Some "clarity" for the President re: interrogations and torture

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

Bush admits CIA torture prisons.

Rummy admits that Penatagon approved torture of prisoners in Iraq.

[John_Mace]

@David Simmons

I really think most any juror would infer that there was something to hide if actions had to be moved out of the country and kept secret. And what is the most likely thing to have hidden, especially in view of the push for a post fact ratification of previously used methods?

David: You need to read the whole line of argument going on here. DtC objected to my claiming that KSM is an al Qaeda operative, even though the 9/11 Commission concluded that he is. I am suggesting that if we have to call him an alleged al Qaeda operative, then we also need to refer to the CIA “torture prisons” as “alleged”. Frankly, I don’t doubt that KSM was tortured in a CIA prison-- in particular that he was waterboarded. This side discussion I’m having with **Dio *is about the rules of debate here. I’m confortable saying "alleged al Qaeda operative" and “alleged CIA torture” . I’m comfortable saying “al Qaeda operative” and “CIA torture prison”. I am not comfortable with insisting that we say “alleged al Qaeda operative” but allowing us to say “proven CIA torture prisons”.

*when talking about KSM.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

We have Bush’s own confirmation for the tort…excuse me…“interrogatotion” prisons.

[John_Mace]

@Diogenes the Cynic

Bush admits CIA torture prisons.

Really? From your cite:

He added that the CIA treated detainees humanely and did not use torture.

It’s clear that you are not interested in honest debate here, Diogenes. I will not respond to any posts you make in the future in this thread.

@elucidator

Frankly, John, I'm not at all sure you have established that that is the key question at all.

From the OP:

How’s this for clarity: If the American public would be outraged to hear about it being done to captured U.S. military personnel, we shouldn’t do it to anyone else.

he is linking the detainees to captured US millitary personnel. The latter are POWs. The former are not.

[Der_Trihs]

@John Mace

For crying out loud. Once more:

@John Mace

Firstly, the GC protocals for POWs do not apply to those groups who do not adhere to the rules of war. Al Qeada is the poster child for such groups.

Is it your contention that al Qaeda adheres to the rules of war?

Is it your contention that I should care ? Do you think that anyone but you and your fellow apologists care in the slightest about legalisms ? As far as I am concerned, torture is bad in itself, and I don’t care in the slightest if we have some loophole that makes it legal. If we take advantage of such a loophole, that just proves that we are at least as bad as our enemies.

Nor, as has been pointed out, does the bad behavior of Al Qaeda justify us doing anything to people who have nothing to do with it. How does Al Qaeda’s actions justify us torturing that Iraqi general to death ? Not to mention all the other random people we’ve grabbed, imprisoned and tortured.

[elucidator]

Please tell me you’re kidding. Please tell me that you didn’t expend all that ammunition on a trivial point of rhetoric. I don’t think I can afford to hire Tong assassins to track you down, I hear they can be quite expensive.

Hmmm. Maybe a bake sale.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

@John Mace

Really? From your cite:

It’s clear that you are not interested in honest debate here, Diogenes. I will not respond to any posts you make in the future in this thread.

You’re going to accept the Bush definition of “torture” and then call me dishonest for calling bullshit on it? What kind of “interrogation” do you believe goes on in those prisons? Who’s really being dishonest here?

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

@John Mace

he is linking the detainees to captured US millitary personnel. The latter are POWs. The former are not.

This is really, truly sophist. For one thing, how does this distinction justify anything? For another thing, the claim that the prisoners are not POWs is a tautology since the torturers are the ones who decided that. Personally, I don’t think they’re POWs either, I think they’re civilians. When has the government ever proven otherwise?

[David_Simmons]

@John Mace

David: You need to read the whole line of argument going on here. DtC objected to my claiming that KSM is an al Qaeda operative, even though the 9/11 Commission concluded that he is. I am suggesting that if we have to call him an alleged al Qaeda operative, then we also need to refer to the CIA “torture prisons” as “alleged”. Frankly, I don’t doubt that KSM was tortured in a CIA prison-- in particular that he was waterboarded. This side discussion I’m having with **Dio *is about the rules of debate here. I’m confortable saying "alleged al Qaeda operative" and “alleged CIA torture” . I’m comfortable saying “al Qaeda operative” and “CIA torture prison”. I am not comfortable with insisting that we say “alleged al Qaeda operative” but allowing us to say “proven CIA torture prisons”.

*when talking about KSM.

I see what you are saying. However, I don’t think who said what, when, and to whom really changes my point that whether or not there is a cite for a message board claim, it is a valid inferance that when something is hidden there is probably something that needs hiding.

[John_Mace]

@David Simmons

I see what you are saying. However, I don’t think who said what, when, and to whom really changes my point that whether or not there is a cite for a message board claim, it is a valid inferance that when something is hidden there is probably something that needs hiding.

I think it is a valid inference that the CIA waterboarded KSM. I consider waterboarding to be torture, ergo I think it’s a valid claim that the CIA tortured KSM. I also think it is at least as valid to claim that KSM is an al Qeada operative. And while I think there is ample evidence for both, there is more evidence for the latter than for the former.

There is no evidence that Bush has admitted to torturing KSM, despite what **Diogenes **says.

And with that, I will let you guys continue this discussion. I’ve said all I have to say on the subject, and I’m just tired of the ridiculous games people have been playing in this thread.

[elucidator]

Yeah, those ridiculous people, huh, John. Wasting your time on pretty trivial issues. Anybody could see that the real crux of the issue is whether or not Bush had actually admitted torture. CIA committed torture, you agree there, but there isn’t any proof that GeeDub actually admitted that. Crucial point, that.

[Age_Quod_Agis]

@Elendil's Heir

The President said last week that the CIA and military interrogators need “clarity” as to what they can and can’t do while questioning prisoners. …

How’s this for clarity: If the American public would be outraged to hear about it being done to captured U.S. military personnel, we shouldn’t do it to anyone else.

If we agree that the advantage of a definitive list would be to let CIA operatives know the boundaries of permissible interrogation tactics – and presumably, what they’d be prosecuted for doing – then your definition doesn’t clarify things. The only way CIA operatives could know what would outrage the American public at any particular moment would be if the CIA operatives were also pollsters, and presumably omniscient enough to be able to tell what the polls would say at any particular moment.

If the CIA operatives are supposed to go off gut instinct or their dealings with their fellow Americans, then that’s probably not too helpful. CIA operatives probably have a very different view about what’s an outrageous interrogation tactic than the average member of the public. People from Texas probably have a very different view about it than people from Northern California. So how are they supposed to know what’s permissible?

And how would you prosecute someone for violating your statute? You’d have to conduct a poll at the time that the interrogation was taking place. And it seems to me that such a statute would fail for vagueness, since it doesn’t provide any notice of what activities are permissible and what aren’t.

[GIGObuster]

@Age Quod Agis

If we agree that the advantage of a definitive list would be to let CIA operatives know the boundaries of permissible interrogation tactics – and presumably, what they’d be prosecuted for doing – then your definition doesn’t clarify things. The only way CIA operatives could know what would outrage the American public at any particular moment would be if the CIA operatives were also pollsters, and presumably omniscient enough to be able to tell what the polls would say at any particular moment.

If the CIA operatives are supposed to go off gut instinct or their dealings with their fellow Americans, then that’s probably not too helpful. CIA operatives probably have a very different view about what’s an outrageous interrogation tactic than the average member of the public.

Or the below average president:
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/57e68ed8-48da-11db-a996-0000779e2340.html

The Bush administration had to empty its secret prisons and transfer terror suspects to the military-run detention centre at Guantánamo this month in part because CIA interrogators had refused to carry out further interrogations and run the secret facilities, according to former CIA officials and people close to the programme.

*People from Texas probably have a very different view about it than people from Northern California. So how are they supposed to know what’s permissible?

And how would you prosecute someone for violating your statute? You’d have to conduct a poll at the time that the interrogation was taking place. And it seems to me that such a statute would fail for vagueness, since it doesn’t provide any notice of what activities are permissible and what aren’t*.

As Bush has pointed to Jesus as his guide in matters like this, I say his poor efforts on seeing clear mean to me that he is the president without a compass.

[John_Mace]

@elucidator

Yeah, those ridiculous people, huh, John. Wasting your time on pretty trivial issues. Anybody could see that the real crux of the issue is whether or not Bush had actually admitted torture. CIA committed torture, you agree there, but there isn’t any proof that GeeDub actually admitted that. Crucial point, that.

Once again we find ourselves in agreement, 'luc. It was diversionary for **Diogenese **to bring that up in the first place.

[GIGObuster]

Confirming once again my hunch that the motto in Bush’s desk is “The buck does not stop here!”

[Age_Quod_Agis]

@GIGObuster

@Age Quod Agis

CIA operatives probably have a very different view about what’s an outrageous interrogation tactic than the average member of the public.

Or the below average president:

I’m confused. Your article talks about Bush having to close down the CIA prisons. This suggests that you mean the CIA stopped performing interrogations because they disagreed with Bush’s orders on how to interrogate prisoners. But your article points out that the CIA operatives stopped performing interrogations because they didn’t know what they were allowed to do. So the fact that Bush is asking for clarification seems perfectly appropriate. From your article:

The administration publicly explained its decision in light of the legal uncertainty surrounding permissible interrogation techniques following the June Supreme Court ruling that all terrorist suspects in detention were entitled to protection under Common Article Three of the Geneva Conventions.

But the former CIA officials said Mr Bush’s hand was forced because interrogators had refused to continue their work until the legal situation was clarified because they were concerned they could be prosecuted for using illegal techniques. One intelligence source also said the CIA had refused to keep the secret prisons going.

Senior officials and Mr Bush himself have come close to admitting this by saying CIA interrogators sought legal clarity.

Am I misunderstanding? Can you please explain?

@GIGObuster

As Bush has pointed to Jesus as his guide in matters like this, I say his poor efforts on seeing clear mean to me that he is the president without a compass.

I’m confused (again). Can you please explain what you’re saying here?

I get that you’re taking a shot at Bush’s Christianity, but I don’t see how the fact that such a statute might fail for vagueness means that Bush lacks a (moral?) compass.

[GIGObuster]

@Age Quod Agis

I’m confused.

That is what the lack of clarity from this administration does to many.

Your article talks about Bush having to close down the CIA prisons. This suggests that you mean the CIA stopped performing interrogations because they disagreed with Bush’s orders on how to interrogate prisoners. But your article points out that the CIA operatives stopped performing interrogations because they didn’t know what they were allowed to do. So the fact that Bush is asking for clarification seems perfectly appropriate. From your article:Am I misunderstanding? Can you please explain?I’m confused (again). Can you please explain what you’re saying here?

That the CIA clearly knows the things they were doing were illegal under the rules that were clarified by the court decision.

I get that you’re taking a shot at Bush’s Christianity, but I don’t see how the fact that such a statute might fail for vagueness means that Bush lacks a (moral?) compass.

The point is indeed beyond legalities: attempting to justify torture is morally wrong.

Even worse when one realizes a good chunk of the accused are very likely innocent; and much, much worse when one remembers torture information was used to find **false ** connections to help the administration to justify the Iraq war.

[Sevastopol]

I wish I had a government to make any illegal conduct by me legal after the event. Especially really bad stuff.

“Rule of Law; US-Style” I’d call it. A bit long don’t you think? Perhaps “Cowboys” says it all?

[Age_Quod_Agis]

@GIGObuster

That is what the lack of clarity from this administration does to many.

Ahhh, so it’s Bush’s fault that I don’t understand what you’re saying. At least you’re being consistent.

That the CIA clearly knows the things they were doing were illegal under the rules that were clarified by the court decision.

Do you have any evidence to back up that assertion? Because your article doesn’t.

The point is indeed beyond legalities: attempting to justify torture is morally wrong.

What does that have to do with what I said?

Even worse when one realizes a good chunk of the accused are very likely innocent; and much, much worse when one remembers torture information was used to find **false ** connections to help the administration to justify the Iraq war.

Cite please?

[GIGObuster]

@Age Quod Agis

Ahhh, so it’s Bush’s fault that I don’t understand what you’re saying. At least you’re being consistent.

What I notice from you, regarding torture and this administration, is that you prefer to consistently remain willfully ignorant of what is being done in our name.

Do you have any evidence to back up that assertion? Because your article doesn’t.

Simple logic, The CIA told Bush they were not going to play this game. I’m straining trying to remember any other occasion where (even though the prisons are not secret now, the nature of what was going on in those prisons remains so) the CIA would had done something like this (**forcing ** Bush to back down) when the reality remains that this administration could have once again stonewalled any efforts to independently investigate.

This could still had been done under the radar, but I have the feeling that there were many abu-grahib like exposes coming up courtesy of the CIA if this had continued.

If one can use an example from TV, I can see a Romulan warrior from Star Trek telling his commander that “if you don’t do it, then I will do the glorious act!” (Implying the threat of a revolt) then the commander reluctantly said: "we will do it, but under my command!) YMMV on who is leading here. But the fact remains: the CIA is not willing to follow, but is not for the lack of clarity, it is indeed the fear that they have no protection to continue what they were doing, and it is clear to me that what they were doing was illegal.

What does that have to do with what I said?

You are not saying it, that was directed to Bush’s demonstrated false reliance on Jesus, it is of notice that Bush referred to Jesus philosophy as his guide, I don’t think it is unrelated to point out the lack of character Bush demonstrates then.

Cite please?

:dubious:

:rolleyes:

…

Need to remind myself we are not in the pit, but I have lost count how many times I have posted this:

http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/050214fa_fact6

OUTSOURCING TORTURE
The secret history of America’s “extraordinary rendition” program.
by JANE MAYER
Posted 2005-02-07

…

A few months after September 11th, the U.S. gained custody of its first high-ranking Al Qaeda figure, Ibn al-Sheikh al-Libi. He had run bin Laden’s terrorist training camp in Khalden, Afghanistan, and was detained in Pakistan. Zacarias Moussaoui, who was already in U.S. custody, and Richard Reid, the Shoe Bomber, had both spent time at the Khalden camp. At the F.B.I.’s field office in New York, Jack Cloonan, an officer who had worked for the agency since 1972, struggled to maintain control of the legal process in Afghanistan. C.I.A. and F.B.I. agents were vying to take possession of Libi. Cloonan, who worked with Dan Coleman on anti-terrorism cases for many years, said he felt that “neither the Moussaoui case nor the Reid case was a slam dunk.” He became intent on securing Libi’s testimony as a witness against them. He advised his F.B.I. colleagues in Afghanistan to question Libi respectfully, “and handle this like it was being done right here, in my office in New York.” He recalled, “I remember talking on a secure line to them. I told them, ‘Do yourself a favor, read the guy his rights. It may be old-fashioned, but this will come out if we don’t. It may take ten years, but it will hurt you, and the bureau’s reputation, if you don’t. Have it stand as a shining example of what we feel is right.’ ”

Cloonan’s F.B.I. colleagues advised Libi of his rights and took turns with C.I.A. agents in questioning him. After a few days, F.B.I. officials felt that they were developing a good rapport with him. The C.I.A. agents, however, felt that he was lying to them, and needed tougher interrogation.

To Cloonan’s dismay, the C.I.A. reportedly rendered Libi to Egypt. He was seen boarding a plane in Afghanistan, restrained by handcuffs and ankle cuffs, his mouth covered by duct tape. Cloonan, who retired from the F.B.I. in 2002, said, “At least we got information in ways that wouldn’t shock the conscience of the court. And no one will have to seek revenge for what I did.” He added, “We need to show the world that we can lead, and not just by military might.”

After Libi was taken to Egypt, the F.B.I. lost track of him. Yet he evidently played a crucial background role in Secretary of State Colin Powell’s momentous address to the United Nations Security Council in February, 2003, which argued the case for a preëmptive war against Iraq. In his speech, Powell did not refer to Libi by name, but he announced to the world that “a senior terrorist operative” who “was responsible for one of Al Qaeda’s training camps in Afghanistan” had told U.S. authorities that Saddam Hussein had offered to train two Al Qaeda operatives in the use of “chemical or biological weapons.”

Last summer, Newsweek reported that Libi, who was eventually transferred from Egypt to Guantánamo Bay, was the source of the incendiary charge cited by Powell, and that he had recanted. By then, the first anniversary of the U.S. invasion of Iraq had passed and the 9/11 Commission had declared that there was no known evidence of a working relationship between Saddam and Al Qaeda. Dan Coleman was disgusted when he heard about Libi’s false confession. “It was ridiculous for interrogators to think Libi would have known anything about Iraq,” he said. “I could have told them that. He ran a training camp. He wouldn’t have had anything to do with Iraq. Administration officials were always pushing us to come up with links, but there weren’t any. The reason they got bad information is that they beat it out of him. You never get good information from someone that way.”

Most authorities on interrogation, in and out of government, agree that torture and lesser forms of physical coercion succeed in producing confessions. The problem is that these confessions aren’t necessarily true.

Now, that BTW was ignored by you in a recent GD thread that dealt with torture no less, let us see if it does enter the reality of a Bush defender now.