Water-boarding worked wonders, ex-agent says: The Swamp
 
The Swamp
-
Posted December 11, 2007 10:03 AM
The Swamp

by Mark Silva and updated

Water-boarding worked wonders in the case of one al-Qaeda leader, according to a former CIA agent who has made the rounds of some television news interviews as CIA director Mike Hayden prepares to testify before a congressional committee today about his agency’s destruction of videotapes of interrogations.

The controversial interrogation technique that simulates drowning also was approved at the highest levels of the government, former agent John Kiriakou, a leader of the team that captured al Qaeda’s Abu Zubaydah, has told network news interviewers. And that water-boarding, Kiriakou has said, produced instant results: Abu Zubaydah started talking in less than 35 seconds.

“The next day, he told his interrogator that Allah had visited him in his cell during the night and told in to cooperate,’’ Kiriakou told ABC News World News in interview aired last night. “From that day on, he answered every question. The threat information he provided disrupted a number of attacks, maybe dozens of attacks.’’

While he hasn’t explained how he knows the technique – which many call torture – was approved at the highest levels, he told NBC News' Today Show this morning: “This isn't something done willy nilly. This isn't something where an agency officer just wakes up in the morning and decides he's going to carry out an enhanced technique on a prisoner. This was a policy made at the White House, with concurrence from the National Security Council and Justice Department."

Any time water-boarding or another harsh tactic was employed, he said, agents had to present a “well-laid out, well-thought out reason" to top government officials, Kiriakou said.

The White House, continuing to refuse to discuss the details of any interrogation tactics and declining to comment on the agent's report about water-boarding, insisted that the government is following the law in the interrogation of suspected terrorists.

“All interrogations have been done within the legal framework that was set out after Sept. 11,’’ Dana Perino, White House press secretary, said today. “They have been measures that are tough and limited, and they have been very effective…I do not comment on any specific technique... I can say that any interrogations have been legal, and they have been fully briefed to the United States Congress.’’

“Like a lot of Americans,’’ the now-retired Kiriakou told ABC News, “I'm involved in this internal, intellectual battle with myself weighing the idea that water-boarding may be torture versus the quality of information that we often get after using the water-boarding technique…. What happens if we don't water-board a person and we don't get that nugget of information and there's an attack. I would have trouble forgiving myself. ... At the time, I felt that water-boarding was something that we needed to do."

The Bush administration insists that the United States “does not torture’’ terrorism suspects.
Hayden faces two days of questioning by Senate and House intelligence committees about the agency’s destruction of the videotapes – which occurred before he became director. Hayden has told CIA employees that the CIA taped the interrogations of two alleged terrorists in 2002.

He said the harsh questioning was carried out only after being "reviewed and approved by the Department of Justice and by other elements of the Executive Branch." Hayden said Congress was notified in 2003 both of the tapes' existence and the agency's intent to destroy them.
The White House has refused to comment on the destruction of the tapes while a Justice Department inquiry is underway.

The CIA destroyed the tapes in November of 2005, though exactly when Congress was notified and in what detail is in dispute. Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Jay Rockefeller, (D-W.Va.), has said the CIA claims it told the committee of the tapes' destruction at a hearing in November 2006 – but the hearing transcript reveals no mention of that subject. The House committee first learned the tapes had been destroyed in March 2007, according to Chairman Rep. Silvestre Reyes, (D-Texas.)

In his message to CIA employees, Hayden said "the leaders of our oversight committees in Congress were informed of the videos years ago and of the agency's intention to dispose of the material. Our oversight committees also have been told that the videos were, in fact, destroyed."

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Digg Delicious Facebook Fark Google Newsvine Reddit Yahoo

Comments

The United States of America is a rogue nation which tortures prisoners.


Sounds like we can solve most all of our problems with a little waterboarding. No more kids lying at my house.


Waterboarding has already been certified as torture.
It is now clear that the decision to waterboard came from the White House.
In violation of the law, the end does not justify the means.
George W. Bush made the decision to break the law.
That makes him a criminal, no matter what the results of his crime.


Yet another Republican falls back on the politics of fear and scapegoating.

Remember, your lawn service is the cause of all the problems the United States has. Anyone who has an accent is an enemy to be terrified of. The "other" must be rounded up ruthlessly.

Sadly, this works for Republican politicians while it destroys another bit of what made America a beacon of light in the world.


Well now....an article from Sunday's Washington Post, shows Nancy Pelosi had no trouble with waterboarding back in Sept. 2002 when she was showed the taped technique by the CIA.
The fact is, some of the dems that were there asked the CIA--'if they were pushing hard enough to get information.'
Hmmmmm???

Paulo


The Bush administration insists that the United States “does not torture’’ terrorism suspects.*

*We use "harsh interrogation" techniques, which may fit the legal definition of torture and may appear to be torture to CIA agents performing or observing the procedure, but are not torture because laws passed by Congress do not apply to the unitary executive branch.


He just showed the enemy our playbook. If he was a Democrat they would call it treason.


Just one question for all those that oppose waterboarding. Your child, husband mother-pick the person you love most in the world-is being held by a bunch of savages that are known for cutting off heads. One of those savages is being held by the CIA. He may well have information that would save your loved ones life. Do you, honestly, under those circumstances say "NO!, no torture, no waterboarding, no umcomfortable positions, no sleep deprivation?" HONESTLY?


Simulated drowning? You just stop before the subject dies. Nothing simulated about it. Anyway, good way to get people to say or do what you want. Lousy way to gather information. But hey they do it on "24". My god, what has happened to us.


Wow, if torture works so well, you'd better find out what I told the Vietamese when they tortured me...


Show me one person who has been scared or maimed during interrogation. What you call torture used to pass for initiation rites in a lot of fraternities in decades past.
One day we may see a nuclear device exploded in a US city by these islamic fantatics. What are you going to say when it is revealed we had izlamic detainees with prior knowledge ... and Hillary dictated we could only ask them politely for their name and jihad number?
For all you idiots, I hope it is your kids who get beheaded or blown up in their own school when the next terroist attack happens.


Shamed, while Mark Silva doesn't give the entire comment from Kiriakou, he does include one key quote from the CIA agent: "I'm involved in this internal, intellectual battle with myself weighing the idea that water-boarding may be torture versus the quality of information that we often get after using the water-boarding technique…. What happens if we don't water-board a person and we don't get that nugget of information and there's an attack. I would have trouble forgiving myself. ... At the time, I felt that water-boarding was something that we needed to do."

That is really the crux of the situation. Despite comments, mainly to tweak the Loony Lefties here, the idea of torturing someone is unsettling, even to me. But, if it the choice between waterboarding someone for 30 seconds (which is how long waterboarding lasts) or saving hundreds, thousands or even tens of thousands of American lives, I have to come down on the side of saving lives.

The agent said the got actionable intelligence from this guy that prevented terrorist attacks. It may be ugly, but I'd rather save the lives. So get a grip of yourself!


Yada Yada Yada Shamed. U.S. bad, and your good. I bet you take advantage of everything this best of nations has to offer. Too bad your foot in mouth syndrome causes ignorance as a symptom. I am proud to say to our brave people who protect us, unlike your hate America first crowd, do whatever it takes. You have this citizens respect and admiration.


So why hasn't someone mentioned that this CIA agent should be charged with committing torture and we should start criminal procedures against him. He's admitted to the crime!


The debate on "water boarding" has some people missing the point. The rational for the erased interrogation tapes smells fishy. The reasoning that the identity of the interrogators is important does not address the destruction of the tapes. The faces and identities could have been blurred, obscured or otherwise removed from the tapes in the same way the identities of undercover agents like those on the reality show "Cops". It's not the interrogators that are the focus of the issue, it's the techniques applied. This, in my opinion, is what the CIA wants to hide.

And our government wonders why citizens don't trust them? CIA was warned by Harriett Myers, Gates, Congress and others NOT to destroy the tapes. Who issued the orders and what accountability will they have? Where is the President on this?

If water boarding works and there is a question of torture, then the issue should be relegated to Congress to pass the appropriate provisions. The President does not get to decide which conventions and treaties we observe, Congress ratifies those.

I am so damned mad that there seems to be no accountability in the administration for any questionable deeds. It's not the fault of the interrogators, it's those in charge who are responsible.

Israel has clear guidelines for the elevation of interrogation techniques. Urgency and the saving of lives can be a reason for using aggressive techniques bordering on torture, but must be approved at higher levels of government with a paper trail of approvals. The most aggressive techniques get quickly approved by the prime minister.

Who bears responsibility in our government?


"Water-boarding worked wonders"

Wow, and maybe sodomizing detainiees with broomsticks until their anuses are bloody and raw and their intestines have been punctured is a magical joyride thru cotton candy clouds over marshmallow mountaintops with rivers of chocolate. Torture is inhuman.


“From that day on, he answered every question. The threat information he provided disrupted a number of attacks, maybe dozens of attacks.’’


This is all I need to know-

I realize the moral dilemna is here, I hate that waterboarding is an option, but since it is, I am glad it worked in this case.

Simple question might be; if waterboarding this guy prevents your child from being murdered wouldn't you do it?

I would, every parent I know that is being honest would.

We live in a bad world- with really bad choices being presented to us.


I find it extremely fascinating about the issue of water boarding and other torture methods and the Republican party.

Here is a group that purportedly represents the "Christian" values of our society more than the Democratic party. They especially want to tell society what their social values should be. What hypocrites!

Whether YOU think that water boarding is acceptable or not is immaterial. Various nations throughout the world, INCLUDING the US, consider it torture. Despite the proverbial ticking bomb scenarios, torture is illegal. Others have been tried and convicted of using these techniques. End of discussion. Nothing has changed in the world that makes techniques that were unacceptable before acceptable now.

For Kathy and others who talk about cutting off the heads . . . I have a question for you. Did you complain about the beheadings of people in Iraq when it occurred? One of the reasons why this nation doesn't torture people is that we expect our soldiers to be treated humanely. Once you accept the slide down that slippery slope you then accept that our enemies can then do the same to ALL of our soldiers in the future. Is that what you want?


Kathy;
Honestly!
Your child, husband mother-pick the person you love most in the world-is being held by a a foreign intelligence agency that is known for torturing. Nobody is allowed to contact them, not lawyers, statesmen, not anyone. Not even the courts of the nation for which the agency works is allowed to contact them.
Nobody has any idea why they are being held.
Say you personally had great respect for the nation who's intelligence agency was holding them.
You'd say, "Oh well, I trust them."?


So why hasn't someone mentioned that this CIA agent should be charged with committing torture and we should start criminal procedures against him. He's admitted to the crime!

Posted by: dogjudge | December 11, 2007 11:48 AM

What Crime! The congress has never been able to pass a law specifically defining waterboarding as a torture, therefore a crime..

So the bigger question to you or any of the other Monday morning , anti waterboarding, quarterbacks here;

You are the CIA guy in the room with creepy terrorist guy-

What do you do to stop the planned attacks?


You don't suppose that one of John's old friends at the CIA called and asked for a favor do you?
"John boy, Just tell the folks how successful we were and how necessary water boarding was. You do not have to support water boarding as we do not torture people. Thanks Pal"


Interesting that he doesn't mention they also found out Abu is mentally ill and not as big a player as they thought.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/19/AR2006061901211_pf.html


Given a choice between waterboarding a terrorist to save thousands of lives or not and seeing thousands of Americans die at the hands of a terrorist attack, the Loons on the Left oome down on the side of the terrorists. Why am I not surprised? And why does the Left hate America and Americans so much?


For everyone out there who thinks torture works... ask yourself why the city of Chicago is paying $20 million for torturing suspects.

Becasue the info they got as a result was bad.

Torture doesn't work.


Shouldn't we be waterboarding John McCain to find out what he told the North Vietnamese. He says he was tortured but he didn't crack. As this article says torture works. So instead the Republicans are allowing this obvious traitor and squealer run for the highest office in America and the most powerful position on the planet. Get McCain and unravel the mystery before we find out he sold the N. Vietnamese state secrets. How did he get rich all of the sudden anyway?


Nixon was impeached for much less.


Shouldn't this guy's cell be a Holy site? I mean after all Allah must have visited him. He couldn't make that up... not after being tortured. He is a pure fountain of truth.


How come no one is commenting on the examples when torture DOES NOT work. For example the Canadian who was picked up off the street and sent away and tortured under the Rendition program. He admitted he was al-Qaeda and trained in Afghanistan despite ABSOLUTE PROOF he was in a completely different part of the world during the time he claimed he was training to kill Americans. The US subsequently finally released him and gave his family a huge cash settlement.


Carl, the CIA agent said the waterboarding did work and it prevented many terrorist attacks, saving many lives. Again, why does the Left love the idea of thousands of innocent Americans being incinerated?


U.S. interrogation techniques are NOT torture, period. Those who are saying differently are incompetent or asserting propaganda for political benefit at the cost of American citizens. No, matter your political party affiliation, and setting aside your thoughts on issues. We all need to remember what it is to be an American Citizen. We need to make sure our elected representatives obey their Oath of Office and keep their Oath of Allegiance. See http://tinyurl.com/2znnvl Know whom you are voting for.


Interesting that he doesn't mention they also found out Abu is mentally ill and not as big a player as they thought.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/19/AR2006061901211_pf.html

Posted by: Cheryl | December 11, 2007 12:50 PM

Exactly Cheryl, thanks. Meanwhile heartburn is breathless than he can live safe and free for another day. heartburn, let me ask you a question in turn, how do you know that someone being tortured isn't just saying something to make the torture stop. Intelligence work needs to be comprehensive and strategic, not dumbed down.


Given a choice between waterboarding a terrorist to save thousands of lives or not and seeing thousands of Americans die at the hands of a terrorist attack...

Posted by: John D | December 11, 2007 1:00 PM

Not sure why I bother addressing your ranting but your statement, once again, demonstrates the flawed, moronic logic of your ilk.

The decision is not "do we torture a known terrorist knowing it will save thousands of lives".

The decision is do we torture a suspect who may or may not have any information and may not be guilty of anything. Someone who has had no chance to prove their innocence.

We are supposed to be the country of the moral high ground. I guess that is the difference between rational, logical people and republicans.


"We live in a bad world- with really bad choices being presented to us.

Posted by: heartburn | December 11, 2007 12:19 PM"

If it's that bad, why the hell don't you leave it??


John D once again... you just don't get it.

I love America. I served my country and voted GOP for most of my adult life.

But this torture situation makes me sick. If we approve of our government torturing "detainees" then we are giving tacit approval to every foreign entity that it is OK to torture US personnel.

Waterboarding was torture 500 years ago when the Spanish Inquisition used it and it is torture today.

If you beleive that the rule of law does not apply to the highest law enforcement official in the country and that the ends always justify the means then you my friend are the one who hates this country.

Dissention and debate are cornerstones of democracy.

Why do you hate democracy so much?

Blind obedience to authority is for dictatorships.


What do you do to stop the planned attacks?

Posted by: heartburn | December 11, 2007 12:32 PM

How do you know there are planned attacks? How do you know they are telling the truth?


Nancy Pelosi is a beliver:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/08/AR2007120801664.html?hpid=topnews

Waterboarding is used by our Navy in the SERE survival training of its sailors. Speaking to relatives that have gone thru the training - waterboarding will scare the hell out of you, but leaves no physical or mental damage.


Dr. Coles - You've made a pretty broad statement.

Let's see. Various groups and treaties have previously decided that water boarding is a form of torture. Soldiers have been tried and convicted of using this technique. The US Congress has said that water boarding is torture. The US military has declared water boarding as torture.

In the above article, the CIA agent says that water boarding was committed.

So either all of the treaties, etc. are wrong. The previous rulings are wrong. Congress is wrong. The CIA agent is wrong. Or you are wrong. So which is it.

For you who advocate torture, typically the ticking time bomb scenario, the logic of your argument is that ANY type of torture is acceptable if you are trying to save thousands of lives. So according to you, anything short of death is acceptable. I guess that tells me that you have NO ethics, or morals, at all. Correct?


Khalid Sheik Mohammad "admitted a key role in 31 attacks carried out or planned by" Al Qaeda, including the following: [3]

"I was responsible for the 9/11 operation, from A to Z" [4]
"'I was the military operational commander for all foreign operations around the world,' under the leadership of Osama bin Laden, Mohammed said in a statement read to a March 10 tribunal at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, by a U.S. military officer acting as his personal representative." [5]
Beheading of Daniel Pearl, the Wall Street Journal reporter who was kidnapped and killed in Pakistan in 2002. [6]
Nightclub bombing in Bali, Indonesia. [7]
Attempting "to down two American airplanes using shoe bombs". [8]
[edit]Credibility of claims

"Some intelligence experts questioned the credibility Mohammed's claims to have been involved in so many plots against targets ranging from former U.S. President Jimmy Carter to London landmark Big Ben.

"Former CIA official Robert Baer said Mohammed's rambling testimony raised suspicions about his treatment at the hands of CIA interrogators.

"'Once you rough up a witness with waterboarding, they figure out what narrative you want and that's the narrative they tell. And that suspicion is always going to be out there. That's what we're left with,' Baer said," Andrew Gray reported for Reuters March 15, 2007


How do you know there are planned attacks? How do you know they are telling the truth?


Posted by: john | December 11, 2007 2:03 PM

Irrelevant- what do you do?- because you don't know either..


heartburn

Simple. You don't torture.

The scenario is irrelevant. There is absolutely NO proof that it has ever actually come to that decision.

More to the point. The things that have been brought out so far, do NOT point to any ticking bomb scenario. They essentially started torturing these individuals to see if there were any future attacks planned. "Future" as in a year from the torture, or a week from the torture. The people doing this didn't have any information that anything imminent was about to occur, or if ANYTHING at all was planned. That's a big jump from a ticking bomb in downtown Chicago.

So extending your logic further. Is torture acceptable to stop the death of 10,000 people? !,000? 100? How about just 1 person? What type of torture is acceptable? Cutting off limbs? Killing various organs? Where do you stop?

As an aside to this discussion. Some time watch the movie "Marathon Man" with Dustin Hoffman. There's a torture scene where the torture is simply drilling into someone's teeth without any type of pain killer.


I wouldn't believe anything coming out of this administration.

Torture of any kind will be done on Americans, especially waterboarding.

Army Colonel William F Buckley may have been a victim of torture because of CIA torture on terrorists. What goes around comes around:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Francis_Buckley


Why hasn't this technique been tried on Bush?

He hasn't said a word of truth in seven years.


Does this mean we can beat children bloody if they misbehave? I heard that works.


I wonder what the blowback from using torture could possibly?


"Show me one person who has been scared or maimed during interrogation"

Posted by: K W Smith | December 11, 2007 11:16 AM

I'll go one better. I'll show you an person who ended up dead during interrogation.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/04/06/60minutes/main1476781.shtml

How do you know there are planned attacks? How do you know they are telling the truth?


Posted by: john | December 11, 2007 2:03 PM

Irrelevant- what do you do?- because you don't know either..

Posted by: heartburn | December 11, 2007 2:33 PM

Are we going to torture everyone who MIGHT be a terrorist the heartburn?

We don't know if your children are terrorists or not. They might be planning a Columbine style attack. Please send them by the local police station for a round of waterboarding so that we can be sure.

You'll torture a Muslim to stop multiple deaths, will you torture an american teenager to stop multiple deaths?


If water boarding is so safe (and LEGAL) and the information is so reliable why don't we allow other civil authorities to use it?

Why don't we train the Chicago Police Department to use it? Or the State police?
Couldn't we set up the same type of review process and let the Mayor or Governor "sign off" to make sure the practice isn’t abused?

Surely if the CIA is able to recruit these highly trained professionals we could get them for other agencies as well.

What about the DEA or ATF? Don't we face deadly threats domestically?

How about the TSA or the IRS? Why not Fish and Game?

If the government used the same tactics domestically that it uses internationally (for the same reasons - to keep us safe) I wonder how many of you Pro-waterboarders would still support it.

It is easy to say you are in favor of “enhanced interrogation techniques” when you know it will only happen to the other guy.

Waterboarding - the clean safe alternative to Civil Rights.


I wish I could take credit for this, but I can't. Senator Lindsey Graham (a well known REPUBLICAN) set up the following scenario.

(paraphrasing)A US pilot is downed. Iranian secret security forces water board him. Not to stop a ticking time bomb, but because they want to know if there are any future operations planned by the US. Would you classify that as torture?

The US general he asked the question of simply evaded answering. Graham was none too happy.

Interesting sidebar. I remember much about Watergate and Nixon and have read quite a bit about it. Nixon's downfall did come from the Democrats, but from when the Republicans knew that they had to resolve the issue for the best of the country. Graham, Boehner and other Republicans are now all calling for investigations. Perhaps there's hope yet.


If it's that bad, why the hell don't you leave it??


Posted by: Op109 | December 11, 2007 1:51 PM

Now this is a well thought out response-


We'd have had White House press releases crowing about each and every attack they managed to break up if the information this terrorist provided had really disrupted attacks. Even if we can disregard the immorality of torturing prisoners, I'm still very skeptical about the value of the information we get in return for debasing our country and violating the law.

Here's a suggestion...why don't we have these individuals and their superiors stand trial for torturing prisoners. They can argue that the end justifies the means. Then a jury can decide whether or not they belong in prison for breaking the law.


"Show me one person who has been scared or maimed during interrogation"

Posted by: K W Smith | December 11, 2007 11:16 AM

If you're from Chicago, look no further than the John Burge fiasco.


From Sunday's Trib, on the great effectiveness of torture...

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-burgefolo-bddec09,1,4093309.story?track=rss


So no one will even attempt to provide an alternative solution?

What will all of the hand wringers do when you have to get info from someone who does not want to give you the info AND you believe that you can save lives with the info-

And please no more threats to torture the president from confused canadians...

Thanks


From Sunday's Trib, on the great effectiveness of torture...

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-burgefolo-bddec09,1,4093309.story?track=rss

Posted by: kb | December 11, 2007 4:12 PM

From this Swamp Article:

“From that day on, he answered every question. The threat information he provided disrupted a number of attacks, maybe dozens of attacks.’’


Let's see, give me a battery, some alligator clips, wire, and John D. Now, where are those little guys? Never mind. This technique won't work on John D.


heartburn-

You've repeated been given a solution: Interrogation within the law, without resorting to barbarity.

"What will all of the hand wringers do when you have to get info from someone who does not want to give you the info AND you believe that you can save lives with the info-"

Again, what if the person is not an Islamic Terrorist, but an American college student who you think may have been planning a school shooting with a friend. You've got Dylan Klebold in custody. Do you waterboard him to find out if Eric Harris is going to commit a crime?

Are you willing to torture every possible person who may know about a threat to others? Or just Muslims?


Wow,
How did the left become such experts in interrogation techniques, what qualifies as torture, and the laws and cases behind it? How did this happen so fast?

2 years ago, I bet most people never even heard of "waterboarding"

Oh, .....I know why.

They became over night experts because of the fact that it might

A)make the administration look bad
B) be something that can sway people to be against the war on terror, and
C) make the administration look bad.

We know what the goal is for you lefties. Anything to undermine the administration's efforts.

but hey....I encourage you to run with it. Most Americans will give our guys the benefit of the doubt, especially considering the results.

You see, even if the majority of Americans did feel we shouldn't have waterboarded these guys, they will not side with you.

...because of the little ol' fact that most of you guys are...... NUTS.


heartburn-

You've repeated been given a solution: Interrogation within the law, without resorting to barbarity.

"What will all of the hand wringers do when you have to get info from someone who does not want to give you the info AND you believe that you can save lives with the info-"

Again, what if the person is not an Islamic Terrorist, but an American college student who you think may have been planning a school shooting with a friend. You've got Dylan Klebold in custody. Do you waterboard him to find out if Eric Harris is going to commit a crime?

Are you willing to torture every possible person who may know about a threat to others? Or just Muslims?

Posted by: AJF | December 11, 2007 6:21 PM

AJF-
You've repeated been given a solution: Interrogation within the law, without resorting to barbarity.

not one that works- according to this CIA guy, waterboarding works...which is the goal- correct?

AJF again..
Again, what if the person is not an Islamic Terrorist, but an American college student who you think may have been planning a school shooting with a friend. You've got Dylan Klebold in custody. Do you waterboard him to find out if Eric Harris is going to commit a crime?

You have to take each case on its own merits, which is exactly what the Hayden has defined here- so your example is not valid... there is an obvious difference in a capture terrorist than even Klebold.. although, I could probably find a few parents of dead kids in Coloradoa that would not be as magnanimous as you present yourself to be..


AJF again...Are you willing to torture every possible person who may know about a threat to others? Or just Muslims?

See above- but your impication here exposes your goal of not really comung to a solution but to enflame the argument ..


"Given a choice between waterboarding a terrorist to save thousands of lives or not and seeing thousands of Americans die at the hands of a terrorist attack, the Loons on the Left come down on the side of the terrorists. Why am I not surprised? And why does the Left hate America and Americans so much?

Posted by: John D"
_________________

No John, we just happen to believe that the Constitution used to stand for something higher than human desires and base instincts. We can be a better and stronger nation than the one that the Neo-Imperialists believe we should be.

We once use to take an oath to Preserve, Protect and Defend the Constitution and not to shove it aside when we believed the nation to be at risk; the strength of this nation is that the Constitution prevails and is the guide when all else is chaos.

This great nation, that once tried to maintain fair play even to the nasty enemy (War-crimes trials of the Nazis and the Japanese was a wonderful American idea, summary torture and execution was a Nazi idea).

The point is we can not and should not sacrifice any inch of the Constitution because of a war or threat.

When we practice torture, or for that matter any despicable practice because we believe we are right, be prepared for American service men and women to be subject to the same, and not just from Islamic extremists.

Please do not argue that because THEY do it we should also have that availability. Its wrong regardless of who is doing it.

For those who argue that international agreements, like the Geneva Convention, are a relic of the past, that’s fine. Then you are truly an isolationist, the same isolationist that many conservatives despise for "starting World War II".


"there is an obvious difference in a capture terrorist than even Klebold.."

Yep, one is a Muslim, one isn't. Otherwise they're both individuals planning to kill alot of people with others.

Apparently in heartburn's view, being killed by a muslim leaves you more dead than being killed by an american.

You proclaim that your only interested in saving lives in tha best way. Weren't the lives at Columbine worth saving, heartburn? If waterboarding works, why not then? Or is it that you have another motive too?

You don't want solutions, you want revenge.


"...Yep, one is a Muslim, one isn't. Otherwise they're both individuals planning to kill alot of people with others..."

Posted by: AJF | December 11, 2007 10:20 PM


Kind of fixated on that whole muslim thing aren't you?

THe differences are obvious - one is part of an organization with a goal to kill as many people as possible with the abilty to rationalize the killing as righteous or possible even a divine act- the other is an individual- similiar goal but obvious different motivation-
Klebold believed his act was heinous and unlawful- he had no noble goal in his head

One is a US citizen committing a crime within our borders and jurisdiction of US/State laws...

The other is a person captured in war zone where the laws and level of acceptable behaviour is obviously different..due process, access to our courts etc... you know all those minor details..


"THe differences are obvious - one is part of an organization with a goal to kill as many people as possible with the abilty to rationalize the killing as righteous or possible even a divine act- the other is an individual- similiar goal but obvious different motivation-
Klebold believed his act was heinous and unlawful- he had no noble goal in his head "

So heartburn, before tyou n
torture the person, you question them whether they think the violent act you suspect them of is good or bad? Or can you tell the difference just by looking at them?

"The other is a person captured in war zone where the laws and level of acceptable behaviour is obviously different..due process, access to our courts etc... you know all those minor details.."

Nope, sorry
as was pointed out to you earlier, the Military Commisions Act specifically states, that no matter who the person is and where they are captured or heald, the same protections against Torture and other cruel punishments exist as stated in the Bill of Rights. There is legally no difference what so ever. If it is legal to waterboard a suspected AQ terrorist, it is legal to waterboard an american teenager suspected of violent intent.


OK all you silly childish libs.... YOUR son and daughter are kidnapped and have 12 hours to live. BUT the guy you have in custody knows where they are. Gee... are you ok with a little water boarding now? Hmmmmmm?????

This hypothetical is played out in real life all the time. So why dont you all just go off and have another toke and leave the real world to the professionals, eh?

"(Waterboarding) produced instant results: Abu Zubaydah started talking in less than 35 seconds... The threat information he provided disrupted a number of attacks, maybe dozens of attacks."

End of story.

Or maybe its that you really WANT innocent ment women and children to be blow to bits? Gee... if Al Qaeda were able to kill lots and lots of people, that might look bad for George Bush and THAT would make it all worthwhile...
THAT is all you really care about isn't it?


jpgp-

Let's talk about another scenario that is played out all the time.

The police suspect your son or daughter have information about an imminent school shooting. Your kid doesn't want to say anything. Should we torture them to get them to talk?

Come on! Are you too silly and childish to have your kid tortured to save other kids lives? Do you want high school kids to die in a school shooting?

Strap your kid to the board and lets find out what they know. You pour the water, ok?


AJF.... how typical. Since you cannot answer the question, you chance the question.

My kid is an American citizen and therefore protected my the rights inherited therein. He would not be tortured. You know that and I know that, so lets get back to the subject at hand.

Al Qaeda terrorists blowing up innocent people around the world are NOT American citizens. Hell, being non-uniformed and non state sponsored they dont even qualify for the protections under the Geneva convention which was written specifically to differentiate regular soldiers from these type of terrorists.

So, my friend.... dont changve the subject. Answer the original f*cking question.

... and have a Merry Christmas.


yea, I didn't think you would.


Governments of all kinds, from totalitarian regimes to full fledged republics/democracies have used harsh interrogation techniques and torture for centuries. Besides problems in defining what constitutes 'torture' vs. 'harsh' interrogation (try it some time with a random group of folks), we have the issue of cost/benefit to consider. With waterboarding (when it is properly conducted with attending medical, psychological, and criminal enforcement personnel present) the person is not physically harmed (as when body parts are burned or hacked off, or sharpened bamboo spikes are shoved under the fingernails) but made to endure the very unpleasant feeling that they are drowning. So, if unpleasant feelings (rather than physical harm) define 'torture', then how much unpleasantness are we talking about? Would 'trash talking' or spanking/paddling an enemy captive be considered torture? There are a number of collegiate fraternities and sororities who engage in such activities. How do we objectively measure it? Would going above some subjective level of unpleasantness (i.e., 'torture' threshold) be justifiable if information obtained saved our civilian and/or military lives?


Post a comment

(Anonymous comments will not be posted. Comments aren't posted immediately. They're screened for relevance to the topic, obscenity, spam and over-the-top personal attacks. We can't always get them up as soon as we'd like so please be patient. Thanks for visiting The Swamp.)

Please enter the letter "t" in the field below:

Latest polls

Galleries

DNC

Democratic Convention

Obama's week

Parade of hats

Celebrities

campaign

Campaign trail

Electoral vote map

map

Test your scenarios

Unauthorized tour

Obama

Obama's Chicago

News, but funnier

Cartoon

Walt Handelsman

Cartoon

The Lowe- Down

Cartoon

Editorial cartoons

Quizzes

McCain

Know the presidents?

McCain

Your McCain IQ

Obama

Your Obama IQ

Bush

Bush twins

Test assumptions