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

[Age_Quod_Agis]

@GIGObuster

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.

I’ve noticed a disturbing trend of ad homenim attacks cast at me the last few times I’ve been on SDMB. It’s one of the reasons I stay away for so long. It’s not worth the aggravation. Care to explain how this isn’t a personal insult?

And I’m not choosing to remain willfully ignorant. I’m just not willing to see proof of Bush’s evil nature where there is none. For example:

Simple logic, The CIA told Bush they were not going to play this game.

So, no, you don’t have anything to back it up?

Your article says that the CIA may have told Bush they weren’t going to “play this game.” But contrary to your assertion, the “game” is interrogating people when they don’t know what’s legal or illegal. Not performing interrogations they know are illegal.

If they knew what they were doing was illegal, why did they wait so long to stop? Wouldn’t they have refused to act the first time Bush asked them to do something clearly illegal? If their concern was prosecution – as stated in your article – it makes more sense to assume that the reason they stopped was out of a new concern that the rules on what was illegal had changed, or at most, there was a new uncertainty regarding what was illegal. Your interpretation doesn’t make any sense.

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.

Huh? I have no idea what you’re trying to say here.

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.

Again, you have no evidence of this, other than your gut instinct that Bush = bad. If you do have evidence to support this assertion, please bring it forward.

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!)

… [backing slowly away] …

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.

But you don’t have any evidence to back up your idea that what they were doing was illegal. It may be “clear” to you, but it’s only clear because you see the world through the prism of your own self-affirming biases.

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.

You’re losing me.

What “demonstrated false reliance on Jesus”? And what does that mean?

And the reason it’s unrelated is because I didn’t point out that Bush referred to Jesus as his guide. You did. So you apparently quoted me, and then responded to yourself in a post that had nothing to do with what I wrote. If you want to just post your own random thoughts, I’d appreciate it if you wouldn’t involve me unnecessarily.

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.

I don’t remember the thread you’re talking about (if you’d like to link it, I’d be happy to take a look), but I’d guess that I ignored it because it doesn’t support what you seem to think it does.

I could go point by point on this, but how about we just cut to the chase? From your article:

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.

Even if we assume that a) the Iraq war was built on the foundation of this alleged contact (it wasn’t); b) we learned about this contact through Libi (possible, but not certain); c) the only way we learned about this contact was through the interrogation of Libi (possible, but not definite); and d) the interrogation involved Libi being tortured by Americans (there’s no evidence of this), you’ve still got the small matter of your New Yorker article creating an inaccurate impression.

It’s true that the 9/11 Comission declared that there was no known evidence of a “collaborative relationship” between Saddam and Al Qaeda, but the operative word here is “collaborative.” You’ll note that the relationship that may (or may not) have been alleged by Libi was not collaborative. It was just a phone call to talk about a collaborative effort. It was a contact or communication.

The 9/11 Commission Report details some pretty similar contacts:

Bin Laden was also willing to explore possibilities for cooperation with Iraq, even though Iraq’s dicatator, Saddam Hussein, had never had an Islamist agenda, save for his opportunistic pose as a defender of the faithful against “Crusaders” during the Gulf War in 1991. . . .

. . . . In 2001, with Bin Laden’s help, they reformed into an organization called Ansar al Islam. There are indications that by then the Iraqi regime tolerated and may even have helped Ansar al Islam against the common Kurdish enemy.

With the Sudanese regime acting as intermediary, Bin Laden himself met with a senior Iraqi intelligence officer in Khartoum in late 1994 or early 1995. . . . As described below, the ensuing years saw additional efforts to establish connections. . . .

There is also evidence that around this time Bin Laden sent out a number of feelers to the Iraqi regime, offering cooperation. . . .

In mid-1998, the situation reversed; it was Iraq that reportedly took the initiative. In March 1998, after Bin Laden’s public fatwa against the United States, two al Qaeda members reportedly went to Iraq to meet with Iraqi intelligence. In July, an Iraqi delegation travelled to Afghanistan to meet first with the Taliban and then with Bin Laden. Sources report that one, or perhaps both, of these meetings was apparently arranged through Bin Laden’s Egyptian deputy, Zawahiri, who had ties of his own to the Iraqis. . . .

Similar meetings between Iraqi officials and Bin Laden or his aides may have occurred in 1999 during a period of some reported strains with the Taliban. According to the reporting, Iraqi officials offered Bin Laden a safe haven in Iraq. . . .

And just in case you’ve decided to suddenly stop believing in the 9/11 Comission Report, here’s a NYT article talking about Iraq and al Qaeda having discussions about cooperating against Saudi Arabia (where US troops were stationed).

@NYT

Contacts between Iraqi intelligence agents and Osama bin Laden when he was in Sudan in the mid-1990’s were part of a broad effort by Baghdad to work with organizations opposing the Saudi ruling family, according to a newly disclosed document obtained by the Americans in Iraq.

So the 9/11 Commission Report does not suggest that Powell’s statement – 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” – was false. In fact, the frequent communications and talks about cooperating actually lends the idea credence.

[GIGObuster]

@Age Quod Agis

What “demonstrated false reliance on Jesus”? And what does that mean?

And you were wondering were I got the idea of “Bush is bad”? I don’t think he is evil, just an ignorant that is proud of it. But anyone can see that I’m not baseless in saying that he can not be trusted. In any case, it does remain that false evidence obtained with the rendering program was used to prepare the way to the Iraq war.

And the reason it’s unrelated is because I didn’t point out that Bush referred to Jesus as his guide. You did.

And that is the case, I mentioned it because it is not just a gut feeling why I distrust Bush.

*So you apparently quoted me, *

No, and I already mentioned that.

I don’t remember the thread you’re talking about (if you’d like to link it, I’d be happy to take a look), but I’d guess that I ignored it because it doesn’t support what you seem to think it does.

I can see that it is you who is mistaken on thinking your evidence does helps you.

I could go point by point on this, but how about we just cut to the chase? From your article:Even if we assume that a) the Iraq war was built on the foundation of this alleged contact (it wasn’t);

It is important never to forget this was an important element that was used to convince the American public to support the war.

*b) we learned about this contact through Libi (possible, but not certain); c) the only way we learned about this contact was through the interrogation of Libi (possible, but not definite); and d) the interrogation involved Libi being tortured by Americans (there’s no evidence of this), *

It seems you did not read the article, his torture was outsourced, Bush used the “evidence” obtained that way, evidence that at best was unreliable.

you’ve still got the small matter of your New Yorker article creating an inaccurate impression.

You are attempting do so for you side, but I don’t see any good points from you.

It’s true that the 9/11 Comission declared that there was no known evidence of a “collaborative relationship” between Saddam and Al Qaeda, but the operative word here is “collaborative.” You’ll note that the relationship that may (or may not) have been alleged by Libi was not collaborative. It was just a phone call to talk about a collaborative effort. It was a contact or communication.

That turned to be even less important, as recent evidence shows:

BBC NEWS | Americas | Saddam 'had no link to al-Qaeda'

The report is the second part of the committee’s analysis of pre-war intelligence. The first dealt with CIA failings in its assessment of Iraq’s weapons programme.

Saddam Hussein was distrustful of al-Qaeda and viewed Islamic extremists as a threat to his regime, refusing all requests from al-Qaeda to provide material or operational support,

The committee concluded that the CIA had evidence of several instances of contacts between the Iraqi authorities and al-Qaeda throughout the 1990s but that these did not add up to a formal relationship.

It added that the government “did not have a relationship, harbour or turn a blind eye toward Zarqawi and his associates”.

It said that Iraq and al-Qaeda were ideologically poles apart.

“Saddam Hussein was distrustful of al-Qaeda and viewed Islamic extremists as a threat to his regime, refusing all requests from al-Qaeda to provide material or operational support,” it said.

The Senate report added that the Iraqi regime had repeatedly rejected al-Qaeda requests for meetings.

The 9/11 Commission Report details some pretty similar contacts:And just in case you’ve decided to suddenly stop believing in the 9/11 Comission Report, here’s a NYT article talking about Iraq and al Qaeda having discussions about cooperating against Saudi Arabia (where US troops were stationed). So the 9/11 Commission Report does not suggest that Powell’s statement – 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” – was false. In fact, the frequent communications and talks about cooperating actually lends the idea credence.

With what chemical or biological weapons?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9991919/site/newsweek/

The CIA, as part of its standard policy relating to its handling of all Al Qaeda captives, has declined to comment on what interrogation methods were used, where al-Libi was taken or where he is now being held (although some reports suggest he has since been transferred to the U.S. military facility in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.)

What is known is that starting in the fall of 2002, al-Libi’s statements to his interrogators became the principal basis for a series of alarming Bush administration assertions about training that Saddam’s regime purportedly provided to Al Qaeda terrorists in the use of chemical and biological weapons.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200604040005

In the run-up to war, the Bush administration repeatedly asserted that Iraq provided Al Qaeda operatives with training in biological and chemical weapons. According to a November 10, 2005, web-exclusive article by Newsweek investigative correspondents Michael Isikoff and Mark Hosenball, “the principal basis” for these claims rested on statements made to investigators by Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi, a captured Al Qaeda commander. As Isikoff and Hosenball noted, Bush referenced al-Libi’s claims in his October 7, 2002, address, stating, “We’ve learned that Iraq has trained Al Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases.”

In his February 5, 2003, speech to the United Nations Security Council, then-Secretary of State Colin Powell apparently referred to al-Libi:

POWELL: Al Qaeda continues to have a deep interest in acquiring weapons of mass destruction. As with the story of [terrorist leader Abu Musab al-] Zarqawi and his network, I can trace the story of a senior terrorist operative telling how Iraq provided training in these weapons to Al Qaeda.

Fortunately, this operative is now detained, and he has told his story. I will relate it to you now as he, himself, described it.

In a November 6, 2005, article, Washington Post staff writer Walter Pincus noted that “in January 2004 al-Libi recanted his claims, and in February 2004 the CIA withdrew all intelligence reports based on his information.” But Pincus reported that in February 2002 – eight months before Bush reportedly first referred to al-Libi’s bogus claims – the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) produced a document in which it concluded that it was “likely” that al-Libi was “intentionally misleading the debriefers.” Pincus reported that “the DIA took note that the Libyan terrorist could not name any Iraqis involved, any chemical or biological material used or where the training occurred.”

Isikoff and Hosenball reported in their November 10 article that “[a] DIA official confirmed to NEWSWEEK” that a copy of the DIA report “would have been sent” to the Bush administration’s National Security Council. Isikoff and Hosenball also reported that the CIA produced a document containing similar conclusions about al-Libi in January 2003 – before Powell’s U.N. speech. Isikoff and Hosenball noted that “[a] counter-terrorism official said that while CIA reports on al-Libi were distributed widely around U.S. intelligence agencies and policy-making offices, many such routine reports are not regularly read by senior policy-making officials.”

BBC NEWS | Americas | Probe rules out Iraq-9/11 links

The US national commission examining the 11 September 2001 attacks has found no “credible evidence” that Iraq helped al-Qaeda militants carry them out.

For all the smoke screens, there is really nothing here to contradict the New Yorker report.

[Age_Quod_Agis]

@Age Quod Agis

@GIGObuster

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.

Care to explain how this isn’t a personal insult?

You’re not going to respond to this at all? You’re not going to offer either an explanation or an apology?

[elucidator]

The notion that a secular cynic would provide powerful weapons to a religious fanatic is to imagine Stalin would offer Rasputin a couple of armored divisions.

But more to the point: torture may prove valuable only so long as the enemy is numnuts stupid. So stupid as to not have any knowledge of long-standing ground rules for resistance movements and other clandestine organizations.

And one of those is this: keep operational information on an absolute need to know basis. Because you must assume that whatever information resides in the mind of a captured comrade is known to your enemy. Period. Whatever codes he knows are broken, whatever plans he may know about are compromised. You make it clear to your comrades that there is no value in resistance to torture, there is nothing to protect. Other codes will be found, other plots hatched. It also explains why information is compartmentalized, so no one needs know more than they should.

The Bushiviks like to make noises about how this only applies to “high value detainees”, the guy who knows how to defuse the nuclear anthrax bomb at Mt. Rushmore. Utter horseshit. How in the hell do they pretend to know who is “high value” and who isn’t? Its like claiming to have neutralized 75% of AlQ’s command when you haven’t the slightest how many people there are? What is 75% of Dunno?

If you catch 10 AlQ “soldiers”, you will likely have to torture all ten just to find out which one of them to torture! To obtain information that is probably useless by the time you get it!

Why stop there? Why not active disinformation?

Why not take some useless wannabee, fill his head for of bullshit, and let him be captured. Of course he won’t willingly divulge the false crap you want to plant, but once he is tortured and spills the beans, then your enemy goes haring off after whatever phantoms you have planted. Paranoia isn’t a mental disturbance under these circumstances, its an applicable science.

I’m not all the bright. If I can figure this shit out, what makes you think they can’t?

[GIGObuster]

And there is a problem with the evidence on the last link:

THE REACH OF WAR: THE INTELLIGENCE; Iraqis, Seeking Foes of Saudis, Contacted...

The Americans confirmed that they had obtained the document from the Iraqi National Congress, as part of a trove that the group gathered after the fall of Saddam Hussein’s government last year. The Defense Intelligence Agency paid the Iraqi National Congress for documents and other information until recently, when the group and its leader, Ahmad Chalabi, fell out of favor in Washington.

Some of the intelligence provided by the group is now wholly discredited, although officials have called some of the documents it helped to obtain useful.

A translation of the new Iraqi document was reviewed by a Pentagon working group in the spring, officials said. It included senior analysts from the military’s Joint Staff, the Defense Intelligence Agency and a joint intelligence task force that specialized in counterterrorism issues, they said.

The task force concluded that the document “appeared authentic,” and that it “corroborates and expands on previous reporting” about contacts between Iraqi intelligence and Mr. bin Laden in Sudan, according to the task force’s analysis.

It is not known whether some on the task force held dissenting opinions about the document’s veracity.

It seems that the document’s connection with Chalabi’s Iraqi National Congress was one big reason why those documents eventually were not mentioned at all by the Bush administration, it got worse when Chalabi turned to be involved with Iranian intelligence, I would like to check new reports on this after 2004, in the meantime I have to go with the concussion that this did not change what happened next, there is no contradiction in finding that before 9/11 Saddam was at odds with Osama. What we did in Iraq was to do what Osama wanted.

[GIGObuster]

@Age Quod Agis

You’re not going to respond to this at all? You’re not going to offer either an explanation or an apology?

The explanation is in the latest links posted, there is indeed a lot that you are ignoring regarding this specific item.

Ignoring that even the CIA had to withdraw the Levi revelations, and problems with the evidence for the connection with Al Qaeda and Saddam, lead to the concussion that it was not the truth 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”.

[GIGObuster]

… have to go with the conclusion that …

Of course a concussion might be a good excuse.

If there is something I need to apologize for, is that several of my posts are becoming unclear, I have to blame current extreme problems for the rushed posts. (The problems are not my fault, but even so, I’m forced right now to make an emergency move out of my current residence).

[David_Simmons]

@elucidator

Why stop there? Why not active disinformation?

Why not take some useless wannabee, fill his head for of bullshit, and let him be captured. Of course he won’t willingly divulge the false crap you want to plant, but once he is tortured and spills the beans, then your enemy goes haring off after whatever phantoms you have planted. Paranoia isn’t a mental disturbance under these circumstances, its an applicable science.

I’m not all the bright. If I can figure this shit out, what makes you think they can’t?

Particularly since there are plenty of examples to use as models. In WWII we created a whole phantom army under the command of George Patton. The radio message traffic that this army created indicated that they were in positions such that they would cross the Channel in the Pas de Calais area for the invasions of the continent. Since this harmonized with the pre-conception of Hitler and the German high command it was swallowed. As a result the high command and particularly Hitler simply didn’t believe field reports of a huge fleed landing troops in Normandy. The ascribed it to nerves on the part of inezperienced troops and refused to send reinforcements for quite a while after the landings started.

Just before 6 June the British sent an actor who looked a lot like Montgomery on an inspection tour of some far-away place, I think it was the Medeterranian Theater, so as to convince the Germans, if they were watching and the presumption was they were, that the invasion must not be going to occur very soon as Monty would certrainly be an important part of it.

Nothing is easier to create that fake information to keep the enemy chising his tail. It is cheap for your side and expensive for the enemy.

[Hillary_Clinton_s_Gynecologist]

@David Simmons

Particularly since there are plenty of examples to use as models. In WWII we created a whole phantom army under the command of George Patton. The radio message traffic that this army created indicated that they were in positions such that they would cross the Channel in the Pas de Calais area for the invasions of the continent. Since this harmonized with the pre-conception of Hitler and the German high command it was swallowed. As a result the high command and particularly Hitler simply didn’t believe field reports of a huge fleed landing troops in Normandy. The ascribed it to nerves on the part of inezperienced troops and refused to send reinforcements for quite a while after the landings started.

Just before 6 June the British sent an actor who looked a lot like Montgomery on an inspection tour of some far-away place, I think it was the Medeterranian Theater, so as to convince the Germans, if they were watching and the presumption was they were, that the invasion must not be going to occur very soon as Monty would certrainly be an important part of it.

Nothing is easier to create that fake information to keep the enemy chising his tail. It is cheap for your side and expensive for the enemy.

As far as I’m concerned a confirmed terrorist ( not a suspected terrorist ) should not enjoy basic POW rights. A terrorist’s crime isn’t following war time orders from a government; it’s a crime against humanity. Getting information from a terrorist can help prevent future attack, freeze monetary assets, or lead to the capture and killing of other terrorists.

I’m not for permanent injuries or maiming, but if the interrogators to rough him or her up a bit to talk, so be it. If the interrogators need to use harsh psychological techniques, so be it. If the interrogators need to use mind altering drugs, so be it.

The more fake information a person gives, the harsher the treatment shall be.

I am also not against “ tagging “ confirmed terrorists, the way a wild animal is tagged. I’m not sure if a micro chip can be inserted somewhere inside the body without a person noticing it or not. I believe it can. Simply planting something during a routine medical operation or check up would be a stroke of genius. This way once the terrorist is released, we can track him or her back to their friends they capture or kill the entire nest.

[Age_Quod_Agis]

@GIGObuster

The explanation is in the latest links posted, there is indeed a lot that you are ignoring regarding this specific item.

Ignoring that even the CIA had to withdraw the Levi revelations, and problems with the evidence for the connection with Al Qaeda and Saddam, lead to the concussion that it was not the truth 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”.

Now I understand why your posts are so confusing. You’re not even bothering to read the posts to which you’re allegedly “responding.”

[GIGObuster]

@Age Quod Agis

Now I understand why your posts are so confusing. You’re not even bothering to read the posts to which you’re allegedly “responding.”

Not true at all, so far you are implying that I’m crazy just because I used a Star Trek reference.

Still no good evidence from your part that the New Yorker was wrong. And the evidence that Al –Qaeda had (dubious)contacts with Iraq can not be separated from the fact that they parted ways because of their differences.

[Age_Quod_Agis]

Then by all means, please explain how that wasn’t an insult.

[GIGObuster]

@Hillary Clinton's Gynecologist

The more fake information a person gives, the harsher the treatment shall be.

Except when the administration gets the fake info they need for other purposes.

I will always think that torture can only be used if one has perfect information gathering capabilities and a government that accepts oversight, since we have neither torture does more harm than good.

I am also not against “ tagging “ confirmed terrorists, the way a wild animal is tagged. I’m not sure if a micro chip can be inserted somewhere inside the body without a person noticing it or not. I believe it can. Simply planting something during a routine medical operation or check up would be a stroke of genius. This way once the terrorist is released, we can track him or her back to their friends they capture or kill the entire nest.

Not possible yet, and not enough funding to obtain, manage or interpret the info.

[GIGObuster]

@Age Quod Agis

Then by all means, please explain how that wasn’t an insult.

Because it was directed to your ignorance on the specific subject of torture.

[Der_Trihs]

As far as I’m concerned a confirmed terrorist ( not a suspected terrorist ) should not enjoy basic POW rights.

And who gets to declare someone a “confirmed terrorist” ? Who gets to define “terrorist” ? How would someone falsely convicted defend themselves ?

@Hillary Clinton's Gynecologist

A terrorist’s crime isn’t following war time orders from a government; it’s a crime against humanity.

There is no difference. Killing innocent people is just as bad either way; there’s no moral difference between being a terrorist shooting civilians or a soldier shooting them. That’s why “I was just following orders” is not an excuse.

@Hillary Clinton's Gynecologist

I’m not for permanent injuries or maiming, but if the interrogators to rough him or her up a bit to talk, so be it. If the interrogators need to use harsh psychological techniques, so be it. If the interrogators need to use mind altering drugs, so be it.

And when he show up insane or crippled or dead “by mistake”, he’ll be great propaganda fodder for the “terrorists”. Why are people like you so desperate to prove the terrorists right, to convince the world we are the “Great Satan” ? Every time we torture someone - and that is what you are for, don’t try to pretty it up - we prove we are as evil as they say we are.

@Hillary Clinton's Gynecologist

The more fake information a person gives, the harsher the treatment shall be.

And of course, “fake information” means “lies we agree with”.

@Hillary Clinton's Gynecologist

I am also not against “ tagging “ confirmed terrorists, the way a wild animal is tagged. I’m not sure if a micro chip can be inserted somewhere inside the body without a person noticing it or not. I believe it can. Simply planting something during a routine medical operation or check up would be a stroke of genius. This way once the terrorist is released, we can track him or her back to their friends they capture or kill the entire nest.

Then they’ll simply make a point of hanging out with innocent people once released, and let us capture or kill the innocents. At best, you’ll succeed once, and then they’ll be on to your trick. Besides, torturing people just means that no matter how many you kill, they’ll just be more.