts...
The George Orwell quote you cited is fictitious
No..its true...I verified it...we have gone over this once before it and was in a London Radio interview...I'd find you the link (again) but I'm rather busy at the moment but if you look a bit you will find it
and I stand by what I said earlier...if I had the decision to make about douching some Terrorist Bigshot or letting a Plot continue where thousands of Americans might be Killed, my only moral consideration would be "Are we ABSOLUTELY certain we have the right Guy?"
I see it the way Truman saw the Atomic Bomb...I can cause some Deaths (which is a moral wrong) but it will save many more than it harms
S'neoWolf sez: "...if I had the decision to make ... my only moral consideration would be "Are we ABSOLUTELY certain we have the right Guy?"
***
But Cheney's moral (sic) consideration requires only a 1% certainty ... and that's the doctrine you seem to be supporting.
"Are we ABSOLUTELY certain we have the right Guy?"
Therein lies the problem. You can't be sure. The reason that we have the laws we have is to protect people from the government and from each other. Wouldn't you agree to that? And if you agree, which I know you do, how can you advocate selective compliance? If you start it, where do you stop it?
Practical demo....a corporal brings in a prisoner, I believe he has information that might save our lives, do I string him up and cut him till he talks, pull his ..... off till he tells me something? Because I think he might know, even though I've sworn not to do that type of thing, it violates the law? I don't have that power to read someones mind.
What happened at Abu Grehb was a breakdown in command and undisiplined, untrained troops, you darn well know that. Not the case with these guys.
PS I don't see the similarity between this and Truman. Truman had a clear choice of American lives and many more Japanese lives or the Japanese lives that were lost. I don't see the surety here. In fact I only have their word we giot any worthwhile information and they have proven themselves liars.
.You are simply esxcusing the higher ups with this position. If you were ever in the military you might understand that those acts of torture were not independent of authority, they were at the behest of that authority..
As to the dropping of those two bombs, both on non military targets chosen for maximum effect (perfect geography etc.), the Japanese were already seeking a way to surrender honorably, a wait of a few weeks was all that was necesary to avoid being the only nation to have used nuclear weapons on civilian populations, TWICE!
We see things, not as they are, but as we are.
Anais Nin
Thomas
I don't expect you to believe Bush or Cheney (I never believed anything Clinton said)
George Tenet still has a shred of credibility left with me...he has said that coercive interrogation of High Value Captives (yes...including Waterboarding) did yield information that stopped followup attacks by Al Qaida that were actually in the execution phase
"Are we ABSOLUTELY certain we have the right Guy?" That is the central point.
That's why we have public trials with lawyers and juries of peers. How else could you know with any degree of certainty? (OMG - I don't believe this basic tenet of democracy has to be repeated over and over). The practical demonstration above is the type of thing that happens very very rarely. Even then, as you say, "I don't have the power to read someone's mind"
Most of our torture is meant to instill fear in the population and break down the psyche of the individual rather than get information to save anybody's life. Torture is also a career field for sadists, cold opportunists, obedient Igors and low morality bullies of various kinds.
Some honest prosecutors in the military see how awful this system is and have rebelled against it. Happily, psychologists have recently decided to opt out as well.
Joe
"Your practical demonstration is the type of thing that happens very very rarely. Even then, as you say, "I don't have the power to read someone's mind"
Just to be clear you understand that even under those circumstances my answer would be no to torture?
Totally understood your point. I agree that torture is never an acceptable practice for a human being. I am just making an additional very practical argument aimed at those whose support of torture is based on fear or desire to save lives.
Joe
Thanks. In reality, even if I'd ordered my troops to do it, they would have told me to get stuffed. A lot of the crap people see in the Viet Nam movies is just that, crap.
Yes - there is decency and common sense under pressure. Not always. But often.
Joe
YOu need to read Shock Doctrine by Naomi Klein. The use of torture has very little, if nothing, to do with extracting reliable information from the torture victim. It's about scaring the crap out of them. The tactics that are being used today by the U.S. were perfected in Argentina.....with the help of the CIA.
so, I am free to kidnap, torture and murder you and your family, as long as I can later cobble together some fictions that "proves" it hypothetically saved some other smucks life?
cool
whats your address, busy this weekend? I got the electrodes if you have the balls
"The only means of strengthening one's intellect is to make up one's mind about nothing, to let the mind be a thoroughfare for all thoughts." - John Keats
Well I suppose you're free to try
but just don't be surprised if I introduced you to my friend Mr. Remington (Model 870 Tactical)
I know you're making a point not a threat...I am making a counter-point regarding Defense and Readiness...*s*
BUT, why are you not up for torture? If you are innocent, you'll simply endure some DISPLEASURE and be set free, as you will not give in under any pain. If you are guilty, you will confess to your sins and deserve whatever punishment WE determine.
What a beautiful world you live in SnowWolf...torture, atomic bombs...all justifiable.
I'd better get to work on my escape pod, we'll need to find another planet soon.
This is "news?" The truth has been out there for years already.
America's response?
Yawn. As a matter of fact, the GOPathologicals in Cali just removed this little ditty from their site:
Waterboard Obama!
http://www.sacbee.com/racefor08/story/1314854-a1314566-t2.html
I think many miss an important point. The Bush administration SAYS they want to keep torture methods on the table because it may yield intelligence not otherwise obtainable. Everyone, even them, knows that this is baloney. The sole purpose of keeping torture as a TOOL that they may legally use is really meant as a FEAR tactic. They think the prospect of being tortured might scare people into deciding not to become terrorists.
The REAL Bush doctrine: instill as much FEAR into populace so that you may rule by convincing them that you are the only ones who can keep them safe. Then the people will allow you to get away with MURDER (and torture).
So, the pile of evidence is starting to stick to our shoes, like "dog luck" on the sidewalk. What will we do about it?
To: SnowWolf
It is clear from your posting that you are a neocon sympthaizer who support water boarding and other forms of torture.
You are correct we never water boarded iraqi's we only killed 1.3 million (including innocent children and women)and countless Afghanis.
But I have some news for you all the crimes commited by US abroad are comming back to haunt in the shape of economic crisis.
Please get help translating this old English Proverb
"As you Sow so shall you reap"
"we never water boarded iraqi's we only killed 1.3 million (including innocent children and women)and countless Afghanis" And we ruined their water, electricity and transportation of food and medicine.
When people respect you or trust you, they are more likely to give you support or good information. Nobody in Iraq and Afghanistan likes us anymore because we kill them and ruin their countries. I am speaking like a child so everyone can understand, even SnowWolf.
Torture is not only revolting but also ineffective. When you torture, people may say things to stop the torture, but how likely is it the truth?
Joe
Bush has no worries. Whatever is tried to bring him to justice will be stopped by his loyalist, Nancy Pelosi. What did she know about torture and when did she know it? By the way, she appears to be headed to reelection in America's so called most liberal city, San Francisco.
The power of the corporate media, coupled with ignorance of voters, cognitive dissonance, and a little Diebold magic.
Which is worse, right wing conservatives or left wing conservatives?
Drop the left/right, liberal/conservative poetic metaphors -- and you'll be closer to objectivity: rich/poor, powerful/powerless, truth/falsehood, warlike/peaceful, corporate/individual, democratic/fascistic dualism instead.
Conservatives were very successful in demonizing liberals. Even the liberals defend conservatives now. It's like a poor minority voting for Republicans, against their best interests.
Could some country in Europe, Latin America, or Africa intervene?
Arrest GW Bush and his henchmen!!
Where are our "allies" now when we really need one?
Help!! Somebody, anybody!!
The U.N.?
These criminals cannot just walk away.
They have tried. Germany called for Rummy's arrest.
In Italy , they actually held an "ad hoc" trial (for RummY) a few weeks ago--he just didnt show up.
They will walk away...
To Paraguay's protection if you are bush
To other state department jobs if you are wolfowitless
To a fake death if you are cheney (see today's heart palpatation news)
Into the mist of the public's ignorance and short-term memory if you are anyone else not mentioned above.
Check out the Center for Constitutional Rights website. Michael Ratner,Pres. has gone to Germany for getting an investigation started there on various war crimes and crimes against humanity for this administration. Also, a guest on DemocracyNow, Philippe Sand (www.democracynow.org) said that a prosecutor in Spain, I think, reminded him (and Sand is an English human rights lawyer who has been working on the torture memos and has a book) that countries outside the US can bring ciminal charges if the US law system/courts will not, on crimes against humanity.
Thanks--you are correct. It was Spain-=-not Italy. Sorry. ; )
"...waterboarding, which involves strapping a prisoner to a board, covering his face and pouring water over his nose and mouth to simulate drowning."
Is there a lethal dose? If they pour the water a little too long, will the prisoner die? If yes, what will they die of? Drowning?
TLR
I'm not a medical professional, but I understand waterboarding to be actual drowning and recovery rather than simulated drowning. Yes, there have been deaths resulting from it. I'm not certain what the clinically-determined causes of death will have been, but assume it may be drowning or it may be stress-induced complications such as cardiac arrest or stroke.
There was a pic of one guy who was dumped on his wife's doorstep after wards.They said he had been shot. It was obvious that he had drowned.
check out "waterboarding" on DemocracyNow. www.democracynow.org and other torture where it's been covered a lot. See my other comments,also.
It doesn't "simulate" drowning; it CAUSES drowning.
_____________________________________________________
http://www.thedoctorwillseeyounow.com/articles/other/drown_7/
How Near-Drowning Damages the Body
"Most of the effects of near-drowning on the body fall into one of two categories. The first includes interference with or stopping of breathing and the damage this does to the lungs, heart, brain and nervous system. The second includes all of the problems brought on by altered (usually lowered) body temperature, something that happens when we spend any length of time immersed in liquid.
When taken into the lungs, both salt and fresh water have the effect of washing out surfactant, the thin coating which bathes the inside of the lungs. The loss of surfactant creates breathing problems of its own, including pulmonary edema, fluid in the lung tissue, which can in turn bring on ARDS, or acute respiratory distress syndrome. Signs and symptoms of ARDS include shortness of breath and wheezing.
When the flow of air to the lungs is obstructed, the results include hypoxia (lowered levels of oxygen in the blood) and ischemia (loss of blood flow to the extremities). These lead to immediate neurological problems, including swelling of the brain and dangerous increases in intracranial pressure. About 20% of near-drowning victims sustain neurological damage; this is the number one cause when near-drowning victims cannot be revived after rescue.
Hypoxia and heart arrhythmia brought on by lowered body temperature are the most common heart and circulatory problems seen in near-drowning victims.
Finally, electrolyte imbalances are a serious but extremely rare occurence in near-drowning survivors. They happen in cases such as immersion in a liquid other than water, or in an exceptional environment such as the Dead Sea, whose high salt content can lead to life-threatening changes in the victim's magnesium and calcium levels."
Any person who takes any water into the lungs should be taken to a hospital immediately.
History will be continually gob smacked that a crew of incompetent fascists the likes of Dubya, Cheney, & Co. were able to drag the USA down the path of becoming a banana republic. As any competent policeman knows, torture as an interrogation method is for those who do not have the skills their job demands, plus the information from such is unreliable. In fact, torture is done as a means of exerting state power. That a supposedly professional organization like the CIA went along causes one to question their bone fides.
I'd like to suggest an alternative analysis, with due respect to yours. Having read Naomi Klein's The Shock Doctrine, my view of the use of torture by this administration falls with her historical perspective, i.e. it has little or nothing to do with extracting good intelligence, and everything to do with instilling fear at home and abroad. Dubya may be a doofus, or certainly appear to be one, but I'm sure you'll agree that he has not been running this show. I'm very interested in the view that this administration while appearing incompetent, has in fact achieved virtually everything they set out to achieve. Disabling government, if it's part of their plan, is a mission accomplished, no? Financial collapse - is that part of the plan, too? If the plan is to seize power absolutely, the conditions have been very well set.
Perhaps in our wildest dreams has this been mere incompetence.
Very good points. What evidence do we have that a) Bush was the brains behind this operation and b) this wasn't the plan all along? Just because 90% of Americans dislike the outcome doesn't mean it wasn't the outcome.
Bush....Brains....there's an oxymoron.
It was Cheney, Perle and Wolfewitz
Does anyone know what specific courses or action are available?
I assume that the ex-president does not get automatic criminal immunity; right?
Nor, can he grant himself a preemptive pardon, like Bush I did to Weinberger; right?
A house with a large democrat majority, and/or a democrat President's Justice Dept, WILL empanel a grand-jury to write up the charges aganist Bush, including first-degree capital murder; right?
As I said before, it's never too late for impeachment and JUSTICE. This would go a long way toward healing what is left of our country. PROSECUTION is NOT off the table. The following link is courtesy of ladybroadoak.blogspot.com.
http://ladybroadoak.blogspot.com/2008/10/committee-to-prosecute-bush-rev...
Impeachment is not a criminal prosecuton. All it is is a removal from office - analogous to a no-confidence vote in a parlaiment - except it can only be done for "high cimes and misdemeanors".
With just 3 months left in office, there is no point to impeachment - the effort needs to be criminal prosecution upon leaving office.
BTW, don't know where else to write this. But it would have been nice if CD had covered the results of yesterdays Candian election. The US press completely ignored it to a degree that is amazing to even a jaded person like me. In particular CD could have covered how the Canada Green Party got press coverage and a seat in a debate, even though they have no seats and only 7% of the vote.
I do not believe I said impeachment was criminal prosecution. If I did, it was not my intention. IMHO, it's never too late for impeachment. To NOT impeach sets a precedent that may never be reversed.. If you check that link, it's about prosecution after the shrub leaves office....courtesy of ladybroadoak.blogspot.com. Some VERY serious folks are working on that scenario.
The very least they can do is sensure him--but, maybe the Dem Leadsers are in it too deep themselves! That iw what I HEAR!
This isn't news
There were 3 Al Qaida Biggies that were waterboarded...we've always known that
and Tenet the former CIA Chief said the information saved a lot of American Lives...if so...I support it
To paraphrase a Supreme Court Justice "The Bill of rights is not a Suicide Pact"
Your ringing endosement of torture is duly noted. We expect no less from you.
http://www.knoph.com/pics/puppetmaster.jpg