U.S. Interrogator: Torture doesn't work

[Yonivore]

Yonivore, still waiting whether you think it's morally justifiable to torture POSSIBLE innocents for intel that would save lives.

You said it is NOT morally justifiable to torture innocents to save lives. But you do think it is morally justifiable to torture alleged al Qaeda suspects.

To put these phrases together, you are willing to accept the risk that some innocent people will be tortured in order to gain information, correct?
Asked and answered.

I've already stated the decision on what interrogation techniques to use is situational and should be determined by whatever the interrogator believes will result in success.

Roll that around in your brain however you like.

[Yonivore]

Look, back on the invasion of Iraq.

Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1991.

The United Nations Security Council gave any member nation the authority to expel Iraq from Kuwait, by force if necessary. The United States Congress gave President George H. W. Bush the authority to do just that. The President of the United States set about building a coalition of nations to commit their military forces to enforce the UNSC Resolutions. This coalition expelled Iraq from Kuwait.

In exchange for ceasing our ass-whipping, Saddam Hussein signed a cease-fire that contained several demands to which he unconditionally agreed. He then set about violating every one of them.

The United Nations and the coalition then spent the ensuing 12 years, passing more resolutions, launching sporadic attacks, and generally playing footsy with the Ba’athist regime of Saddam Hussein who continued to violate the cease-fire agreement and all UNSC resolutions passed after the initial invasion of Kuwait.

In 1998, Saddam Hussein expelled (or caused the withdrawal of – depending on who you believe) UN weapons inspectors at a time when Iraq was known to have tons of chemical and biological weapons and their precursors and before any of those weapons could be secured and destroyed. This led to a limited military action (Operation Desert Fox) authorized by the Clinton administration – which, ironically enough, was executed under the original Authorization for use of military force in Iraq from 1991 and for which Clinton did not seek Congressional approval in 1998. All of this, of course, was after years of Saddam Hussein continually frustrating the U.N.’s efforts to account for Iraq’s weapons programs in what has, by many, been described as a farce of an inspections program. But, in any respect, between 1998 and 2002, there were no weapons inspectors in Iraq and there was no reason to believe Iraq had suspended or ceased such programs. In fact, it was the generally held belief that, if anything, in the absence of UN inspectors, Iraq stepped up its WMD programs. No one had the benefit of the forensic study done by Duelfer in which he determined Iraq was merely maintaining its capability until such time they were able to have sanctions lifted. By all outside appearances – and from statements made by Hussein, himself – there was no reason to believe he had either destroyed existing stockpiles (known to exist) or had ceased his pursuit of WMDs, including nuclear weapons.

So, comes 2001 and the terrorist attacks on the U.S.

The U. S. invaded Afghanistan in 2001, toppled the Taliban and sent al Qaeda scurrying. Much of them, al Qaeda trained and al Qaeda sponsored Musab al Zarqawi among them, ran to Iraq.

Now, tell me; in the climate that existed in 2002 and, considering the flagrant and defiant violations of every fucking agreement from 1991 to 2002 by Iraq; who wouldn’t be in favor of invading Iraq. Not many were opposed and, by an act of Congress, President George W. Bush was authorized to resume hostilities for many and various reasons stretching all the way back to 1991.

All this belly-aching by the left is just a bunch of Monday morning quarterbacking…and, I assert, not much of it is even sincere. Because, if it were, there’d be legislation introduced in both houses of Congress to put a stop to this “Illegal war” and the “atrocious war crimes” of George W. Bush.

What I want to know is if any of you idiots on the left are lobbying your U. S. Representative or Senator to do just that or, are you just content to bitch and complain?

[clambake]

hey yoni, did you put anything on that burn? :lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao

[LnGrrrR]

Asked and answered.

I've already stated the decision on what interrogation techniques to use is situational and should be determined by whatever the interrogator believes will result in success.

Roll that around in your brain however you like.

A simple "yes" would suffice.

Let it be shown that Yonivore would be willing to torture possible innocents for intel.

[Yonivore]

A simple "yes" would suffice.

Let it be shown that Yonivore would be willing to torture possible innocents for intel.
Except, "yes," wasn't my answer.

[Winehole23]

From way upstream:


I would use extreme interrogation techniques if there was a preponderance of evidence demonstrating the terrorist had information of an impending attack.In other words, 51% of the evidence pointing to the guy, whatever that standard of proof means outside of a courtroom.

[Yonivore]

From way upstream:

In other words, 51% of the evidence pointing to the guy, whatever that standard of proof means outside of a courtroom.

Yep.

[Winehole23]

Yep.Preponderance of evidence is a standard of proof at trial. Unless witnesses and facts are tested before some competent tribunal, it doesn't mean very much. That's why I called bs on you.

The secret evidence against the Bosnian detainees Judge Leon ordered the government to release last month wasn't probative. That's one reason the discretion to torture can't be left to the government, assuming this is a valid policy to begin with. They load the dice against the detained and overrely on untested information. This is a recipe for torturing innocents.

Letting the government decide the facts prior to interrogation is a mockery of justice. When subjected to scrutiny in an adversarial process, most of the charges and information have turned out to be bunk.

The government's losing streak -- and yours, Yonivore -- continues.

[Yonivore]

Preponderance of evidence is a standard of proof at trial. Unless witnesses and facts are tested before some competent tribunal, it doesn't mean very much. That's why I called bs on you.
Let me rephrase it for you then. If all the facts point to the person in custody being a terrorist in possession of valuable, actionable intelligence -- as was the case with Khalid Shaihk Mohammed; I'm in favor of using whatever interrogation technique may prove the most successful in extracting that valuable, actionable intelligence.

Clear enough for you?

[Winehole23]

Let me rephrase it for you then. If all the facts point to the person in custody being a terrorist in possession of valuable, actionable intelligence -- as was the case with Khalid Shaihk Mohammed; I'm in favor of using whatever interrogation technique may prove the most successful in extracting that valuable, actionable intelligence.

Clear enough for you?Crystal. You don't really care about the quality of information. That the government has it is enough, and all the evident abuses of its discretion so far don't deter you one bit.

I suppose it doesn't bother you either that Japanese were prosecuted for war crimes after WWII for using the very same technique you valorize. Do you think our government should apologize to the Japanese, since you've declared waterboarding halal?

[LnGrrrR]

Yep.

Hence my 'possibly innocent' comment. Cmon, are you afraid to just came out and admit it? If you're going to take the position that it's worth it to accept the torture of some innocents for intel, then you should be willing to say it clearly.

Heck, I'm willing to say I support driving cars even though I know hundreds if not thousands of children will be killed by them this year.

[Winehole23]

I'm not so bothered by Yonivore's reluctance to bare his heart. Where that lies is pretty clear. It's his pretension to having scruples about torture that grates.

[Yonivore]

If I had any sense the person being interrogated were innocent, I wouldn't use extreme interrogation techniques.

Y'all are full of hypotheticals and, I've already stated that the three people, on whom waterboarding was used, I have no problem with. Present me with a potential innocent that received such treatment and we'll talk.

[Winehole23]

If I had any sense the person being interrogated were innocent, I wouldn't use extreme interrogation techniques.Now you are the torturer. Telling. Good thing we're not relying on your spidey sense, or we'd all be on the rack.

[Yonivore]

Now you are the torturer. Telling. Good thing we're not relying on your spidey sense, or we'd all be on the rack.
You didn't need "spidey sense" to know KSM and the other two, who were waterboarded, were terrorists possibly in possession of valuable intelligence.

[Winehole23]

Why assume the government has made full disclosure? We already know it has destroyed interrogation videotapes.

Besides, waterboarding is a distraction. It's on the way out. Talking about it only minimizes the bigger picture.

Our mistreatment of detainees degrades us, ruins our reputation and puts our own armed forces at greater risk of mistreatment. And your continuing apology for it only discloses your moral depravity.

[Yonivore]

Why assume the government has made full disclosure? We already know it has destroyed interrogation videotapes.

Besides, waterboarding is a distraction. It's on the way out. Talking about it only minimizes the bigger picture.

Our mistreatment of detainees degrades us, ruins our reputation and puts our own armed forces at greater risk of mistreatment. And your continuing apology for it only discloses your moral depravity.
D'okie dokie. Let's see what Obama does with the terrorists we capture.

Oh, and I'm betting the government hasn't fully disclosed the nature of their intelligence gathering...in spite of the best efforts of traitors in the NSA and CIA to spill state secrets.

You'd better hope they haven't either. Otherwise, we're fucked.

[clambake]

we're fucked, huh.

please elaborate on this doomsday scenario.

put it in somebody else's words for me.

[Winehole23]

D'okie dokie. Let's see what Obama does with the terrorists we capture. Obama wasn't my choice for President. If he does the same as Bush I'll criticize him too.


Oh, and I'm betting the government hasn't fully disclosed the nature of their intelligence gathering...in spite of the best efforts of traitors in the NSA and CIA to spill state secrets.

You'd better hope they haven't either. Otherwise, we're fucked.Using state secrecy as a veil for crime is corrupt. It deserves no deference, and the men and women who disclose such government wrongdoing in so doing only bow to their true masters, the American people, who deserve better.

[LnGrrrR]

If I had any sense the person being interrogated were innocent, I wouldn't use extreme interrogation techniques.

Y'all are full of hypotheticals and, I've already stated that the three people, on whom waterboarding was used, I have no problem with. Present me with a potential innocent that received such treatment and we'll talk.

Good law is based off hypotheticals though. That's the point. You can't just go around determining who's guilty and who's not. That's why we have a court system.

I am not willing to assume the guilt of a person based off what our government says.

[LnGrrrR]

You didn't need "spidey sense" to know KSM and the other two, who were waterboarded, were terrorists possibly in possession of valuable intelligence.

And if they don't contain valuable information, we'll just keep interrogating until they come up with some!

[Yonivore]

Good law is based off hypotheticals though. That's the point. You can't just go around determining who's guilty and who's not. That's why we have a court system.
Not on the battlefield we don't. Decisions are situational.


I am not willing to assume the guilt of a person based off what our government says.
Then join the NSA, CIA, or some branch of the military and get in their intelligence service and have at it.

[Winehole23]

Not on the battlefield we don't. Decisions are situational.The decisions regarding torture weren't made on a battlefield. They were made at the DoD and the White House.

At any rate, the Army Field Manual prohibits waterboarding. Or were you suggesting the whole world is a battlefield?

[Yonivore]

The decisions regarding interrogation techniques weren't made on a battlefield. They were made at the DoD and the White House.
Fine by me.

[clambake]

Not on the battlefield we don't. Decisions are situational.
not in your mind. you've made clear what approach you'd use as an only option.

isn't there anyone who can represent the right?

[LnGrrrR]

Not on the battlefield we don't. Decisions are situational.


Then join the NSA, CIA, or some branch of the military and get in their intelligence service and have at it.

How would you define this battlefield? Are there any limitations to it? Could you think of ANY citizen who would not be subject to extradition, torture, etc if the government said it was necessary?

And I tried getting into intel, but they threw me in communications. Go figure. But I can still be active duty USAF and have a healthy distrust of the government.

[Yonivore]

How would you define this battlefield? Are there any limitations to it? Could you think of ANY citizen who would not be subject to extradition, torture, etc if the government said it was necessary?
Sorry, I'm not going to take the time to detail, for you, all the various circumstances when I would or would not countenance harsh interrogation techniques. Suffice it to say, from what I know, to date, I'm okay with what's happened.


And I tried getting into intel, but they threw me in communications. Go figure. But I can still be active duty USAF and have a healthy distrust of the government.
Yeah, go figure...I can't imagine why you wouldn't fit in intelligence.

[DarkReign]

Winehole, I like your style. Reason without bias. Thats uncommon.

[Yonivore]

you've made clear what approach you'd use as an only option.
Actually, I haven't. But, if that's all your simple mind can grasp; who am I to try and educate a 'tard over the internets.

[clambake]

Actually, I haven't. But, if that's all your simple mind can grasp; who am I to try and educate a 'tard over the internets.

who did you steal that from?

[Yonivore]

who did you steal that from?
Rodney Dangerfield.

[clambake]

oh, and did you notice that fear didn't work this time?

or are you just in too deep?

[Yonivore]

oh, and did you notice that fear didn't work this time?

or are you just in too deep?
I guess I didn't notice. What are you on about now?

[Winehole23]

Sorry, I'm not going to take the time to detail, for you, all the various circumstances when I would or would not countenance harsh interrogation techniques. Suffice it to say, from what I know, to date, I'm okay with what's happened.Thanks for driving us to BFE and back to make the same point. Over and over again. It was worth the price of admission.

[Yonivore]

Thanks for driving us to BFE and back to make the same point. Over and over again. It was worth the price of admission.
Well, even if it wasn't; there's no refunds. Y'all come back now, here?

[clambake]

it's clear that they have you so scared you can't compose a thought of your own.

[Yonivore]

it's clear that they have you so scared you can't compose a thought of your own.
Ah, I see...

[LnGrrrR]

Sorry, I'm not going to take the time to detail, for you, all the various circumstances when I would or would not countenance harsh interrogation techniques. Suffice it to say, from what I know, to date, I'm okay with what's happened.


Yeah, go figure...I can't imagine why you wouldn't fit in intelligence.

How hard is it to detail where this battlefield ends? You were the one who brought this up, so it should be easy for you to tell me where the limits are on the battlefield.

Oh, and I had the scores for intel... 99 ASVAB overall. But you don't always get to choose your job in the military, especially when you fail out of your first choice, EOD.

[LnGrrrR]

Another person wo obviously has no idea what he's talking about when he says torture is not effective and just puts our soldiers at risk...

http://www.harpers.org/archive/2008/12/hbc-90004036

[RandomGuy]

I asked you what reason we have for keeping the constitutional protections around.

What is that reason?




To protect the citizens of the United States of America.

From whom/what?

[RandomGuy]

Yeah, go figure...I can't imagine why you wouldn't fit in intelligence.

...says the chickenshit who has never been in the military.

I did fit in rather well in intelligence. I got some rather good praise from my company commanders because I managed to put 2 and 2 together on more than one occasion in large brigade+ level exercises and deliver some pretty timely and accurate warnings.

I think you are full of shit, and are so intellectually hobbled by the blinders of your own making that you would be virtually worthless as an intel analyst.

[LnGrrrR]

So that's two military guys on the board against it... why do all the troops hate America? lol

Honestly, I don't think I've seen many military in public vouching for these programs either. Most seem to be against it.

[8ft.tall.tejano]

How hard is it to detail where this battlefield ends? You were the one who brought this up, so it should be easy for you to tell me where the limits are on the battlefield.

Oh, and I had the scores for intel... 99 ASVAB overall. But you don't always get to choose your job in the military, especially when you fail out of your first choice, EOD.

dude EOD! thats some real ninja shit....was my original mos, but i couldn't get a security clearance, apparently ex-potheads can't play w/bombs....

but to add to the board...torture is not only anti-american, it doesn't accomplish shit.......you just get bad info from someone who already thinks you're going to kill him...

[LnGrrrR]

At least I got past the part the demolition phase... we did a 1,000 lb shot that day. It was awesome. :D

[Yonivore]

dude EOD! thats some real ninja shit....was my original mos, but i couldn't get a security clearance, apparently ex-potheads can't play w/bombs....
Actually, it was probably the "ninja shit" talk.


but to add to the board...torture is not only anti-american, it doesn't accomplish shit.......you just get bad info from someone who already thinks you're going to kill him...
You're not adding, this has been said at least a dozen times in this thread alone.

G-jcqp0i238

Aside from the assertion (both, by Duncan Hunter in the above video and Vice President Cheney in a video posted earlier) that waterboarding one al Qaedan led us to Khalid Shaihk Mohammed and that waterboarding Khalid Shaihk Mohammed garnered -- at the time -- most of what we knew about al Qaeda and revealed al Qaeda operations in the implementation stages; aside from all that -- if it wasn't enough; let's see what torture did for the Sri Lankans...

A Nasty Business (http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200201/hoffman)


I cannot use his real name, so I will call him Thomas. However, I had been told before our meeting, by the mutual friend ”a former Sri Lankan intelligence officer who had also long fought the LTTE” who introduced us (and was present at our meeting), that Thomas had another name, one better known to his friends and enemies alike: Terminator. My friend explained how Thomas had acquired his sobriquet; it actually owed less to Arnold Schwarzenegger than to the merciless way in which he discharged his duties as an intelligence officer. This became clear to me during our conversation.

"By going through the process of laws," Thomas patiently explained, as a parent or a teacher might speak to a bright yet uncomprehending child, "you cannot fight terrorism."

Terrorism, he believed, could be fought only by thoroughly "terrorizing" the terrorists” that is, inflicting on them the same pain that they inflict on the innocent.

Thomas had little confidence that I understood what he was saying. I was an academic, he said, with no actual experience of the life-and-death choices and the immense responsibility borne by those charged with protecting society from attack.

Accordingly, he would give me an example of the split-second decisions he was called on to make. At the time, Colombo was on "code red" emergency status, because of intelligence that the LTTE was planning to embark on a campaign of bombing public gathering places and other civilian targets. Thomas's unit had apprehended three terrorists who, it suspected, had recently planted somewhere in the city a bomb that was then ticking away, the minutes counting down to catastrophe.

The three men were brought before Thomas. He asked them where the bomb was. The terrorists”highly dedicated and steeled to resist interrogation”remained silent. Thomas asked the question again, advising them that if they did not tell him what he wanted to know, he would kill them. They were unmoved.

So Thomas took his pistol from his gun belt, pointed it at the forehead of one of them, and shot him dead. The other two, he said, talked immediately; the bomb, which had been placed in a crowded railway station and set to explode during the evening rush hour, was found and defused, and countless lives were saved.

On other occasions, Thomas said, similarly recalcitrant terrorists were brought before him. It was not surprising, he said, that they initially refused to talk; they were schooled to withstand harsh questioning and coercive pressure. No matter: a few drops of gasoline flicked into a plastic bag that is then placed over a terrorist's head and cinched tight around his neck with a web belt very quickly prompts a full explanation of the details of any planned attack.
Waterboarding - by comparison - is safe, effective, and less damaging than a bullet in the brain.

I don't see this as a difficult choice. I understand that we are doing bad. But I also understand we are doing bad in order to do good. That happens sometimes.

Thomas, you'll note, didn't just torture a terrorist; he actually "murdered" one in cold blood. (I don't know that I would really call this "murder," but I've no doubt as to what the statutes would say about it.)

Did he do wrong?

Should he have just allowed the bomb to detonate?

Would that have been the more moral choice? By what calculus?

Those who say "torture never works" have to address this expert's eyewitness testimony to the contrary. Or else they're just being disingenuous and intellectually dishonest.

[8ft.tall.tejano]

Actually, it was probably the "ninja shit" talk.


what does saying "ninja shit" have to do w/not being able to get a security clearance?........................probably the most foul mouthed person i met in the service was one of my first sgt's who was a former long hair, so its not like language ever became a problem for him..........


but i was adding something because it was MY first appearance on the thread...

[LnGrrrR]

Yoni, your credibility is ruined. You already said you'd go past waterboarding if you thought you had to, so what's your point about waterboarding not being as bad as the Sri Lankans?

[Yonivore]

Yoni, your credibility is ruined. You already said you'd go past waterboarding if you thought you had to, so what's your point about waterboarding not being as bad as the Sri Lankans?
Whatever will I do? OMG! I'm ruined! Ruined, I tell ya!

I wasn't comparing waterboarding to a bullet in the brain. The Sri Lankan technique worked and it was torture...thus, torture works.

Waterboarding isn't as bad and, yes Virginia, it works too.

Now, I'm going to take my ruined ass and get drunk.

Ruined. :lmao... Ruined in an internet forum. :lmao

[Yonivore]

Yoni, your credibility is ruined. You already said you'd go past waterboarding if you thought you had to, so what's your point about waterboarding not being as bad as the Sri Lankans?
So, tell me LnGrrrR, when was my credibility ruined?

[LnGrrrR]

Whatever will I do? OMG! I'm ruined! Ruined, I tell ya!

I wasn't comparing waterboarding to a bullet in the brain. The Sri Lankan technique worked and it was torture...thus, torture works.

Waterboarding isn't as bad and, yes Virginia, it works too.

Now, I'm going to take my ruined ass and get drunk.

Ruined. :lmao... Ruined in an internet forum. :lmao

I didn'y say ruined. I just stated the fact that you have no credibility. If that makes you feel uproariously giggly, then more power to you. Cheers!

[LnGrrrR]

So, tell me LnGrrrR, when was my credibility ruined?

I think it was some point when you tried to argue that waterboarding ISN'T as bad as other forms of torture, so you approve of it. Except, you'd approve of worse forms if they were needed.

Or maybe it was the part where you said you would never torture innocents, but you would torture people that you were pretty sure were terrorists.

Or it could be the strawmen you're trying to build that we said "Torture never works" when everyone arguing against you has clearly stated that a) it's not worth it/unnecessary/hurts us more than it helps and/or b) it's wrong morally.

I don't know, it's tough to keep track of all your spin.

[RandomGuy]

I asked you what reason we have for keeping the constitutional protections around.

What is that reason?




To protect the citizens of the United States of America.

From whom/what?

[Winehole23]

Last night, along with the bill reopening the government, the Senate confirmed Stephen W. Preston, the top lawyer at the C.I.A., to move to the Pentagon to serve in the same role there. The vote slipped by unnoticed by most, but on close inspection, it revealed previously unreleased documents that lift the lid on an unusual standoff between Congress and the Obama Administration’s C.I.A. At its core is a bitter disagreement over an apparently devastating, and still secret, report by the Senate Intelligence Committee documenting in detail how the C.I.A.’s brutalization of terror suspects during the Bush years was unnecessary, ineffective, and deceptively sold to Congress, the White House, the Justice Department, and the public. The report threatens to definitively refute former C.I.A. personnel who have defended the program’s integrity. But so far, to the consternation of several members of the Intelligence Committee, the Obama Administration, like Bush’s before it, is keeping the damning details from public view.


Preston’s confirmation became a proxy skirmish in the fight. Obama reportedly hoped to get Preston confirmed before the congressional recess this past summer. Instead, Senator Mark Udall, a Democrat from Colorado, who is a member of both the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence and the Armed Services Committee, put a “hold” on Preston’s confirmation until he answered a set of additional, and previously undisclosed, questions. A copy of these seven questions, and Preston’s answers, obtained by The New Yorker (below), sheds new light on the conflict.

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2013/10/a-cia-lawyer-answers-to-the-senate.html

[Winehole23]

Preston admits outright that, contrary to the C.I.A.’s insistence that it did not actively impede congressional oversight of its detention and interrogation program, “briefings to the Committees included inaccurate information related to aspects of the program of express interest to Members.”


Preston also distances himself from the C.I.A.’s argument that it is impossible to know whether alternatives to brutal interrogations would have produced information that was as good, if not better. According to the Udall document, the C.I.A. has argued in its rebuttal to the Senate report that it is “unknowable whether, without enhanced techniques, C.I.A. or non-C.I.A. interrogators could have acquired the same information from those detainees.”


However, Preston, in his answers to Udall, agrees with the Senate report’s finding that it is sometimes possible to determine that there were other ways that the C.I.A. could have obtained the same information, without tormenting detainees. Evidently, the report recounts numerous instances in which ordinary legal methods would have produced the same intelligence that was gained through brutalization. Preston, in his answers to Udall, acknowledges that:

I agree that it may be possible to make a determination as to whether information… was “otherwise unavailable.”

[Winehole23]

Doctors (http://www.theguardian.com/society/doctors) and psychologists working for the US military violated the ethical codes of their profession under instruction from the defence department and the CIA (http://www.theguardian.com/world/cia) to become involved in the torture and degrading treatment of suspected terrorists, an investigation has concluded.


The report of the Taskforce on Preserving Medical Professionalism in National Security Detention Centres concludes that after 9/11, health professionals working with the military and intelligence services "designed and participated in cruel, inhumane and degrading treatment and torture of detainees".


Medical professionals were in effect told that their ethical mantra "first do no harm" did not apply, because they were not treating people who were ill.


The report lays blame primarily on the defence department (DoD) and the CIA, which required their healthcare staff to put aside any scruples in the interests of intelligence gathering and security practices that caused severe harm to detainees, from waterboarding to sleep deprivation and force-feeding.


The two-year review by the 19-member taskforce, Ethics (http://www.theguardian.com/world/ethics) Abandoned: Medical Professionalism and Detainee Abuse in the War on Terror, supported by the Institute on Medicine as a Profession (IMAP) (http://www.imapny.org/medicine_as_a_profession/interrogationtorture-and-dual-loyalty) and the Open Society Foundations, says that the DoD termed those involved in interrogation "safety officers" rather than doctors. Doctors and nurses were required to participate in the force-feeding of prisoners on hunger strike, against the rules of the World Medical Association and the American Medical Association. Doctors and psychologists working for the DoD were required to breach patient confidentiality and share what they knew of the prisoner's physical and psychological condition with interrogators and were used as interrogators themselves. They also failed to comply with recommendations from the army surgeon general on reporting abuse of detainees.




"The taskforce says that unethical practices by medical personnel, required by the military, continue today. The DoD "continues to follow policies that undermine standards of professional conduct" for interrogation, hunger strikes, and reporting abuse. Protocols have been issued requiring doctors and nurses to participate in the force-feeding of detainees, including forced extensive bodily restraints for up to two hours twice a day


"The taskforce says that unethical practices by medical personnel, required by the military, continue today. The DoD "continues to follow policies that undermine standards of professional conduct" for interrogation, hunger strikes, and reporting abuse. Protocols have been issued requiring doctors and nurses to participate in the force-feeding of detainees, including forced extensive bodily restraints for up to two hours twice a day


rules to ensure doctors and psychiatrists working for the military are allowed to abide by the ethical obligations of their profession; they should be prohibited from taking part in interrogation, sharing information from detainees' medical records with interrogators, or participating in force-feeding, and they should be required to report abuse of detainees.http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/nov/04/cia-doctors-torture-suspected-terrorists-9-11

[Winehole23]

I'm not so bothered by Yonivore's reluctance to bare his heart. Where that lies is pretty clear. It's his pretension to having scruples about torture that grates.bump

[Winehole23]

The secret evidence against the Bosnian detainees Judge Leon ordered the government to release (in 2008) wasn't probative. That's one reason the discretion to torture can't be left to the government, assuming this is a valid policy to begin with. They load the dice against the detained and overrely on untested information. This is a recipe for torturing innocents.

Letting the government decide the facts prior to interrogation is a mockery of justice. When subjected to scrutiny in an adversarial process, most of the charges and information have turned out to be bunk.

[Winehole23]

btw, 26 of the 110 detainees who were subjected to torture while in CIA custody were -- according to the CIA's own records -- cases of mistaken identity or otherwise detained in error. The CIA admits more than one fifth of the people it tortured were innocent.

[Yonivore]

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=184622&goto=newpost

[Winehole23]

9/11 didn't make it right to torture people, Yoni.

[Yonivore]

9/11 didn't make it right to torture people, Yoni.
It wasn't torture, Winehole23.

[Winehole23]

it is when others do it to us. you can't have it both ways.

[Winehole23]

It was torture.

Rectal feeding? Death by exposure? Breaking limbs then making people support their weight on them? Confinement in a coffin for days on end? Waterboarding?

How are these things not torture?

[Yonivore]

it is when others do it to us. you can't have it both ways.
I'm going out on a limb here and suggest anyone who would deem to torture an American isn't going to spend the time deliberating whether or not their techniques can be harsh without crossing the line into torture; they're not then going to ask their lawyers if they've successfully devised techniques that do so.

I would suggest they'll just break out the drills, clamps, generators, whips, and plastics shredders and proceed to torture -- before they videotape the beheading of our citizen.

Tell me where our EITs even approach that kind of barbarity?

[Yonivore]

It was torture.
We disagree.


Rectal feeding?
Medically necessary for non-compliant detainees. Starving is worse than a forced enema.


Death by exposure?
The person responsible was twice presented for prosecution and prosecutors declined because the was poorly trained. Also, his actions fell outside the legal framework of the EITs.


Breaking limbs then making people support their weight on them?
Not an approved EIT. In fact, stress positions were not used on Abu Zubaydah because of his injuries.


Confinement in a coffin for days on end?
Hadn't heard that one but, so what?


Waterboarding?
Designed in a manner where it did not constitute torture.


How are these things not torture?
There, that's how.

[FromWayDowntown]

It was torture.

Rectal feeding? Death by exposure? Breaking limbs then making people support their weight on them? Confinement in a coffin for days on end? Waterboarding?

How are these things not torture?

"if these things happened as they are described in the report, as you describe them, those were not authorized by the Justice Department. They were not supposed to be done and those people who did those are at risk legally because they were acting outside their orders."

-John Yoo

[ChumpDumper]

I'm going out on a limb here and suggest anyone who would deem to torture an American isn't going to spend the time deliberating whether or not their techniques can be harsh without crossing the line into torture; they're not then going to ask their lawyers if they've successfully devised techniques that do so.

I would suggest they'll just break out the drills, clamps, generators, whips, and plastics shredders and proceed to torture -- before they videotape the beheading of our citizen.

Tell me where our EITs even approach that kind of barbarity?So if they just did the same things the CIA did.

Are you fine with American servicemen and women being so treated by enemies or not?

[Yonivore]

"if these things happened as they are described in the report, as you describe them, those were not authorized by the Justice Department. They were not supposed to be done and those people who did those are at risk legally because they were acting outside their orders."

-John Yoo
I won't disagree with John Yoo. Funny you should use him as an authority, though.

I think torture should be prosecuted. I believe if the administration went to the lengths to make sure they designed an interrogation regimen, that would not cross the line into torture, and people acting outside those parameters caused harm -- they should be held accountable.

I don't know if John Yoo had the benefit of context when he answered that question but, he did qualify it by say, "If these things happened as they are described in the report, as you describe them,..." then it seems he's in favor of prosecution, as well.

The problem is, the report is suspect. The one incident of rectal rehydration, the report claims was not medically necessary, they base on a single e-mail send by what appears to be some Gruberesque officer that got some thrill out of exerting control over the detainee. If that's born out, I suggest he be held accountable.

All the other incidents of rectal rehydration are claimed to have been medically necessary (as this one may well have been, too) and the report makes no determination otherwise.

[Yonivore]

So if they just did the same things the CIA did.
I think its a ridiculous hypothesis to fantasize that any of our current enemies would do the same but, sure, I'd rather be waterboarded as it is designed by the CIA than whatever else would befall me in the hands of al Qaeda. Absolutely.


Are you fine with American servicemen and women being so treated by enemies or not?
No, I'm not but, if it's between this treatment and what they're actually doing to our American servicemen and women, I'd take it.

[FromWayDowntown]

I won't disagree with John Yoo. Funny you should use him as an authority, though.

I'm not suggesting that I agree with John Yoo on anything in particular; I'm just saying that while some continue playing semantic games, even John Yoo acknowledges that his willingness to gerrymander the law to find support "enhanced interrogation techniques" relents at some point and recognizes that the ends of this effort do not always justify the means.

[ChumpDumper]

I think its a ridiculous hypothesis to fantasize that any of our current enemies would do the same but, sure, I'd rather be waterboarded as it is designed by the CIA than whatever else would befall me in the hands of al Qaeda. Absolutely.


No, I'm not but, if it's between this treatment and what they're actually doing to our American servicemen and women, I'd take it.So you're fine with American service men and women being waterboarded and subjected to cold until they die of hypothermia.

Cool with sevicemen and women being sodomized with hummus.

Nice.

You're sick, dude.

[Yonivore]

I'm not suggesting that I agree with John Yoo on anything in particular; I'm just saying that while some continue playing semantic games, even John Yoo acknowledges that his willingness to gerrymander the law to find support "enhanced interrogation techniques" relents at some point and recognizes that the ends of this effort do not always justify the means.
I don't think that's what he's said at all. I think he recognizes people engage in excesses and that they would do so absent any guiding legal framework and, that they need to be held accountable when they do.

[Yonivore]

So you're fine with American service men and women being waterboarded and subjected to cold until they die of hypothermia.
Nope.


Cool with sevicemen and women being sodomized with hummus.
Nope.

But, I would rather our servicemen and women, if captured, be subjected to the EITs, as designed by the CIA and vetted by the DOJ, than what we both know would happen to them, instead.

[FromWayDowntown]

I don't think that's what he's said at all. I think he recognizes people engage in excesses and that they would do so absent any guiding legal framework and, that they need to be held accountable when they do.

So, by acknowledging that if the facts in the report are true, that such acts would open the door to consequences -- ostensibly for having violated the law -- Yoo didn't say that the ends don't always justify the means? I think he's saying that no matter how much he tried to manipulate precedent and governing documents, there's simply no legal justification for certain conduct in the interrogation of detainees and that such conduct is impermissible, no matter how much information a defender of its use might suggest that it had provided.

Recognizing that there are excesses is an acknowledgment that there are limits to what is acceptable.

[Yonivore]

So, by acknowledging that if the facts in the report are true, that such acts would open the door to consequences -- ostensibly for having violated the law -- Yoo didn't say that the ends don't always justify the means? I think he's saying that no matter how much he tried to manipulate precedent and governing documents, there's simply no legal justification for certain conduct in the interrogation of detainees and that such conduct is impermissible, no matter how much information a defender of its use might suggest that it had provided.
I don't think either one of us should pretend to put words in his mouth but, it doesn't make sense to me that Yoo would be acknowledging his effort led to abuses as much as Yoo would be acknowledging the report may contain examples outside what was authorized and that could be characterized as abuses.

We can disagree but, I think only Yoo can settle the question.


Recognizing that there are excesses is an acknowledgment that there are limits to what is acceptable.
You're right, and I believe he's contending those limits were strictly defined in the designed EIT's and the DOJ's vetting of them.

[ChumpDumper]

Nope.


Nope.

But, I would rather our servicemen and women, if captured, be subjected to the EITs, as designed by the CIA and vetted by the DOJ, than what we both know would happen to them, instead.So you're fine with it.

Cool.

[Cry Havoc]

I'd rather be waterboarded as it is designed by the CIA than whatever else would befall me in the hands of al Qaeda. Absolutely.

It's so nice to see that the standard you're holding Americans to is that of terrorists that you want to torture.

[Yonivore]

It's so nice to see that the standard you're holding Americans to is that of terrorists that you want to torture.
I don't think any of our enemies are even close to the standards we've set for designing and vetting our interrogations techniques. If only they were.

Be careful, you're going to put an eye out with all that straw.

[Cry Havoc]

I don't think any of our enemies are even close to the standards we've set for designing and vetting our interrogations techniques. If only they were.

Be careful, you're going to put an eye out with all that straw.

Quoting you directly is a strawman now. Got it. Thanks for playing. :lol

[Yonivore]

Quoting you directly is a strawman now. Got it. Thanks for playing. :lol


It's so nice to see that the standard you're holding Americans to is that of terrorists that you want to torture.
It's not even a quote, from me or anyone else. It's the very epitome of a strawman argument.

[Cry Havoc]

It's not even a quote, from me or anyone else. It's the very epitome of a strawman argument.


I'd rather be waterboarded as it is designed by the CIA than whatever else would befall me in the hands of al Qaeda. Absolutely.


It's a direct quote. Look, dude, you can play stupid all you want, I have no problem with that. But it's laughable to accuse me of strawmanning when you yourself made the direct comparison.

Oh, wait, forgive me... did you mean to put that in blue font? It's so hard to tell with you these days. :lol

[Yonivore]

It's a direct quote. Look, dude, you can play stupid all you want, I have no problem with that. But it's laughable to accuse me of strawmanning when you yourself made the direct comparison.

Oh, wait, forgive me... did you mean to put that in blue font? It's so hard to tell with you these days. :lol

Saying, "I'd rather be waterboarded as it is designed by the CIA than whatever else would befall me in the hands of al Qaeda. Absolutely." <> as, "It's so nice to see that the standard you're holding Americans to is that of terrorists that you want to torture." It's certainly not a direct quote.

Apparently, it's your characterization of what my words meant and you couldn't be more wrong.

[CosmicCowboy]

How exactly should one interrogate terrorists?

Milk and cookies and saying "pretty please" clearly doesn't work.

This is a serious question. What were they supposed to do?

[Cry Havoc]

How exactly should one interrogate terrorists?

Milk and cookies and saying "pretty please" clearly doesn't work.

This is a serious question. What were they supposed to do?

We have scientific evidence that cruelty in the form of torture is not effective, and can in fact be counter-productive. Why would you want them to use a method of interrogation that is exceptionally cruel and does not have any validity?

:lol because clearly the only alternative to torturing them is pampering them, right?

[Cry Havoc]

Saying, "I'd rather be waterboarded as it is designed by the CIA than whatever else would befall me in the hands of al Qaeda. Absolutely." <> as, "It's so nice to see that the standard you're holding Americans to is that of terrorists that you want to torture." It's certainly not a direct quote.

Apparently, it's your characterization of what my words meant and you couldn't be more wrong.

You made a direct comparison between the torture we inflict and the torture that's inflicted by other countries/groups and said you'd rather be tortured by the US if you had a choice. I'm not sure why I have to repeat your own words back to you so that you actually realize what you said, but there it is.

In other news, I'd much rather get hit by a Geo Metro than a Semi.


...


WHAT?! How dare you think I'm comparing a small car to a tractor trailer!!!! :madrun:madrun:madrun

[CosmicCowboy]

We have scientific evidence that cruelty in the form of torture is not effective, and can in fact be counter-productive. Why would you want them to use a method of interrogation that is exceptionally cruel and does not have any validity?

:lol because clearly the only alternative to torturing them is pampering them, right?

So how would you get them to volunteer information?

[Cry Havoc]

So how would you get them to volunteer information?

That's not an easy question to answer, and could obviously fill several hundreds if not thousands of SpursTalk pages. But I don't think we should err on the side of ghastly human cruelty, effective or not. And it's not.

[ElNono]

How exactly should one interrogate terrorists?

Milk and cookies and saying "pretty please" clearly doesn't work.

This is a serious question. What were they supposed to do?

Didn't know that traditional methods of interrogation that did not involve torture included milk and cookies. But hey, the record shows those methods actually were much more effective in gathering actionable intelligence than torture, so more milk and cookies for them.

[CosmicCowboy]

That's not an easy question to answer, and could obviously fill several hundreds if not thousands of SpursTalk pages. But I don't think we should err on the side of ghastly human cruelty, effective or not. And it's not.

http://stream1.gifsoup.com/view6/2198270/fred-astaire-tap-dancing-o.gif

[Cry Havoc]

http://stream1.gifsoup.com/view6/2198270/fred-astaire-tap-dancing-o.gif

Ah, so your solution to things is when in doubt, be as vicious as possible, even when it doesn't accomplish anything. Cool. :tu

[FromWayDowntown]

http://stream1.gifsoup.com/view6/2198270/fred-astaire-tap-dancing-o.gif

So I guess your answer is that we should torture those people without limit to get little useful information and if we manage to impose those methods on completely innocent people in the process, so be it?

[ChumpDumper]

So how would you get them to volunteer information?I'd use the methods that proved more effective than torture.

[CosmicCowboy]

Ah, so your solution to things is when in doubt, be as vicious as possible, even when it doesn't accomplish anything. Cool. :tu

It's YOUR flawed premise that enhanced interrogation doesn't work 100% of the time.

I was just making fun of the way you tap danced around the question of how in your perfect world they SHOULD have gotten the terrorists to volunteer information.

[CosmicCowboy]

So I guess your answer is that we should torture those people without limit to get little useful information and if we manage to impose those methods on completely innocent people in the process, so be it?

I'm honestly not sure what is or was the correct thing to do...

They clearly were not tortured "without limit" as all methods used were allegedly cleared through the justice department prior to use as "not torture" no matter how distasteful we may find them in retrospect. You can quibble about the justice departments finding all you want but I suspect if they had submitted "pulling their fingernails out with pliers" that the Justice Department would have felt the torture line had been crossed...

[Cry Havoc]

It's YOUR flawed premise that enhanced interrogation doesn't work 100% of the time.

I was just making fun of the way you tap danced around the question of how in your perfect world they SHOULD have gotten the terrorists to volunteer information.


I'm honestly not sure what is or was the correct thing to do...

They clearly were not tortured "without limit" as all methods used were allegedly cleared through the justice department prior to use as "not torture" no matter how distasteful we may find them in retrospect. You can quibble about the justice departments finding all you want but I suspect if they had submitted "pulling their fingernails out with pliers" that the Justice Department would have felt the torture line had been crossed...

I find it humorous how in one breath you can lambaste me for "pretending to live in a perfect world" and in the next state that "surely we'd never cross the line into truly monstrous things". Because the people at the Justice Department are apparently infallible, right? :lol You know, despite all the evidence to the contrary.

[CosmicCowboy]

I'd use the methods that proved more effective than torture.

Can you be more specific?

[CosmicCowboy]

I find it humorous how in one breath you can lambaste me for "pretending to live in a perfect world" and in the next state that "surely we'd never cross the line into truly monstrous things". Because the people at the Justice Department are apparently infallible, right? :lol You know, despite all the evidence to the contrary.

Do you have any proof they pulled fingernails at Gitmo?

Do you have proof of ANY "monstrous things" done to the terrorists?

[ElNono]

I'm honestly not sure what is or was the correct thing to do...

They clearly were not tortured "without limit" as all methods used were allegedly cleared through the justice department prior to use as "not torture" no matter how distasteful we may find them in retrospect. You can quibble about the justice departments finding all you want but I suspect if they had submitted "pulling their fingernails out with pliers" that the Justice Department would have felt the torture line had been crossed...

You don't trust Eric Holder in determining what's legal or not, why would you trust him or his predecessors to determine what's legal when it comes to torture or not?

I think this world lived through a whole lot of atrocities and we've established (including the US) where that line is, through treaties we've signed, among other things, and especially on the moral side of the equation.

When you say you're the good guy, you gotta act like the good guy. That doesn't mean being naive, but it does mean that if you want to hold other people to higher standards, then you have to respect those standards yourself.

This whole "war on terror" has created all sorts of supra-legal terminology to dance around our own laws and treaties (we don't even consider these people POWs, we invented the figure of "enemy combatants" to dodge the legal ramifications, amongst other things). Even the tribunals where these people are "tried" (if they're tried at all), are a new frankenstein concoction created to sidestep both our civil and military justice processes.

We created a clandestine parallel legal "system" to largely sidestep being held accountable to our judicial higher standards. It's extremely un-American and anybody that claims to respect the Constitution should be extremely alarmed about this entire construct, since "enemy combatant" can be anybody, including US citizens (and have been US citizens). We've have had a whole lot of people detained without charges or trials in Guantanamo for years. What's the difference between that and the Japanese interment camps in WWII, besides the motives? It's shameful, and a black eye in US history. And shame on this administration for not undoing a lot of that damage.

[Yonivore]

Can you be more specific?
Like Chump's ever been specific.

[Spurminator]

We certainly learned a lot from the Japanese Internment camps. Unfortunately, it was mainly in the PR realm.

[CosmicCowboy]

In my opinion, the whole setup at Gitmo was a mistake. We should have left them in theater and dealt with them there under the host countrys rules of engagement.

[Cry Havoc]

We certainly learned a lot from the Japanese Internment camps. Unfortunately, it was mainly in the PR realm.

Damn, that's such a sad reality.

[ChumpDumper]

Can you be more specific?Sure. The standard interrogation methods used by the armed forces and FBI that don't involve torture.

[ElNono]

lol Cosmored

[Winehole23]

who's to say 9/11 or the ISIS videotaped beheadings were terrorism or crimes at all?

were charges brought? were the alleged perpetrators ever found guilty of it in court?

[Winehole23]

"if these things happened as they are described in the report, as you describe them, those were not authorized by the Justice Department. They were not supposed to be done and those people who did those are at risk legally because they were acting outside their orders."

-John YooJohn Yoo distances himself from the EITs he crafted legal rationales for. I wonder why.

[Winehole23]

oh well, at least John Yoo passed out fig leaves for "those...at risk legally" before he turned backwards and pissed on them.

[Winehole23]

The CIA knew what it was doing was illegal. We know because it asked the AG and the FBI for immunity from prosecution for abusive interrogations. Both declined. The Yoo/Bybee memos came afterwards.



But perhaps the most important revelation in the report (http://www.aclu.org/files/pdfs/natsec/opr20100219/OPRSecondReport09.pdf) is not about the torture itself but rather about the legal culpability of the CIA. The report contains a key passage on page 33 revealing that senior lawyers at the CIA in mid 2002, at the very beginning of the CIA’s program, drafted a letter to the Attorney General in which it is expressly acknowledged that the interrogation tactics that came to be known as “enhanced interrogation techniques” violated the US torture statute. The draft letter requested that the Attorney General provide the CIA with “a formal declination of prosecution, in advance”—basically, a promise not to prosecute, or immunity. The document was shared even with CIA interrogators involved in the nascent program. From the beginning, in other words, key CIA officials were well aware that these techniques were clearly unlawful.


This document not only calls into question arguments that CIA torturers relied on legal counsel before engaging in torture, it reveals that the arguments of politicians and pundits since the program was revealed—that the illegality of the tactics was never clear—are revisionist histories. We know now that at the relevant times, many (if not most) of the relevant people knew that the tactics were torture, and were illegal.


According to the report, the key letter was not sent to the Attorney General, but we know separately from an internal Department of Justice investigation report issued in 2009 (see page 28) that the CIA then asked the Justice Department for a declination again soon after, in a meeting at the White House with several key White House, Justice Department, and FBI lawyers, including the head of Justice’s criminal division, Michael Chertoff. Chertoff turned them down. The FBI—already disturbed by what it knew of the program—also informed the CIA at that point that it would not take part in any CIA interrogations. At that point, it seems to have become clear to the CIA that they needed to work solely with the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) and Vice President Dick Cheney’s senior aide David Addington—attorneys who were more willing to bend the law to achieve their intended result—to finalize a formal OLC opinion to “authorize” the illegal acts for which they had already sought advance pardons. That effort resulted first in a July 13 letter from John Yoo to the CIA General Counsel and culminated in a formal document that came to be known as the August 1 OLC Torture Memo. That memo, which provided an almost ludicrous and strained argument for how the techniques might be legal under U.S. and international law, was recanted later in the Bush administration and its legal analysis has been thoroughly discredited, including in the SSCI report.

http://justsecurity.org/18221/knew-illegal/

[Winehole23]

Don't you ever wonder about that, Yonivore?

[Winehole23]

To clarify, you support torture, don't you?

[RandomGuy]

It's YOUR flawed premise that enhanced interrogation doesn't work 100% of the time.

I was just making fun of the way you tap danced around the question of how in your perfect world they SHOULD have gotten the terrorists to volunteer information.

His premise wasn't that enhanced interrogation doesn't work 100% of the time.

It is that there are much more effective ways of getting information out of prisoners.

And I can provide several methods that I would say we SHOULD have gotten information out of people like that.

George Piro had one:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interrogation_of_Saddam_Hussein

I would HIGHLY recommend reading more about this. It was very illuminating.


Further one can learn a lot from our own Sherwood Moran, who very successfully interrogated Japanese POW's, as well as others.
https://globalecco.org/learning-from-history-what-is-successful-interrogation-

Yonivore's vile and evil attempts at tap dancing around the morality and total betrayal of what values we would almost universally agree that Americans hold most important is something you should be far more concerned with.

That kind of moral cowardice should sicken anybody.

[RandomGuy]

In my opinion, the whole setup at Gitmo was a mistake. We should have left them in theater and dealt with them there under the host countrys rules of engagement.

Agreed.

Gitmo has done more to harm our national interests than anything any terrorist attack has ever accomplished, and we did it to ourselves. (shakes head)

[RandomGuy]

So, tell me LnGrrrR, when was my credibility ruined?

That assumes you had credibility in the first place.

Hard to ruin what you never had.

[Winehole23]

Why assume the government has made full disclosure? We already know it has destroyed interrogation videotapes.

Besides, waterboarding is a distraction. It's on the way out. Talking about it only minimizes the bigger picture.

Our mistreatment of detainees degrades us, ruins our reputation and puts our own armed forces at greater risk of mistreatment.

[Winehole23]

@ Yonivore:


who's to say 9/11 or the ISIS videotaped beheadings were terrorism or crimes at all?

were charges brought? were the alleged perpetrators ever found guilty of it in court?

[Winehole23]

using legalism as a prop cuts both ways. treating terrorists as outlaws turned us into outlaws too.

just prosecute em. they're not an existential threat to the US. they're just criminals.

[Winehole23]

criminal law still works in this country. fuckin use it.

[Winehole23]

guess we're too cowardly now to take the chance in court. how chickenshit.

[boutons_deux]

criminal law still works in this country. fuckin use it.

How charmingly naive. It mainly "works" AGAINST the poor, blacks, browns.

[Winehole23]

that's hardly germane.

[Winehole23]

I was saying it would be better to indict and convict terrorists than detain them lawlessly and torture them. do you disagree?

[boutons_deux]

that's hardly germane.

your statement was too broad, so it was wrong. In fact, it's not even "justice" or "truth", it's just legal technicalities, plea deals, and lawyering.

[boutons_deux]

I was saying it would be better to indict and convict terrorists than detain them lawlessly and torture them. do you disagree?

no.

The Repugs didn't want them tried in civilian court, didn't want them tried in military court, didn't want them transferred to US high security prisons, didn't and still don't want Gitmo closed, don't want any of the prisoners released.

The Repugs simply and always fuck up everything, even that means just obstructing anything they can.

[Winehole23]

your statement was too broad, so it was wrong.the frame is this thread and the preceding comments. contextually it couldn't have been much clearer. except, I guess to you.

[boutons_deux]

C.I.A. Report Found Value of Brutal Interrogation Was Inflated

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/01/21/world/cia-report-found-value-of-brutal-interrogation-was-inflated.html

but, USA surrendering ALL moral authority made the torture worth it. :lol

[Th'Pusher]

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/01/26/can-torture-ever-be-moral/?_r=0