T1B

Sudden Sam wrote:http://jewishworldreview.com/cols/sowell090109.php3

The late Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn put his finger on the problem when he said: "The timid civilized world has found nothing with which to oppose the onslaught of a sudden revival of barefaced barbarity, other than concessions and smiles."

JMak wrote:But somehow, killing them in the field is more morally/legally defensible than waterboarding them, varying the room temperature, using female interrogators, etc.

Felix wrote:It's got nothing to do with "being nice",

and everything to do with upholding international and United States law....interrogation experts (you know, the people that know a shitload more about it than you do) indicate that torture does not typically provide useful intel......examination of the reports that Cheney claims proved that useful information was obtained using waterboarding is simply bullshit.....interrogation experts (again, the people that know a shitload more about it than you) always say that at some point, the torturee is willing to say anything to stop the torture......

other methods of interrogation are more productive, but for some reason the Bush/Cheney cabal felt the need to waterboard some dude 183 times....and what do you know, they got jack shit for it.....

but as I said in another thread, if Cheney is so confident they were acting within the bounds of the law, then he should welcome any investigation with open arms...but surprisingly, he's slathering all over the news that Eric Holder is simply trying to make the previous administration "look bad" in front of the nation...why do you suppose Cheney is so adamantly opposed to an investigation that might potentially vindicate the Bush administrations actions?

The debate over the effectiveness of subjecting detainees to psychological and physical pressure is in some ways irresolvable, because it is impossible to know whether less coercive methods would have achieved the same result. But for defenders of waterboarding, the evidence is clear: Mohammed cooperated, and to an extraordinary extent, only when his spirit was broken in the month after his capture March 1, 2003, as the inspector general's report and other documents released this week indicate.

...snip...

John L. Helgerson, the former CIA inspector general who investigated the agency's detention and interrogation program, said his work did not put him in "a position to reach definitive conclusions about the effectiveness of particular interrogation methods."

"Certain of the techniques seemed to have little effect, whereas waterboarding and sleep deprivation were the two most powerful techniques and elicited a lot of information," he said in an interview. "But we didn't have the time or resources to do a careful, systematic analysis of the use of particular techniques with particular individuals and independently confirm the quality of the information that came out."

After his capture, Mohammed first told his captors what he calculated they already knew.

"KSM almost immediately following his capture in March 2003 elaborated on his plan to crash commercial airlines into Heathrow airport," according to a document released by the CIA on Monday that summarizes the intelligence provided by Mohammed. The agency thinks he assumed that Ramzi Binalshibh, a Sept. 11 conspirator captured in September 2002, had already divulged the plan.

One former U.S. official with detailed knowledge of how the interrogations were carried out said Mohammed, like several other detainees, seemed to have decided that it was okay to stop resisting after he had endured a certain amount of pressure.

"Once the harsher techniques were used on [detainees], they could be viewed as having done their duty to Islam or their cause, and their religious principles would ask no more of them," said the former official, who requested anonymity because the events are still classified. "After that point, they became compliant. Obviously, there was also an interest in being able to later say, 'I was tortured into cooperating.' "

Mohammed was an unparalleled source in deciphering al-Qaeda's strategic doctrine, key operatives and likely targets, the summary said, including describing in "considerable detail the traits and profiles" that al-Qaeda sought in Western operatives and how the terrorist organization might conduct surveillance in the United States.

The CIA itself commissioned the Inspector General's review. The report, prepared five years ago, noted both the effectiveness of the interrogation program and concerns about how it had been run early on. Several Agency components, including the Office of General Counsel and the Directorate of Operations, disagreed with some of the findings and conclusions.

The CIA referred allegations of abuse to the Department of Justice for potential prosecution. This Agency made no excuses for behavior, however rare, that went beyond the formal guidelines on counterterrorism. The Department of Justice has had the complete IG report since 2004. Its career prosecutors have examined that document-and other incidents from Iraq and Afghanistan-for legal accountability. They worked carefully and thoroughly, sometimes taking years to decide if prosecution was warranted or not. In one case, the Department obtained a criminal conviction of a CIA contractor. In other instances, after Justice chose not to pursue action in court, the Agency took disciplinary steps of its own.

The CIA provided the complete, unredacted IG report to the Congress. It was made available to the leadership of the Congressional intelligence committees in 2004 and to the full committees in 2006. All of the material in the document has been subject to Congressional oversight and reviewed for legal accountability.

JMak wrote:

The debate over the effectiveness of subjecting detainees to psychological and physical pressure is in some ways irresolvable, because it is impossible to know whether less coercive methods would have achieved the same result. But for defenders of waterboarding, the evidence is clear: Mohammed cooperated, and to an extraordinary extent, only when his spirit was broken in the month after his capture March 1, 2003, as the inspector general's report and other documents released this week indicate.

...snip...

John L. Helgerson, the former CIA inspector general who investigated the agency's detention and interrogation program, said his work did not put him in "a position to reach definitive conclusions about the effectiveness of particular interrogation methods."

"Certain of the techniques seemed to have little effect, whereas waterboarding and sleep deprivation were the two most powerful techniques and elicited a lot of information," he said in an interview. "But we didn't have the time or resources to do a careful, systematic analysis of the use of particular techniques with particular individuals and independently confirm the quality of the information that came out."

After his capture, Mohammed first told his captors what he calculated they already knew.

"KSM almost immediately following his capture in March 2003 elaborated on his plan to crash commercial airlines into Heathrow airport," according to a document released by the CIA on Monday that summarizes the intelligence provided by Mohammed. The agency thinks he assumed that Ramzi Binalshibh, a Sept. 11 conspirator captured in September 2002, had already divulged the plan.

One former U.S. official with detailed knowledge of how the interrogations were carried out said Mohammed, like several other detainees, seemed to have decided that it was okay to stop resisting after he had endured a certain amount of pressure.

"Once the harsher techniques were used on [detainees], they could be viewed as having done their duty to Islam or their cause, and their religious principles would ask no more of them," said the former official, who requested anonymity because the events are still classified. "After that point, they became compliant. Obviously, there was also an interest in being able to later say, 'I was tortured into cooperating.' "

Mohammed was an unparalleled source in deciphering al-Qaeda's strategic doctrine, key operatives and likely targets, the summary said, including describing in "considerable detail the traits and profiles" that al-Qaeda sought in Western operatives and how the terrorist organization might conduct surveillance in the United States.

But, like you said, these enhanced interrogation techniques didn't work...except when they did work.

Why do you insist on lying about this stuff? You're either ignorant yet continue talking about this as though have a clue or you knew about this yet continued to insist these techniques didn't work.

Either way...you're a liar.

Felix wrote:what, you're posting a story from the Washington Post and expect me to buy it?

you're a fucking tard of the highest caliber....is there something about IT'S AGAINST THE LAW you don't get?

here's a guy that was an interrogator for the CIA and he says it doesn't work.....

of course, there has never been any specific intelligence obtained via this torture...er method, just vague references to some unspecified "inner workings" of AQ and deciphering their "strategic planning".....of course, had they gotten anything that they could prove actually saved lives, they'd be shouting it from the rooftops....don't forget to tell me they kept us safe for 7+ years, while ignoring the fact that the single most deadly attack against the United States on our soil happened on their watch.....

go ahead and post me another WaPo story and try to justify Bush's Administrations violation of the law

mvscal wrote:

Felix wrote:other methods of interrogation are more productive,

Such as? Help us out here.

mvscal wrote:

Felix wrote:other methods of interrogation are more productive,

Such as? Help us out here.

Dr_Phibes wrote:...sexually confused MPs...

mvscal wrote:

Such as? Help us out here.

mvscal wrote:

Felix wrote:other methods of interrogation are more productive,

Such as? Help us out here.