Cheney Calls for Release of Memos Showing Results of Interrogation Efforts

Quote:

---

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009...ts-1862515294/


Cheney Calls for Release of Memos Showing Results of Interrogation Efforts
Former Vice President Cheney says he knows how successful the interrogation techniques were in collecting intelligence for the United States and wants that information to be released to the public as well as the legal memos explaining the decision to allow the heavily criticized methods.

FOXNews.com

Monday, April 20, 2009


ShareThisPhotos


PEOPLE WHO READ THIS...
Also read these stories:
Sen. Feinstein's Husband Cashes In on Crisis
[2009-04-21]

senator's husband cashes in on crisis, senator's hubbie cashes in on crisis


Irritated Obama 'Stares Down' Reporter During Press Corps Visit
[2009-01-22]
irritated obama 'stares down' reporter during press corps visit, obama, reporters, stares down, politics


Promises, Promises: Obama and Black Farmers
[2009-04-21]
promises promises obama and black farmers, obama

Cable Anchors, Guests Use Tea Parties as Platform for Frat House Humor
[2009-04-16]
media use tea parties as platform for sex jokes, cable anchors guests use tea parties as platform for frat house humor, tea, media use tea parties as platform for toilet humor, sex

Bush Keeps 'Em Laughing in First Overseas Trip After Presidency
[2009-04-18]
bush draws laughter in overseas trip, bush keeps 'em laughing in first overseas trip after presidency, bush, bush draws laughter at chinese forum, first



In an interview with FOX News' Sean Hannity aired on "Hannity" Monday night, Cheney questioned the point of releasing the legal decisions behind the interrogations but not the outcome of them.

"One of the things that I find a little bit disturbing about this recent disclosure is they put out the legal memos, the memos that the CIA got from the Office of Legal Counsel, but they didn't put out the memos that showed the success of the effort," Cheney said.

Cheney said he's asked that the documents be declassified because he has remained silent on the confidential information, but he knows how successful the interrogation process was and wants the rest of the country to understand.

"I haven't talked about it, but I know specifically of reports that I read, that I saw, that lay out what we learned through the interrogation process and what the consequences were for the country," Cheney said. "I've now formally asked the CIA to take steps to declassify those memos so we can lay them out there and the American people have a chance to see what we obtained and what we learned and how good the intelligence was."

Cheney says he doesn't find it surprising that he's still asked for his views on administrative policies and thinks it's appropriate for those with a different point of view to be able to express it -- and give the American people the ability to evaluate.

"It's important to not personally attack the new president -- I've never done that," said Cheney.

The former vice president says the biggest task he had was to protect the nation's security following 9/11 and to ensure such devastation would never happen again. He says many of the policies he set up are currently being dismantled by the Obama administration.

"There's a great temptation for a new administration to find a problem and blame it on the predecessor. We did it. The Obama administration is not the first one to do that," said Cheney.

Since his departure from the White House, Cheney says he's been concerned over the way the U.S. has been presented overseas and finds Obama's apologies to various countries "disturbing." He also feels Obama's "coziness" with America's opponents like Daniel Ortega and Hugo Chavez is not "helpful."

"Since the U.S. provides most leadership in the world, I don't think we have much to apologize for," said Cheney.

While he feels that a president needs to interact with adversaries, Cheney says it's important to distinguish between the good guys and bad guys. He says that the world will be quick to take advantage of a situation if they feel like they're dealing with a weak president.

"It's important the U.S. that we don't come off as arrogant -- but also important to not come across as weak, indecisive and apologetic," said Cheney.

---

First of all I would like to say f*ck you Dick Cheney.


On a lighter note when I copied the article I picked up the bolded section of the article. Remember FOx News is not a conservative mouthpiece..:lmao

the CIA is a universe unto itself. with no oversight, nobody controlling it.

Gates politicized it in the early 80s.

Who's going to believe CIA memos, aka disinformation, that justify the "results" of CIA torture? :lol

dickhead, tell the lie again, show us the CIA memos, how Saddam was involved in 9/11. :lol

Yeah, I saw that interview and it has never been more clear just how much power Cheney had in the Bush administration. He didn't like the fact that the memos were released at all and now he wants even more info released.
There is no doubt in my mind that some of the interrogation techniques did produce some intelligence that was useful and did stop possible further attacks.
I don't believe that "torture" is going to stop when push comes to shove and there are certain things that we don't want to hear about but know are necessary.

Cue in 'the ends justify the means' hyperbole and everything that's wrong with it...
Please keep that man as far as away from power as possible.

When Obama released the "torture" memos, what did it accomplish?

It's unbecoming for former presidents to undermine their own government publicly, but Mr. Cheney is 100% entitled to do it if he wants. There's no law against lacking modesty or graciousness.

Haven't we heard enough from Mr. Cheney already?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DarrinS

When Obama released the "torture" memos, what did it accomplish?

---

Establishing the truth for the public record, for example. Government transparency and possibly accountability. Do these things matter to you?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Winehole23

It's unbecoming for former presidents to undermine their own government publicly, but Mr. Cheney is 100% entitled to do it if he wants. There's no law against lacking modesty or graciousness.

Haven't we heard enough from Mr. Cheney already?

---

If you have no problem with what Obama released, why have a problem with this?


Again, what was accomplished by releasing the other memos?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Winehole23

Establishing the truth for the public record, for example. Transparency and possibly accountability. Do these things matter to you?

---

Then don't cherry pick. Release it all.

Anyone? Bueller?

<crickets>

I don't have a problem with it as long as Cheney will admit that releasing it will weaken the United States and increase the risk of another attack.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DarrinS

Then don't cherry pick. Release it all.

---

That's not the way it works. In the interest of national security some things will remain secret. Presidents and VP's have classification powers (Mr. Cheney seems to miss his), so there's always a degree of selectivity at work.

The cause of the kerfuffle IMO is Obama allowing sunshine to penetrate the heart of darkness of the unaccountable, erstwhile (?) 4th branch of government, Mr. Cheney. The complaint that selective declassification is political in nature is undeniably germane, but it is also a commonplace. Government disclosure is always partial, and it usually aims at political ends.

Is there something deceiving or misleading about what has been released? Mr. Cheney seems to implicate that there is, though for obvious reasons he cannot say what. So he seeks to get by on the bare implication Obama isn't telling us the whole story. I don't really see why you should set more stock by Dick Cheney's empty inference than declassified material, Darrin, but you be my guest. You'll probably have plenty of company.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Winehole23

Establishing the truth for the public record, for example. Government transparency and possibly accountability. Do these things matter to you?

---

Aren't the results of the interrogations part of the truth for the public record? Seems disingenuous of our government to expect the public to decide for themselves whether the ends justify the means if they're only going to clue us in on the "means".

BTW, have you read the memos Darrin?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by coyotes_geek

Aren't the results of the interrogations part of the truth for the public record? Seems disingenuous of our government to expect the public to decide for themselves whether the ends justify the means if they're only going to clue us in on the "means".

---

Exactly.

None of these memos should have been released. The Obama admin can still change policy without releasing this info. It was a bad call, IMO.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by coyotes_geek

Aren't the results of the interrogations part of the truth for the public record? Seems disingenuous of our government to expect the public to decide for themselves whether the ends justify the means if they're only going to clue us in on the "means".

---

I concur.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Winehole23

The cause of the kerfuffle IMO is Obama allowing sunshine to penetrate the heart of darkness of the unaccountable, erstwhile (?) 4th branch of government, Mr. Cheney. The complaint that selective declassification is political in nature is undeniably germane, but it is also a commonplace. Government disclosure is always partial, and it usually aims at political ends.

---

:lmao

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DarrinS

Exactly.

None of these memos should have been released. The Obama admin can still change policy without releasing this info. It was a bad call, IMO.

---

Much of the information was already out there but I agree that I don't think they should have been officially released. I agree it was a bad call.
Yeah, that's right....a bad call.
Now that being said Obama would have criticized from the left and right for not being more open like said he would be during his campaign. So he is being true to himself but I still think it was a bad call.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by coyotes_geek

Aren't the results of the interrogations part of the truth for the public record? Seems disingenuous of our government to expect the public to decide for themselves whether the ends justify the means if they're only going to clue us in on the "means".

---

It does, but are you really ready to watch the interrogations? I'm not.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DarrinS

:lmao

---

The context is executive secrecy and torture policy, dimbulb.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Winehole23

The context is executive secrecy and torture policy, dimbulb.

---

I just enjoyed your choice of words.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DarrinS

None of these memos should have been released. The Obama admin can still change policy without releasing this info. It was a bad call, IMO.

---

Tergiversating. You can't have it both ways. You just criticized Obama for making selective disclosure and suggested complete disclosure would be more appropriate, and now you take him to task for disclosing anything in the first place.

Are you sure you remember your own position on this, Darrin?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DarrinS

I just enjoyed your choice of words.

---

Sorry for the barb then. I thought you were getting on my case.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Winehole23

Tergiversating. You can't have it both ways. You just criticized Obama for making selective disclosure and suggested complete disclosure would be more appropriate, and now you take him to task for disclosing anything in the first place.

Are you sure you remember your own position on this, Darrin?

---

I have the opinion that releasing the original memo was a mistake in the first place. But, if the admin is being politically selective in what they release, them I'm against that too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Winehole23

It does, but are you really ready to watch the interrogations? I'm not.

---

I'm not either, but what does that have to do with whether or not our government should clue us in on the value, if any, of the information those interrogations obtained?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DarrinS

I have the opinion that releasing the original memo was a mistake in the first place. But, if the admin is being politically selective in what they release, them I'm against that too.

---

Agreed. If it's about transparency, let's give the whole story. Without it, how can we be sure that this isn't anything other than an attempt by one group to make their political rivals look bad.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by coyotes_geek

I'm not either, but what does that have to do with whether or not our government should clue us in on the value, if any, of the information those interrogations obtained?

---

It doesn't.

We don't even know if the "value" of interrogations has even been formally assessed by our government yet, and we might risk of giving away methods, identities or other helpful information to our enemies if we declassify too much.

It'd be nice to have the certitude that torture saved lives, if you think the ends justify the means. I don't.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by coyotes_geek

Aren't the results of the interrogations part of the truth for the public record?

---

no--that's work product of the agency. if any crimes are charged as a result, then maybe.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by coyotes_geek

Agreed. If it's about transparency, let's give the whole story. Without it, how can we be sure that this isn't anything other than an attempt by one group to make their political rivals look bad.

---

Why can't it be both at the same time?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Winehole23

It doesn't.

We don't even know if the "value" of interrogations has even been formally assessed by our government yet, and we might risk of giving away methods, identities or other helpful information to our enemies if we declassify too much.

---

Wasn't this already released in excruciating detail?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DarrinS

Wasn't this already released in excruciating detail?

---

We've just barely scratched the surface, IMO.

Wow. Who gives a damn about the 'ends'? I don't really care if we saved 0 lives, 1 ife, or 1000 lives. It bears no importance whatsoever if the tortured persons said absolutely nothing or recited the entire 14th amendment.
It's unjustifiable that a society that likes to label themselves 'peaceful', 'civilized' and 'advanced' goes back to do things it has condemned for centuries now.
Trying to rationalize torture is no different than trying to rationalize rape or murder. It's wrong, we knew it was wrong, and that there's some guy fucked up in the head that thinks everything is 'fair game', and was in a position of power, is dangerous to say the least. I can't believe we had that nuthead in power for so long. I'm actually surprised he didn't completely destroy this country.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Winehole23

It'd be nice to have the certitude that torture saved lives, if you think the ends justify the means. I don't.

---

I don't know whether the ends justify the means or not because I have no clue what the "ends" are. I respect your opinion, I just don't see why you think it's a bad thing for me to have the whole story from the government before I form mine. Maybe this isn't you specifically, but I just sense that a lot of the opposition to releasing all the information is rooted in a fear of potentially discovering that these interrogations just might be saving lives, thus making it harder to condemn the actions of an unpopular administration.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Winehole23

Why can't it be both at the same time?

---

Because one involves letting people paint their own picture and one involves the government painting it for them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ElNono

Wow. Who gives a damn about the 'ends'? I don't really care if we saved 0 lives, 1 ife, or 1000 lives. It bears no importance whatsoever if the tortured persons said absolutely nothing or recited the entire 14th amendment.
It's unjustifiable that a society that likes to label themselves 'peaceful', 'civilized' and 'advanced' goes back to do things it has condemned for centuries now.
Trying to rationalize torture is no different than trying to rationalize rape or murder. It's wrong, we knew it was wrong, and that there's some guy fucked up in the head that thinks everything is 'fair game', and was in a position of power, is dangerous to say the least. I can't believe we had that nuthead in power for so long. I'm actually surprised he didn't completely destroy this country.

---

What city are you willing to sacrifice?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ElNono

Wow. Who gives a damn about the 'ends'? I don't really care if we saved 0 lives, 1 ife, or 1000 lives. It bears no importance whatsoever if the tortured persons said absolutely nothing or recited the entire 14th amendment.
It's unjustifiable that a society that likes to label themselves 'peaceful', 'civilized' and 'advanced' goes back to do things it has condemned for centuries now.
Trying to rationalize torture is no different than trying to rationalize rape or murder. It's wrong, we knew it was wrong, and that there's some guy fucked up in the head that thinks everything is 'fair game', and was in a position of power, is dangerous to say the least. I can't believe we had that nuthead in power for so long. I'm actually surprised he didn't completely destroy this country.

---

As with WH, I respect your opinion. But to some the "ends" do matter. What's the harm in letting those people know more? Is it because you're afraid that someone might come to an opinion that differs from yours?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DarrinS

What city are you willing to sacrifice?

---

"24" is a TV fantasy, not a documentary.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PixelPusher

"24" is a TV fantasy, not a documentary.

---

Indeed. To my 8 year old and my 5 year old, videos of 911 seem like a TV fantasy.


Would water boarding one person be acceptable if could prevent 3000 deaths? A hypothetical. You know what that means, right?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by coyotes_geek

Because one involves letting people paint their own picture and one involves the government painting it for them.

---

IMO it's both at the same time. If it is the former, the people can and will paint it to suit their political preconceptions; if the latter, cum grano salis, of course, but the political purpose does not necessarily dispel the revealed facts.

It is a point of guile for propaganda to base itself on the truth wherever possible. The public, being used to the deception by long abuse, reads between the lines and tries to divine the truth, although at a very great disadvantage, which you emphasize...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by coyotes_geek

As with WH, I respect your opinion. But to some the "ends" do matter. What's the harm in letting those people know more?

---

Out of solicitude for torturers and torture apologists, evidence should be declassified so they can cherry pick it for support. Bullshit. Go ahead and release it anyway, but not to pacify crybaby torturers or their political toadies.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by coyotes_geek

Is it because you're afraid that someone might come to an opinion that differs from yours?

---

Absolutely not. But when I see posters jumping to conclusions without any evidence, I'll point it out. Don't give me any of that evidence of absence is not absence of evidence crap. Back up your take. The evidence may not back Cheney up.

The inference that Obama has hidden evidence that will back Dick Cheney up is mischievous, indecorous and totally threadbare.

Consider also that other countries may detect war crimes in the requested information, and may also consider official disclosure of *enhanced interrogation* to be tantamount to a profession of legal responsibility for torture and war crimes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DarrinS

Indeed. To my 8 year old and my 5 year old, videos of 911 seem like a TV fantasy.


Would water boarding one person be acceptable if could prevent 3000 deaths? A hypothetical. You know what that means, right?

---

Would you allow one of your kids to be taken away, imprisoned and tortured for several years if it resulted in world peace? A hypothetical.

Quote:

---

Hypotheticals are situations, statements or questions about something imaginary rather than something real.

---

"hypothetical" torture is an intellectual indulgence that allows you to avoid grabbling with the real life problem that real life torture will induce real life people to say...anything.

But most torture supporters prefer to indulge in this pretense:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by random episode of "24"

Jack: "I'm only going to ask you one more time - where's the detonator!"

Bad Guy: "I really don't know what you're talking about...I'm just a -"

Jack cuts off a finger with a cigar slicer

Bad Guy: "AAAHHHH!!!! Ok, ok - the detonator is located at 1537 Cherry St., Apartment 17B, back bedroom, bottom drawer of the nightstand in a Nike shoebox"

....

Jack then hurries to the given location and retrieves the detonator, because the intel Jack recieves from torture is ALWAYS correct.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PixelPusher

Would you allow one of your kids to be taken away, imprisoned and tortured for several years if it resulted in world peace? A hypothetical.

---

Since I live in the real world and not some "it's a small world after all, let's all hold hands Utopia", my answer is no.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PixelPusher

"hypothetical" torture is an intellectual indulgence that allows you to avoid grabbling with the real life problem that real life torture will induce real life people to say...anything.

---

First of all, what's "grabbling"?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PixelPusher

But most torture supporters prefer to indulge in this pretense:

---

No one I know of is a torture "supporter".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DarrinS

First of all, what's "grabbling"?

---

spell fail. I meant "grappling"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PixelPusher

spell fail. I meant "grappling"

---

I'm not a big MMA fan.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DarrinS

What city are you willing to sacrifice?

---

The only thing being sacrificed here is the integrity of our nation. How could you possibly claim any moral authority on anybody when you reduce yourself to the worst scum on this planet? The very same scum we claim we're fighting hard to eradicate.
We all like to think we're better than that, but it's obvious some aren't.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DarrinS

What city are you willing to sacrifice?

---

The circularity and question begging is remarkable for such a short post. The poster is alleged to put entire cities at hazard by rejecting torture as immoral. Inferentially, torture reliably works and protects us from mass murder. (Wow. Just like TV.)

You are suggesting there is some magic threshold of human lives that makes torture acceptable.

In Bentham and Mills' hedonistic calculus maybe there is, but not in judeo-christian morality.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by coyotes_geek

As with WH, I respect your opinion. But to some the "ends" do matter. What's the harm in letting those people know more? Is it because you're afraid that someone might come to an opinion that differs from yours?

---

I'm personally not against more disclosure. However, I'd like to see a little more outrage about this situation. Putting Cheney on the air and asking him nice questions about this topic is akin to conducting an interview with a murderer and asking him if you get a nice feeling when you end somebody's life. They should be letting him know what a fucking douche he is, not trying to rationalize if it was all worth it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DarrinS

Indeed. To my 8 year old and my 5 year old, videos of 911 seem like a TV fantasy.

Would water boarding one person be acceptable if could prevent 3000 deaths? A hypothetical. You know what that means, right?

---

Of course it wouldn't be. Specially because waterboarding is not the ONLY way to obtain that information. And I'm certainly hoping you're explaining your kids that there is a price to pay to live free. But that living free is a whole lot better than living in fear.

El Nono: The US isn't ready to face it. DarrinS thinks 24 is a work of non-fiction. So do many others.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Winehole23

Out of solicitude for torturers and torture apologists, evidence should be declassified so they can cherry pick it for support. Bullshit.

---

No less "bullshit" than our government cherry picking what pieces of evidence should be declassified out of the solicitude for those who are only interested in seeing others arrive at the same conclusion they did.

Quote:

---

Absolutely not. But when I see posters jumping to conclusions without any evidence, I'll point it out. Don't give me any of that evidence of absence is not absence of evidence crap. Back up your take.

---

You're really asking me to justify a desire for government to be transparent? Really? I ask again, what's the harm in releasing the info? What's the harm in letting people decide for themselves whether or not those actions were justified? You say you're not afraid of people reaching a different opinion than you did. Fair enough. So why the opposition?

Quote:

---

The evidence may not back Cheney up.

---

You're right. It might not. Then again it might. We'll never know if the evidence never gets released, will we?

Quote:

---

The threadbare inference that Obama has hidden evidence that will back Dick Cheney up, is mischievous, indecorous and totally unsupported IMO.

---

Is it a threadbare inference that if the CIA is going to keep tabs on how many times they waterboarded someone that they took notes on what he said? Is it a threadbare inference that some might find that information useful in formulating an opinion, irregardless of whether or not said information would change yours?

You know, coyotes_geek, you're certainly entitled to your opinion. But if after centuries of tortures, disappearing people, politically motivated murders, etc you still think any of those things can be justified, you really have no idea what you're talking about. You're basically telling me it's OK to go back to Nazi Germany and the Dark Ages because, well, maybe the ends did justify the means back then too. There are things that are universally wrong. Torture is one of those things. And we should be really pissed off a guy that had a direct hand in all that is not being prosecuted for crimes against humanity right now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by coyotes_geek

No less "bullshit" than our government cherry picking what pieces of evidence should be declassified out of the solicitude for those who are only interested in seeing others arrive at the same conclusion they did.

---

I agree, but deck stacking is one of the perks of power.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by coyotes_geek

You're really asking me to justify a desire for government to be transparent? Really? I ask again, what's the harm in releasing the info?

---

Who knows? You're not concerned the world may regard it as admission of legal responsibility for war crimes? This seems like a reasonable concern to me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by coyotes_geek

What's the harm in letting people decide for themselves whether or not those actions were justified? You say you're not afraid of people reaching a different opinion than you did. Fair enough. So why the opposition?

---

I said bring it on. It's time to get it out in the open IMO. I also don't think we're ready for what's disclosure requires us to witness, but that's for another thread.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by coyotes-geek

You're right. It might not. Then again it might. We'll never know if the evidence never gets released, will we?

---

Nope.

Regarding executive secrecy there's plenty of continuity b/w Obama and Bush. I expect that to continue.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by coyotes-geek

Is it a threadbare inference that if the CIA is going to keep tabs on how many times they waterboarded someone that they took notes on what he said?

---

I did not say so. To whom is this directed?

Quote:

---

Is it a threadbare inference that some might find that information useful in formulating an opinion...?

---

So obviously it would be absurd to protest, no. But so what? Why should peace of mind for torturers and torture apologists -- and those still sitting on the fence -- necessarily rate more highly than national security rationales for secrecy?

The argument is worth having. You can't put an absolute premium on either security or transparency. A balance always has to be struck.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ElNono

You're basically telling me it's OK to go back to Nazi Germany and the Dark Ages because, well, maybe the ends did justify the means back then too.

---

Dark Ages? Such hyperbolic melodrama is sooo uncalled for. We aren't using any of those ancient, barbaric techniques. We're just taking a bunny hop back to Nazi Germany - much more civilized.

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.co...uellermemo.jpg

We have doctors on standby too! :tu

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ElNono

You know, coyotes_geek, you're certainly entitled to your opinion. But if after centuries of tortures, disappearing people, politically motivated murders, etc you still think any of those things can be justified, you really have no idea what you're talking about. You're basically telling me it's OK to go back to Nazi Germany and the Dark Ages because, well, maybe the ends did justify the means back then too. There are things that are universally wrong. Torture is one of those things. And we should be really pissed off a guy that had a direct hand in all that is not being prosecuted for crimes against humanity right now.

---

I'm not telling you anything. Form your own opinion. And for the record I haven't said whether or not I'm okay with what went on. I'd like to know what we're getting from these interrogations first. You see it in perfect black and white. I respect that. I don't agree with it. I think there's a grey area here just like there is in whether or not it's okay to end a human life. If I shoot someone does it matter whether or not I did it in self defense?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by coyotes_geek

I'm not telling you anything. Form your own opinion. And for the record I haven't said whether or not I'm okay with what went on. I'd like to know what we're getting from these interrogations first. You see it in perfect black and white. I respect that. I don't agree with it. I think there's a grey area here just like there is in whether or not it's okay to end a human life. If I shoot someone does it matter whether or not I did it in self defense?

---

Unlike murder, torture is very clear cut. Black and white. It's been codified a long time ago where the line is between interrogation and torture. There's no such thing as torture in self defense. There's either torture or interrogation. There's nothing in between. We have invaded countries with the excuse that their governments were subjecting their population to human right violations (which obviously include torture). We love to rail against China for their own violations of human rights. What authority you could possibly have to do any of that, when you're a torturing nation yourself.

I'm sorry, but I just can't agree with your vision of a gray area there.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by coyotes_geek

You see it in perfect black and white. I respect that. I don't agree with it. I think there's a grey area here just like there is in whether or not it's okay to end a human life. If I shoot someone does it matter whether or not I did it in self defense?

---

Absolutely, yes. My hunch is that Obama is concealing and will continue to conceal evidence of our culpability.

Apparently Bush and Cheney's own selective de-classifications did not create the impression that we were justified. Too bad.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Winehole23

Absolutely, yes. My hunch is that Obama is concealing and will continue to conceal evidence of our culpability.

Apparently Bush and Cheney's own selective de-classifications did not create the impression that we were justified. Too bad.

---

Taking a step back from the methods for a moment, are we now not going to be served by any kind of principled opposition once, say, the current administration opts to take on the Somali pirates on land? I guess you don't spend half a tril a year on 'defense' without it being put into use occasionally.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marcus Bryant

Taking a step back from the methods for a moment, are we now not going to be served by any kind of principled opposition once, say, the current administration opts to take on the Somali pirates on land?

---

Well, that opposition would obviously hate America.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marcus Bryant

Taking a step back from the methods for a moment, are we now not going to be served by any kind of principled opposition once, say, the current administration opts to take on the Somali pirates on land? I guess you don't spend half a tril a year on 'defense' without it being put into use occasionally.

---

Good question, if I understand it correctly. Much turns on the tactical significance of the phrase "on land." It probably means aerial or naval bombardment, plus black ops.

I wonder if AFRICOM is well-enough established in Africa to survive the blowback from more *deep intervention* in Somalia. We'll see whether the threat to meet piracy on land was saber rattling or meant sincerely.

IMO there is always a role for the principled opposition. Moreover, the legitimacy of republican power requires it. If the opposition wimps out, we all lose.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Winehole23

Good question, if I understand it correctly. Much turns on the tactical significance of the phrase "on land." It probably means aerial or naval bombardment, plus black ops.

I wonder if AFRICOM is well-enough established in Africa to survive the blowback from more *deep intervention* in Somalia. We'll see whether the threat to meet piracy on land was saber rattling or meant sincerely.

IMO there is always a role for the principled opposition. Moreover, the legitimacy of republican power requires it. If the opposition wimps out (Dems, I direct this at you), we all lose.

---

Think of it. You have the 'two-fer' of attacks on American shipping and al Qaida support in the hinterlands. The only thing left would be that it would be a diversion from the 'real' front of the war against al Qaida. My guess is the GOP would generally be predisposed to accept it and support the CINC at this point.

CIA Confirms: Waterboarding 9/11 Mastermind Led to Info that Aborted 9/11-Style Attack on Los Angeles
Tuesday, April 21, 2009
By Terence P. Jeffrey, Editor-in-Chief

(CNSNews.com) - The Central Intelligence Agency told CNSNews.com today that it stands by the assertion made in a May 30, 2005 Justice Department memo that the use of “enhanced techniques” of interrogation on al Qaeda leader Khalid Sheik Mohammed (KSM) -- including the use of waterboarding -- caused KSM to reveal information that allowed the U.S. government to thwart a planned attack on Los Angeles.

Before he was waterboarded, when KSM was asked about planned attacks on the United States, he ominously told his CIA interrogators, “Soon, you will know.”

According to the previously classified May 30, 2005 Justice Department memo that was released by President Barack Obama last week, the thwarted attack -- which KSM called the “Second Wave”-- planned “ ‘to use East Asian operatives to crash a hijacked airliner into’ a building in Los Angeles.”

KSM was the mastermind of the first “hijacked-airliner” attacks on the United States, which struck the World Trade Center in New York and the Pentagon in Northern Virginia on Sept. 11, 2001.

After KSM was captured by the United States, he was not initially cooperative with CIA interrogators. Nor was another top al Qaeda leader named Zubaydah. KSM, Zubaydah, and a third terrorist named Nashiri were the only three persons ever subjected to waterboarding by the CIA. (Additional terrorist detainees were subjected to other “enhanced techniques” that included slapping, sleep deprivation, dietary limitations, and temporary confinement to small spaces -- but not to water-boarding.)

This was because the CIA imposed very tight restrictions on the use of waterboarding. “The ‘waterboard,’ which is the most intense of the CIA interrogation techniques, is subject to additional limits,” explained the May 30, 2005 Justice Department memo. “It may be used on a High Value Detainee only if the CIA has ‘credible intelligence that a terrorist attack is imminent’; ‘substantial and credible indicators that the subject has actionable intelligence that can prevent, disrupt or deny this attack’; and ‘[o]ther interrogation methods have failed to elicit this information within the perceived time limit for preventing the attack.’”

The quotations in this part of the Justice memo were taken from an Aug. 2, 2004 letter that CIA Acting General Counsel John A. Rizzo sent to the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel.

Before they were subjected to “enhanced techniques” of interrogation that included waterboarding, KSM and Zubaydah were not only uncooperative but also appeared contemptuous of the will of the American people to defend themselves.

“In particular, the CIA believes that it would have been unable to obtain critical information from numerous detainees, including KSM and Abu Zubaydah, without these enhanced techniques,” says the Justice Department memo. “Both KSM and Zubaydah had ‘expressed their belief that the general US population was ‘weak,’ lacked resilience, and would be unable to ‘do what was necessary’ to prevent the terrorists from succeeding in their goals.’ Indeed, before the CIA used enhanced techniques in its interrogation of KSM, KSM resisted giving any answers to questions about future attacks, simply noting, ‘Soon you will know.’”

After he was subjected to the “waterboard” technique, KSM became cooperative, providing intelligence that led to the capture of key al Qaeda allies and, eventually, the closing down of an East Asian terrorist cell that had been tasked with carrying out the 9/11-style attack on Los Angeles.

The May 30, 2005 Justice Department memo that details what happened in this regard was written by then-Principal Deputy Attorney General Steven G. Bradbury to John A. Rizzo, the senior deputy general counsel for the CIA.

“You have informed us that the interrogation of KSM—once enhanced techniques were employed—led to the discovery of a KSM plot, the ‘Second Wave,’ ‘to use East Asian operatives to crash a hijacked airliner into’ a building in Los Angeles,” says the memo.

“You have informed us that information obtained from KSM also led to the capture of Riduan bin Isomuddin, better known as Hambali, and the discover of the Guraba Cell, a 17-member Jemaah Islamiyah cell tasked with executing the ‘Second Wave,’” reads the memo. “More specifically, we understand that KSM admitted that he had [redaction] large sum of money to an al Qaeda associate [redaction] … Khan subsequently identified the associate (Zubair), who was then captured. Zubair, in turn, provided information that led to the arrest of Hambali. The information acquired from these captures allowed CIA interrogators to pose more specific questions to KSM, which led the CIA to Hambali’s brother, al Hadi. Using information obtained from multiple sources, al-Hadi was captured, and he subsequently identified the Garuba cell. With the aid of this additional information, interrogations of Hambali confirmed much of what was learned from KSM.”

A CIA spokesman confirmed to CNSNews.com today that the CIA stands by the factual assertions made here.

In the memo itself, the Justice Department’s Bradbury told the CIA’s Rossi: “Your office has informed us that the CIA believes that ‘the intelligence acquired from these interrogations has been a key reason why al Qa’ida has failed to launch a spectacular attack in the West since 11 September 2001.”

cnsnews.com
=================================
The ends justify the means! Maybe the people in LA would agree?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marcus Bryant

Think of it. You have the 'two-fer' of attacks on American shipping and al Qaida support in the hinterlands. The only thing left would be that it would be a diversion from the 'real' front of the war against al Qaida. My guess is the GOP would generally be predisposed to accept it and support the CINC at this point.

---

Maybe. My guess is that "CINC" sticks in their throats a little bit, as applied to Obama.

Or did you mean the antique, pre-Rumsfeldian sense of the word?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crookshanks

The ends justify the means! Maybe the people in LA would agree?

---

Kidnapping and torturing their children in front of them might work well too!

Let's give that a shot!

For the record, I'm not down with moral relativism. Torture is never morally straight, despite the possible upside.

Somehow, I doubt the CIA's selective leak to Heritage and cns tells the whole story. Maybe they ought to release the whole record, so we can judge for ourselves?

What is a morally acceptable way to obtain information that would save thousands of lives?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Winehole23

For the record, I'm not down with moral relativism. Torture is never morally straight, despite the possible upside.

Somehow, I doubt the CIA's selective leak to Heritage and cns tells the whole story. Maybe they ought to release the whole record*, so we can judge for ourselves?

---

*"whole record" does not include video tapes of said interrogations that were subsequently destroyed by the CIA

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DarrinS

What is a morally acceptable way to obtain information that would save thousands of lives?

---

You tell me, Socrates. I don't write torture handbooks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Winehole23

You tell me, Socrates. I don't write torture handbooks.

---

Well, I always hear people say there are better ways (or other ways) of obtaining the information, I just wanted to know what they are. If there are more effective ways of obtaining the information without us having to resort to the cruel and unusual punishment of a caterpillar, I'm all for it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DarrinS

What is a morally acceptable way to obtain information that would save thousands of lives?

---

You seriously don't know of any?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DarrinS

Well, I always hear people say there are better ways (or other ways) of obtaining the information, I just wanted to know what they are. If there are more effective ways of obtaining the information without us having to resort to the cruel and unusual punishment of a caterpillar, I'm all for it.

---

Better SIGINT and HUMINT, I suppose.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DarrinS

When Obama released the "torture" memos, what did it accomplish?

---

He created more terrorists!

Now, I don't expect many in this crowd to appreciate what Vice President Cheney is saying but, why release memos that only serve to inflame? Why not release the memos that show what were the fruits of those harsh interrogation techniques?

Why not? Because it will justify the used of those techniques...that's why.

This topic always reminds me of "A Few Good Men" and it was just on this weekend. There are some things we don't like to talk about but know happens...well...Col. Jessep says it better...

"Son, we live in a world that has walls and those walls need to be guarded by men with guns. Who's gonna do it? You? You, Lieutenant Weinberg? I have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom. You weep for Santiago and curse the Marines; you have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know: that Santiago's death, while tragic, probably saved lives and that my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves lives. You don't want the truth because deep down in places you don't talk about at parties you want me on that wall, you need me on that wall. We use words like honor, code, loyalty. We use then as the backbone of a life trying to defend something. You use them as a punchline. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom I provide and then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather you just said "thank you," and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest that you pick up a weapon and stand a post. Either way, I don't give a damn what you think you are entitled to."

All I know is that while I don't agree with torture if someone had one of my family members I would approve any measure to find and rescue them.
And there WILL be another terrorist attack on US soil and it will be blamed on Obama and I would bet that, while they don't want harm to come to the US, there are those who would cheer if it happened. Not cheer because of the tragedy but cheer because of the "I told you so's" they will throw out.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yonivore

He created more terrorists!

Now, I don't expect many in this crowd to appreciate what Vice President Cheney is saying but, why release memos that only serve to inflame? Why not release the memos that show what were the fruits of those harsh interrogation techniques?

Why not? Because it will justify the used of those techniques...that's why.

---

Justifying it doesn't make it right but I understand where Cheney is coming from. But he also wants to clear his name.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PixelPusher

*"whole record" does not include video tapes of said interrogations that were subsequently destroyed by the CIA

---

How convenient. The destroyed tapes leave us to accept the CIA's claim the interrogation worked, without us being able to decide for ourselves whether they crossed moral and legal boundaries during the questioning, or, more importantly, whether their own interrogation summaries are substantiated in the first place. The direct historical record was intentionally (some might say contumaciously) destroyed.

It puts me in mind of what c_g just said about painting a picture.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marcus Bryant

Better SIGINT and HUMINT, I suppose.

---

Ideally.

And just so everyone is on the same page, the term is "enhanced interrogation techniques".


Sincerely,

Robert Gibbs

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DarrinS

Ideally.

---

The odd thing is, nobody seems too worked up about the ones who didn't make it off the battlefield alive.

That's where it belongs. Regular soldiers shouldn't have anything to do with it.

I'll see Crookshank's dodgy CNSNews right-wing agitprop and raise with a Washington Post article:

Quote:

---

Detainee's Harsh Treatment Foiled No Plots
Waterboarding, Rough Interrogation of Abu Zubaida Produced False Leads, Officials Say

By Peter Finn and Joby Warrick
Washington Post Staff Writers
Sunday, March 29, 2009; Page A01

When CIA officials subjected their first high-value captive, Abu Zubaida, to waterboarding and other harsh interrogation methods, they were convinced that they had in their custody an al-Qaeda leader who knew details of operations yet to be unleashed, and they were facing increasing pressure from the White House to get those secrets out of him.

The methods succeeded in breaking him, and the stories he told of al-Qaeda terrorism plots sent CIA officers around the globe chasing leads.

In the end, though, not a single significant plot was foiled as a result of Abu Zubaida's tortured confessions, according to former senior government officials who closely followed the interrogations. Nearly all of the leads attained through the harsh measures quickly evaporated, while most of the useful information from Abu Zubaida -- chiefly names of al-Qaeda members and associates -- was obtained before waterboarding was introduced, they said.

(cont.)...

As weeks passed after the capture without significant new confessions, the Bush White House and some at the CIA became convinced that tougher measures had to be tried.

The pressure from upper levels of the government was "tremendous," driven in part by the routine of daily meetings in which policymakers would press for updates, one official remembered.

"They couldn't stand the idea that there wasn't anything new," the official said. "They'd say, 'You aren't working hard enough.' There was both a disbelief in what he was saying and also a desire for retribution -- a feeling that 'He's going to talk, and if he doesn't talk, we'll do whatever.' "

The application of techniques such as waterboarding -- a form of simulated drowning that U.S. officials had previously deemed a crime -- prompted a sudden torrent of names and facts. Abu Zubaida began unspooling the details of various al-Qaeda plots, including plans to unleash weapons of mass destruction.

Abu Zubaida's revelations triggered a series of alerts and sent hundreds of CIA and FBI investigators scurrying in pursuit of phantoms. The interrogations led directly to the arrest of Jose Padilla, the man Abu Zubaida identified as heading an effort to explode a radiological "dirty bomb" in an American city. Padilla was held in a naval brig for 3 1/2 years on the allegation but was never charged in any such plot. Every other lead ultimately dissolved into smoke and shadow, according to high-ranking former U.S. officials with access to classified reports.

"We spent millions of dollars chasing false alarms," one former intelligence official said.

Despite the poor results, Bush White House officials and CIA leaders continued to insist that the harsh measures applied against Abu Zubaida and others produced useful intelligence that disrupted terrorist plots and saved American lives.

Two weeks ago, Bush's vice president, Richard B. Cheney, renewed that assertion in an interview with CNN, saying that "the enhanced interrogation program" stopped "a great many" terrorist attacks on the level of Sept. 11.

"I've seen a report that was written, based upon the intelligence that we collected then, that itemizes the specific attacks that were stopped by virtue of what we learned through those programs," Cheney asserted, adding that the report is "still classified," and, "I can't give you the details of it without violating classification."

Since 2006, Senate intelligence committee members have pressed the CIA, in classified briefings, to provide examples of specific leads that were obtained from Abu Zubaida through the use of waterboarding and other methods, according to officials familiar with the requests.

The agency provided none, the officials said.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yonivore

He created more terrorists!

Now, I don't expect many in this crowd to appreciate what Vice President Cheney is saying but, why release memos that only serve to inflame? Why not release the memos that show what were the fruits of those harsh interrogation techniques?

Why not? Because it will justify the used of those techniques...that's why.

---

That a person that supports Cheney drops the 'created more terrorists' card is mind bending. The doctrine of preemtive attack or whatever it was called, that involved invading a sovereign nation has probably created more terrorists that we'll ever know. You can thank Cheney for that one.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marcus Bryant

The odd thing is, nobody seems too worked up about the ones who didn't make it off the battlefield alive.

---

Good point.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DarrinS

And just so everyone is on the same page, the term is "enhanced interrogation techniques".


Sincerely,

Robert Gibbs

---

So where exactly is the line between torture and "enhanced interrogation"? And who gets to decide? This seems like a pretty important point to clarify if we're going to make blanket statements about whether or not we should use torture. Okay, so waterboarding is out. What's still in?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marcus Bryant

The odd thing is, nobody seems too worked up about the ones who didn't make it off the battlefield alive.

---

I think they were worked up enough to speak with their votes. After all, opposition to the war was at an all time high and the primary concern of Americans before the economy bug hit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by coyotes_geek

So where exactly is the line between torture and "enhanced interrogation"? And who gets to decide? This seems like a pretty important point to clarify if we're going to make blanket statements about whether or not we should use torture. Okay, so waterboarding is out. What's still in?

---

Read the Geneva convention declaration. It should clear all your doubts about it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ElNono

I think they were worked up enough to speak with their votes. After all, opposition to the war was at an all time high and the primary concern of Americans before the economy bug hit.

---

How many opposed the Afghan invasion?

Snipers take out three Somali "volunteer coast guard" members to save ONE life and Obama is a hero.


But waterboarding that thwarted an attack on a city the size of LA is not cool.


Interesting.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DarrinS

Snipers take out three Somali "volunteer coast guard" members to save ONE life and Obama is a hero.


But waterboarding that thwarted an attack on a city the size of LA is not cool.


Interesting.

---

What's going to happen to the captured 17 year old Somali?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DarrinS

Snipers take out three Somali "volunteer coast guard" members to save ONE life and Obama is a hero.


But waterboarding that thwarted an attack on a city the size of LA is not cool.


Interesting.

---

Did it really? That memo was really strangely worded.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChumpDumper

Did it really? That memo was really strangely worded.

---

Inside baseball. Source materials. Darrin won't read the memo. He'll just accept the journalistic gloss.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marcus Bryant

What's going to happen to the captured 17 year old Somali?

---

Amnesty?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DarrinS

What city are you willing to sacrifice?

---

That is such a bullshit question.

Tell me Darrin, are you willing to let your mother die from a car accident?

If not, then you should be out banning cars right now.

There's a risk/reward factor, as well as a moral one. One can even argue that it might be an effective risk/reward ratio, were there no moral implications involved.

You can agree that something would work without agreeing with the method.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Winehole23

Inside baseball. Source materials. Darrin won't read the memo. He'll just accept the journalistic gloss.

---

It's funny -- that memo basically said "Our understanding is that waterboarding is awesome and generated a shitload of actionable intel."

What if the reply to the memo was "Your understanding is wrong. We tried that shit 270 times and all we got was a wet floor."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DarrinS

Amnesty?

---

Well, we're not talking about plotting large scale murder.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Winehole23

Good question, if I understand it correctly. Much turns on the tactical significance of the phrase "on land." It probably means aerial or naval bombardment, plus black ops.

I wonder if AFRICOM is well-enough established in Africa to survive the blowback from more *deep intervention* in Somalia. We'll see whether the threat to meet piracy on land was saber rattling or meant sincerely.

IMO there is always a role for the principled opposition. Moreover, the legitimacy of republican power requires it. If the opposition wimps out, we all lose.

---

Considering AFRICOM is (relatively) new, I would guess no.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crookshanks

After KSM was captured by the United States, he was not initially cooperative with CIA interrogators. Nor was another top al Qaeda leader named Zubaydah. KSM, Zubaydah, and a third terrorist named Nashiri were the only three persons ever subjected to waterboarding by the CIA.

---

On which occassion of the 177 times or so that they used on him did he crack?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DarrinS

What is a morally acceptable way to obtain information that would save thousands of lives?

---

The same way we've done it for the rest of our history.

Note: I'm sure that we've done some dirty stuff in the past. There's a difference between performing it in the dark (though I don't agree with it) and actively making it an 'acceptable' policy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DarrinS

Good point.

---

Mainly because in a battlefield, there is some leeway on who a soldier fires on in the heat of the moment. However, our conduct towards prisoners far away from war, when we have time to reflect, shows alot more about us.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DarrinS

Snipers take out three Somali "volunteer coast guard" members to save ONE life and Obama is a hero.


But waterboarding that thwarted an attack on a city the size of LA is not cool.


Interesting.

---

Really DarrinS? You're going to be this asinine? I expected better.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LnGrrrR

Really DarrinS? You're going to be this asinine? I expected better.

---

At some point, everyone is willing to use deadly force to save lives.


The only way I'm against the use of "enhanced interrogation" techniques is if there's a more effective way to get the information.