• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Letter From Washington Nothing but the Truth on Torture

Steve

Well-known member
and set a dreadful precedent.

while I understand the consequence of setting such a precedent.. why should it be considered a dreadful precedence?

if torture is wrong.. and against international law.. why not have a open trial... and a criminal prosecution?

are we afraid of justice?

or are they more afraid of how the precedence would tie our hands in the future?
 

VanC

Well-known member
Another side of "the truth":

Torture TV
Cliff May
Thursday, April 30, 2009

When I was asked to appear on the Daily Show, the news-with-views-and-edgy comedy TV program, I was reluctant. The issue: whether "enhanced interrogation techniques" used to pry information about terrorist plots from al-Qaeda leaders should be regarded as torture and those responsible prosecuted. How would Jon Stewart, the acerbic and unabashedly liberal host, make this issue funny? How would I make it serious?



In the end, I agreed. Why? Because millions of Americans don't read newspapers, web-zines and wonky blogs. If my mission is to tell the public what I believe to be the truth about life-and-death issues, I have to be willing to go where the public is.

As always on TV, I'd have to make my case in sound-bites - though in this instance, many would be swallowed by Jon's punch lines, and by the studio audience's laughter, cheers and hoots. I figured I'd better try to prepare myself by running an interview in my head. What follows is the interview I fantasized.

Jon: So, Cliff, let's get to the point: How can you support torture!?!?!

Cliff: Actually, Jon, I don't. But more important: The CIA officials who have performed harsh interrogations do not support torture. The lawyers who wrote the memos telling the CIA what was permitted and what was not permitted don't support torture. Nor do the congressmen - including Democrats -- who not only didn't ban these practices - they funded them.

J: You don't think the torture memos told these guys to go ahead and knock yourself out - or rather knock out your prisoners?

C: No one who reads the memos can think that. The media keep calling these "torture memos." They're really "anti-torture memos." They tell the CIA where they must draw the line. They instruct them not to cross from coercive interrogations - sometimes called "stress and duress" - to torture, a practice which is defined under law, illegal and prohibited. You can disagree about where the attorneys drew the line - but drawing it was indisputably what they were doing in these memos.

J: C'mon, Cliff. You're trying to tell me waterboarding is not torture?

C: It can be - it certainly was when the Japanese did it. If you want to, you can kill someone in minutes by waterboarding. But that's not the way it was done by American intelligence officials. They had to have physicians on hand empowered to stop it at any time. They had to tell their subjects they were not going to be killed - because if they didn't, that would cause them too much suffering. They could only pour water on them for up to 40 seconds at a time -unpleasant, sure, but not longer than they could hold their breath.

And let's remember: Only three individuals were waterboarded. Three. All of them al-Qaeda leaders concealing information about active terrorist plots. And by the way, no one has been waterboarded since 2003.


J: But answer my question: Is waterboarding torture? Yes or no?

C: Defining torture is not easy. A simple legal definition is that it "shocks the conscience." Cutting off Daniel Pearl's head on videotape - that shocks my conscience. Sending a child out as a suicide bomber - that shocks my conscience. People jumping off the World Trade Towers because they'd rather die that way than by burning - that shocks my conscience. Khalid Sheikh Mohamed, mastermind of the 9/11 atrocities, gagging for a few minutes and, as a result, providing information that saves lives, then going back to his cell for dinner and a movie - no, my conscience is not shocked by that.

J: There's no proof any of this was effective. In fact, a lot of people say such techniques don't produce good information.

C: Obama's top intelligence official, Admiral Dennis Blair, says these techniques produced "high-value information" that gave the U.S. government "a deeper understanding of the al Qaeda organization that was attacking this country."

Former CIA director, Gen. Michael Hayden, and former Attorney General Michael Mukasey recently wrote: "As late as 2006, fully half of the government's knowledge about the structure and activities of Al Qaeda came from those [coercive] interrogations."

Former CIA Director George Tenet has said, "I know that this program has saved lives. I know we've disrupted plots. I know this program alone is worth more than [what] the FBI, the [CIA], and the National Security Agency put together have been able to tell us."

Former National Intelligence Director Mike McConnell has said, "We have people walking around in this country that are alive today because this process happened."

Many other top intelligence officials say the same: coercive interrogations are the only way we have to get life-saving information out of trained, hardened al-Qaeda terrorists.

I think the evidence is clear. But if others do not, let's release the "effectiveness memos" as former Vice President Cheney has requested and let's release other data on this question. Perhaps at this point we need a national debate on security and morality.

J: How do we know softer methods wouldn't have worked?

C: Look, we know this: Khalid Sheikh Mohamed was captured. He said: "I want a lawyer." He didn't get one - I know some people think he deserved one but he's not a criminal defendant or an honorable prisoner of war. The Geneva Convention does not cover him - even Obama's attorney general, Eric Holder has said that.

Later, they asked KSM over and over: "Will there be another attack?" He would just smile and say: "Soon you will see."

Now maybe you think asking him again and adding pretty please with a cherry on top would have produced results in time. The intelligence officials didn't think that. They went to the Justice Department and said: "What can we do? How far can we go to save lives?" And they got the information they needed -- and we haven't had another attack on American soil since

And after being waterboarded and suffering other coercive methods in 2002, Abu Zubaydah explained that he and his "brothers" were permitted to give up information - only once interrogators pushed them to the limit of their endurance. At that point, he provided information that helped the CIA capture terrorist Ramzi Binalshibh.

The two captives then gave up details that led to the capture of KSM who, as I said, was initially defiant but who finally revealed information leading to the capture of several other terrorist and at least one terrorist cell.

J: You not saying we're "in danger" if we stop this kind of interrogation?

C: I am. The current administration appears to have ruled out any coercive techniques: No sleep deprivation - not even for a night. No loud music - it drives the terrorists crazy! So it's torture! Better to let the attack proceed. The victims and their families surely will understand.

We basically have three weapons against terrorists: capture them, interrogate them, kill them. But there's no point in capturing if you can't effectively interrogate, so that leaves just killing. How do you justify that? How do you say, yes you can hit that terrorist with a Predator missile but you can't make him listen to Shady Slim?


J: And what do you propose?

C: I would hope that President Obama would change his mind. I would hope he would say to his advisors: "Give me a list of all the techniques that are effective. I'll take a red pen and cross out the ones we will never use no matter what. But I'll circle the ones that may be used if I'm asked -- and if I give specific authorization. As for other techniques that are clearly not torture but may inflict discomfort, there will be detailed guidelines and I want the director of the CIA to sign off every time they are used.

J: Fair enough but those who have already broken the law, shouldn't they be prosecuted?

C: What we're talking about is astonishing: Government lawyers in the current administration prosecuting government lawyers from the previous administration because they disagree with their legal opinions. Never before in American history has policy been so politicized. It's as though Eisenhower prosecuted Truman for dropping the atomic bomb on Hiroshima.

The one indisputable achievement of the Bush administration was keeping Americans safe from terrorism for seven years. It's one thing to minimize that; it's quite another to try to spin it as a war crime.


J: But surely no one is above the law?

C: If there was any real basis for prosecutions, those cases should have been brought. They could have been brought anytime since 2003 - when, as I said, waterboarding stopped being used. Instead, leaders of Congress from both parties were briefed on these interrogation methods and they not only approved of them - they funded them. And there were occasions when bills were brought before Congress to specifically outlaw waterboarding. Those bills did not pass.

If members of Congress want to make a statement now, let them pass a law against waterboarding. Let them do that this week. But no witch hunts or show trials. That's not good for the country.


J: Gosh, Cliff. You've made some very strong points. I need to think about this. And can I make a donation to your organization?

Ok, this was my fantasy interview. It didn't actually go quite this well. How did it come out? You can watch the real debate on-line (www.thedailyshow.com) and judge for yourself.
 

kolanuraven

Well-known member
Sandhusker said:
Of course, all this ASSUMES that water boarding is torture.....


Well....why don't we arrange to have you dipped head first into the wonderfully, clean.. :shock: :shock: :shock: .....North Platte water??

You can let me and OT be in charge...Mrs Greg can come down and be our Nurse on site......and then YOU can tell us what you think of it all.....


How's that for research??
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
kolanuraven said:
Sandhusker said:
Of course, all this ASSUMES that water boarding is torture.....


Well....why don't we arrange to have you dipped head first into the wonderfully, clean.. :shock: :shock: :shock: .....North Platte water??

You can let me and OT be in charge...Mrs Greg can come down and be our Nurse on site......and then YOU can tell us what you think of it all.....


How's that for research??

What's the liberal alternative? Sit down with these guys with pizza and beer and promise them stuffed crust and extra cheese if they devulge their secrets?

When somebody gets tortured, you can tell. They're limping, they're bleeding, they're bruised, etc... When somebody gets waterboarded, they look like they just got out of the shower. Give them a towel and the evidence is gone.
 

kolanuraven

Well-known member
Sandhusker said:
kolanuraven said:
Sandhusker said:
Of course, all this ASSUMES that water boarding is torture.....


Well....why don't we arrange to have you dipped head first into the wonderfully, clean.. :shock: :shock: :shock: .....North Platte water??

You can let me and OT be in charge...Mrs Greg can come down and be our Nurse on site......and then YOU can tell us what you think of it all.....


How's that for research??

What's the liberal alternative? Sit down with these guys with pizza and beer and promise them stuffed crust and extra cheese if they devulge their secrets?

When somebody gets tortured, you can tell. They're limping, they're bleeding, they're bruised, etc... When somebody gets waterboarded, they look like they just got out of the shower. Give them a towel and the evidence is gone.


Now how da'hell do you know? :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll:
 

Broke Cowboy

Well-known member
Steve said:
and set a dreadful precedent.

while I understand the consequence of setting such a precedent.. why should it be considered a dreadful precedence?

if torture is wrong.. and against international law.. why not have a open trial... and a criminal prosecution?

are we afraid of justice?

or are they more afraid of how the precedence would tie our hands in the future?

To have a trial would open the U.S. of A. to even more real trouble. The U.S. of A. is already regarded as a weak and ineffectual nation by many in the middle and far east - a trial would make it even worse.

Certainly India, Pakistan and China no longer have the same respect for the U.S. of A.. These three countries hold nearly 1/3 - 1/2 of the worlds population.

It is YOU folks who need to start fearing what is happening out in the rest of the world - and instead you fight like a family being torn apart on crack cocaine - allowing consolidation and even more effective take overs of third world countries by the "bad guys" - and yes - they are the "bad guys" - unless of course you are willing to surrender your way of life - or your childrens way of life to them.

It will also open the U.S. of A. to even more real potentials of terror within its own borders. Soften your tactics and you will be seen not as a law abiding country, but a weaker country to the international terrorism community. It is a huge community and it does not care about your laws and loves it when you haggle about your laws - it takes the pressure off of them.

Especially after the nice folks in the U.S. of A. are seen to be unable to control their own destiny and instead pony up to the party with the guys wearing sheets and towels. And those guys are real happy when you do - they gain intelligence and YOUR nice, cold, hard cash as "development money" - most of which never gets to to ground zero - instead it goes into despots pockets and into arms and research for nice friendly weapons that are more effective than bullets.

Those guys are smart - they may look like filthy rotten camel riders after a month in the desert - but they are SMART!!!

The only reason they do this "negotiation and peace talking" is to stall for time and consolidation - they then start again. Their tactics and strategy are wonderfully effective - and your government does nothing.

You cannot placate the real terror groups - Pakistan just learned that today when the nice people who just took over Swot and had Sharia imposed - beheaded a couple of government officials.

Do not tear yourself apart while the vultures who are sittting on the cliffs waiting to pick up the pieces. And that they are doing this becomes even more apparent as time rolls along.

You have moved from a position of strength into a position of placating - and I think you are lining up on the wrong side of the line - Taliban and Al Qaida are closing in on YOU - your southern border is wide open, your northern border - despite Canuck complaints is not totally secure - and when Pakistan falls - and it will unless things happen soon - the Taliban will join the nuke capable club.

It would be very easy to sail a boat into the harbour in New York. That would bring about devastation beyond comprehension - and there would not be any remorse as you lost millions. Let me see - Boston San Francisco, Spokane, Corpus Christi - all are potential targets. And you waffle about a pirate in the middle of the ocean? This makes you guys look even weaker.

If you had shot him and heaved him overboard the international terror community would have sat up and taken notice - but now he is in New York (?) and going through the process? There is nothing to fear from you folks.

The U.S. of A. needs to present a strong united front to the world - not that of a seriously bickering family that is being torn apart from within.

It is quite amazing to me that we sit out here and see it - it is continually discussed in the countries I work in over here and all are amazed - truly amazed at how fast your international influence and strength is fading.

There does not seem to be anyone within the country - in a position of power - that realizes this - or worse - even seems to care.

Many of you folks sit on your ranches and think only cows - out here in the middle east they are thinking you are ripe for the pickings - and they ARE coming - and it will not stop unless you guys get your act together.

This is not a Bush, Carter or whatever problem - it is a problem that has been coming for years and the entire U.S. of A. has puzzy footed around on this topic - you guys are in trouble and even tonight as I watched a debate in Doha - I realized the problem lies with the fact you are forcefully limiting what you will allow your front line defenders to do - and it appears you may even be willing to place them on trial for doing what probably had to be done at the time to protect YOU and your allies.

Remember - intel is important and if you ask for it nicely you will not get it - sometimes it must be taken - and trust me if you do not take it - there will come a time when you truly regret it.

Time for a reality check folks - best you give one to yourselves - or the bad guys will do it for you. And I bet you will not like it.

Tonight Al Jezeera - the largest Arab news outlet in the middle east stated - "Obama is drunk on his victory and has no understanding of what is happening in his own country"

They are predicting internal strife caused by financial, religious and racial pressure that are not being dealt with - or worse, are being allowed to grow becuse it is more important to give money to corporations.

These are not my words - they are the words of the presenters of a major news media outlet in the middle east.

If your president carries on with this, you guys are going to become a lot weaker and a lot faster than you think.

BC
 

aplusmnt

Well-known member
Way I look at it is, NO ONE would volunteer to be tortured. But lots of people would be willing to accept water boarding. I believe some have already had it done to them to show how it is done or experience it.

How many people would volunteer to have their fingernails ripped off, or bones broken, or fire set to their feet.

Liberals will break this country!

If no physical harm came from it, it is not torture!
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
May 03, 2009
Muslim Demographics
Ed Kaitz
When a good portion of a nation's population no longer takes pride in its traditions and culture, the will to defend the nation slips away. For decades many liberals have taken pride instead in actively undermining what used to be known as the American identity.


While many liberals are taking pleasure in smothering the remaining life out of the culture that fed, housed and educated them, Muslims around the world are using pride to advance their way of life. While liberals advance agendas harmful to the survival of the Republic, such as open border policies and abortion on demand, Muslims quietly nurture their families, their Mosques, their beliefs ethical absolutism, and their pride in their civilization.


History shows that only one of these cultures will survive. After reading David Paulin's excellent essay on illegal immigration in the American Thinker, take a look at this video on Muslim demographics. Then think about your children and grandchildren. Some things may be happening sooner than we think.

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/05/muslim_demographics.html
 

Steve

Well-known member
Broke Cowboy said:
Steve said:
and set a dreadful precedent.

while I understand the consequence of setting such a precedent.. why should it be considered a dreadful precedence?

if torture is wrong.. and against international law.. why not have a open trial... and a criminal prosecution?

are we afraid of justice?

or are they more afraid of how the precedence would tie our hands in the future?

To have a trial would open the U.S. of A. to even more real trouble. The U.S. of A. is already regarded as a weak and ineffectual nation by many in the middle and far east - a trial would make it even worse.

Certainly India, Pakistan and China no longer have the same respect for the U.S. of A.. These three countries hold nearly 1/3 - 1/2 of the worlds population.

It is YOU folks who need to start fearing what is happening out in the rest of the world - and instead you fight like a family being torn apart on crack cocaine - allowing consolidation and even more effective take overs of third world countries by the "bad guys" - and yes - they are the "bad guys" - unless of course you are willing to surrender your way of life - or your childrens way of life to them.

It will also open the U.S. of A. to even more real potentials of terror within its own borders. Soften your tactics and you will be seen not as a law abiding country, but a weaker country to the international terrorism community. It is a huge community and it does not care about your laws and loves it when you haggle about your laws - it takes the pressure off of them.

Especially after the nice folks in the U.S. of A. are seen to be unable to control their own destiny and instead pony up to the party with the guys wearing sheets and towels. And those guys are real happy when you do - they gain intelligence and YOUR nice, cold, hard cash as "development money" - most of which never gets to to ground zero - instead it goes into despots pockets and into arms and research for nice friendly weapons that are more effective than bullets.

Those guys are smart - they may look like filthy rotten camel riders after a month in the desert - but they are SMART!!!

The only reason they do this "negotiation and peace talking" is to stall for time and consolidation - they then start again. Their tactics and strategy are wonderfully effective - and your government does nothing.

You cannot placate the real terror groups - Pakistan just learned that today when the nice people who just took over Swot and had Sharia imposed - beheaded a couple of government officials.

Do not tear yourself apart while the vultures who are sittting on the cliffs waiting to pick up the pieces. And that they are doing this becomes even more apparent as time rolls along.

You have moved from a position of strength into a position of placating - and I think you are lining up on the wrong side of the line - Taliban and Al Qaida are closing in on YOU - your southern border is wide open, your northern border - despite Canuck complaints is not totally secure - and when Pakistan falls - and it will unless things happen soon - the Taliban will join the nuke capable club.

It would be very easy to sail a boat into the harbour in New York. That would bring about devastation beyond comprehension - and there would not be any remorse as you lost millions. Let me see - Boston San Francisco, Spokane, Corpus Christi - all are potential targets. And you waffle about a pirate in the middle of the ocean? This makes you guys look even weaker.

If you had shot him and heaved him overboard the international terror community would have sat up and taken notice - but now he is in New York (?) and going through the process? There is nothing to fear from you folks.

The U.S. of A. needs to present a strong united front to the world - not that of a seriously bickering family that is being torn apart from within.

It is quite amazing to me that we sit out here and see it - it is continually discussed in the countries I work in over here and all are amazed - truly amazed at how fast your international influence and strength is fading.

There does not seem to be anyone within the country - in a position of power - that realizes this - or worse - even seems to care.

Many of you folks sit on your ranches and think only cows - out here in the middle east they are thinking you are ripe for the pickings - and they ARE coming - and it will not stop unless you guys get your act together.

This is not a Bush, Carter or whatever problem - it is a problem that has been coming for years and the entire U.S. of A. has puzzy footed around on this topic - you guys are in trouble and even tonight as I watched a debate in Doha - I realized the problem lies with the fact you are forcefully limiting what you will allow your front line defenders to do - and it appears you may even be willing to place them on trial for doing what probably had to be done at the time to protect YOU and your allies.

Remember - intel is important and if you ask for it nicely you will not get it - sometimes it must be taken - and trust me if you do not take it - there will come a time when you truly regret it.

Time for a reality check folks - best you give one to yourselves - or the bad guys will do it for you. And I bet you will not like it.

Tonight Al Jezeera - the largest Arab news outlet in the middle east stated - "Obama is drunk on his victory and has no understanding of what is happening in his own country"

They are predicting internal strife caused by financial, religious and racial pressure that are not being dealt with - or worse, are being allowed to grow becuse it is more important to give money to corporations.

These are not my words - they are the words of the presenters of a major news media outlet in the middle east.

If your president carries on with this, you guys are going to become a lot weaker and a lot faster than you think.

BC
BC I think you misunderstood my post... I do not question the need for the harsh interrogations nor the use of water boarding..

I was asking the "liberal" person who posted the thread.. why they are afraid of a trial..

I am not afraid of a trial, nor justice, but I can see the dreadful precedence it will set.. and I hope the Obama supporters come to realize some day you make hard decisions.. and have to choose who is trying to do the right thing, and who is trying to do the wrong / evil in the world...

and how the effect of the trial will be on Obama and others who follow when they try to do the right thing for the right reasons and their hands are bound by the rules they made out of partisan politics..
 

Steve

Well-known member
reader (the Second) said:
Moderate Democrats do not support prosecuting those who approved the torture and certainly not the ex President and VP. We don't need any further polarization in this country.

I posted the article because it was an interesting political commentary and he had a moderate view on the issue of bringing charges.

I am more of a realist about interrogation that many of you since I have lived where there is terrorism on a daily basis and had my college age child live in the Middle East for several years.

So do you reject the FBI's claims that their Arabic speaking interrogators got more out of these guys before the newly hired CIA guys started the rougher techniques that Cheney's lawyers approved?

I have thought about torture as a means of interrogation for decades and I believe that there may be EXTRAORDINARY circumstances when it is warranted but in nearly every case, other methods will do as well and better . I do not condone torture and as I pointed out, the Israelis have legally rejected it as well and they are well versed in counterterrorism and in dealing with terrorists.

so in other words, you do not want to tie the admistrations hands in case the methods are needed in an extreme case in the future?
 

Steve

Well-known member
R2
Moderate Democrats do not support prosecuting those who approved the torture and certainly not the ex President and VP. We don't need any further polarization in this country.

if the president and VP approved an illegal policy they should be tried.. irregardless of the polarization of the country..

Obama just wants to have it both ways,,, he wants to blame Bush and Cheney, yet leave the "torture" option open for his use later..
 
Top