BS: Torture!!!!

Subject: RE: BS: Torture!!!!
From: GUEST,Windsor Knot
Date: 22 Apr 08 - 08:36 PM

McG, don't forget the crew of "The Viceroy" who suffered nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, and muscle weakness caused by ciguatera fish poisoning served up by the ships cook.

Results of cultures of stool samples from the crew members showed signs of Salmonella, Shigella, Campylobacter, Yersinia, and Vibrio.

So I suppose non-combatant crew members can deal out torture !

Subject: RE: BS: Torture!!!!
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 22 Apr 08 - 08:24 PM

I'd agree there. (Though I'm not too sure about that word "belittled". Cooks should not be underestimated - think of Long John Silver...)

Subject: RE: BS: Torture!!!!
From: GUEST,Windsor Knot
Date: 22 Apr 08 - 08:22 PM

Guest, I am not belittling him, he is more than capable of doing his to himself.

The guy considers himself some sort of an authority on military affairs. In fact if you go through some of his previous posts regarding military matters, he says, "I do have some relevant experience in these matters".

Right through from Ulster,Bosnia and Herzegovina,Iraq,Iran and Afghanistan, he has his angle, and he believes he is rarely wrong.

Now he never saw active service(other than a chip pan fire)so really to speak as an authoritarian or someone with experience is bound to attract critical response.

Now if the subject was feeding the other ranks of the Royal Marines upon a boat I would be glad to sit back and remain silent.

Subject: RE: BS: Torture!!!!
From: GUEST,Windsor Knot
Date: 22 Apr 08 - 08:00 PM

Sadly Don Teribus was an army cook, well do I need to go on ?

Quite often it's the like of the Army Catering Corp, Pay Corp and other non-combatants that "talk" tactics.

We allow him his drift into the reams of fantasy once every so often.

Subject: RE: BS: Torture!!!!
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 22 Apr 08 - 07:55 PM

Teribus-
the major flaw in your argument (even assuming that torture may be justified in life-threatening situations)is the implicit assumption that the torturers know that the torturee is guilty---an often shaky assumption that too many folks are willing to make.

Subject: RE: BS: Torture!!!!
From: Don Firth
Date: 22 Apr 08 - 07:53 PM

Spin what I wrote anyway you want, Teribus, but I stand by what I said. I could go through point by point and refute each one of your "refutations," but I don't have the time right now. I may be back, however. In the meantime, I will leave it as an exercise for others to pick out the holes in your "refutation."

You certainly seem to be willing to go to great lengths to justify torture.

Interesting.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Torture!!!!
From: GUEST,Chief Chaos
Date: 22 Apr 08 - 06:53 PM

Seems to me that "truth serum", if it indeed exists, would be of better use than trying to extract information through fear or pain.

Or perhaps what most of us have been saying all along, keep your eyes and ears open and don't go blindly mucking up the world and maybe you will be able to see it coming and defuse the situation before terrorism becomes an issue!

Subject: RE: BS: Torture!!!!
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 22 Apr 08 - 06:40 PM

Maybe most, maybe even all the people in that situation might think that way, but that wouldn't mean they were right.

The only way of finding out how to defuse the bomb is to get the man or woman to change their mind and to talk, that's agreed.

But that means that anything that makes him or her less likely to change their mind and to talk has to be ruled out. And I would suggest that that means there can be no question of torture, for that very reason.

What you'd want would be someone who knew about Islam, and could talk with understanding about Allah the Compassionate and Merciful. Get on the radio and try to find someone like that, if there's no one like that on board.   Not much chance perhaps, but more chance than a nonsensical and completely ineffective torture session as the minutes tick away.

Subject: RE: BS: Torture!!!!
From: Teribus
Date: 22 Apr 08 - 06:19 PM

"I've been trying to think of what kind of torture might conceivably get a terrorist on a plane set to explode, who has already committed himself to die in the explosion, to actually talk." - MGOH

You miss the point entirely Kevin. What you, as one of the innocents about to die in that hour do is what we are talking about. Whether you get the information out of him or not, is neither here nor there.

Anyone who says that having been given that information they would just sit down and ask this chap nicely to please change his mind is a liar.

Your only way out is to make him tell you what you need to know.

My contention is that the people on that aircraft would have no qualms whatsoever about torture in such circumstances, and no you cannot put the aircraft down on the sea the bomb is pressure sensitive and besides no wide body airliner has ever successfully landed on water.

Subject: RE: BS: Torture!!!!
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 22 Apr 08 - 05:17 PM

Indeed. But the pork chop angle keeps on cropping up in this kind of context, and I think it deserves to be pointed out as the nonsense it is.
.........................

You are on board an aircraft mid-Atlantic, mid-Pacific. You are informed that there is a bomb on board and the identity of the person who has it is known. You have one hour to extract the location of the bomb and instructions how to disarm it. Under those circumstances anyone on board that aircraft who says that they would have qualms about any means of interrogation used, or think twice about what they had to do to get that information is a liar.

I've been trying to think of what kind of torture might conceivably get a terrorist on a plane set to explode, who has already committed himself to die in the explosion, to actually talk. Not so easy. I suppose rounding up his family on the other side of a world and torturing them to death on a TV link might do the trick. But I doubt if that was what you had in mind when you said "any means of interrogation".

Subject: RE: BS: Torture!!!!
From: Teribus
Date: 22 Apr 08 - 04:30 PM

Eh, Kevin, without the reference to the pork chop the, "sit him down with his bags off slap his toger and in a floury bap bring in a Cocker Spaniel and shout "lunchtime Fido", comes straight from the "Blackadder Goes Forth" episode where Blackadder is tasked with uncovering the identity of a German spy.

A Windor go back inside your container and play with your computer - keep taking the drugs.

Subject: RE: BS: Torture!!!!
From: GUEST,Chief Chaos
Date: 22 Apr 08 - 04:26 PM

The Geneva Convention does not apply to terrorists or anyone other than signatory nation states!
I don't think the use of torure or terrorism by any side is acceptable and I find our use of it to be repugnant.

Segmenting the information out is a classification called "Compartmentalizing".

It will be years, if ever at all, that we find out what information was gathered by torture and what by illegally tapping phones/the internet/whatever. Doesn't matter how it was collected, it was done illegally.

The hope of the Geneva Convention is that by treating combatants (notice the term "combatants", this administration decided to label everyone in the Afghani (Taliban) army and the Iraqi army as non-combatants)in a certain way, it will guarantee your "combatants of the same treatment.

As in WWII, Korea, and Vietnam it doesn't always work that way (but there's no telling if we were actually following the rules there either.

Subject: RE: BS: Torture!!!!
From: GUEST,Windsor Knot
Date: 22 Apr 08 - 02:16 PM

Did Teribus prepare the pork chops ?

Subject: RE: BS: Torture!!!!
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 22 Apr 08 - 02:11 PM

Stuff about forcing people into submisssion with pork chops because they are devout Muslims is basically rubbish, just as it would be if you were to make the same kind of suggestions in respect of devout Jews. Yes, both sister religions have rules about that kind of thing - essentially much the same rules - but with plenty of room for flexibility to cope with that kind of thing.

Subject: RE: BS: Torture!!!!
From: irishenglish
Date: 22 Apr 08 - 01:48 PM

Teribus, I think your post has strayed a bit from the torture issue to intelligence gathering as well. The capture of someone doing the actual attack is but one player in the game. I forget the "intelligence" lingo for this, and I think I read this in a Frederick Forsyth novel, but for a successful operation, there are layers of knowledge that any one given person has. Some one, or a very select handful of people have direct knowledge of the entire event. They parcel out the specific information in segments to various other people, who then pick and choose the actual people to be involved in the attack. What it means is that no one person (other than the originators of the plan) has full details of all aspects of the operation, and if one level gets compromised somehow, then the entire operation is considered compromised. What happened after 9/11, I believe, was a more concerted effort was placed on being suspicious of the lower down the chain followers. Of course we still go after the big guns like Mohammed. But like I posted originally, if Mohammed had for example, high level knowledge of planned terrorist attacks, do you not think that in his own mind he could give them almost any information, because HE knew as a planner, that anything planned was now compromised if he were captured? I think it's also wrong for all of us to assume that a large amount of data was gathered by active torture. SOme may have been, and if you ask me personally, any torture is wrong. But we did improve our intelligence gathering capability as well, and I think that has been more of the reason that we have not had an attack since 9/11 than any info gleaned from a tortured operative, who for all we know, was simply hired to obtain passports, while some other guy took care of transportation, while someone else handled the money, while someone else decoded messages.

Subject: RE: BS: Torture!!!!
From: GUEST,dianavan
Date: 22 Apr 08 - 01:39 PM

"I was pointing out that some contraventions of the Geneva Convention seem to be quite acceptable when practiced by the side one happens to support, while others are totally abhorrent when practiced by the side one opposes." - teribus

Contraventions of the Geneva convention are unacceptable when practiced by either side but it is useless to protest the use of torture by the opposition. Rather, it is our 'own side' that should be held to the highest standard. As citizens, we become watchdogs because the actions of our military, reflect on us.

It is simplistic to assume that because we criticize our own government, we automatically support the 'other side'.

Subject: RE: BS: Torture!!!!
From: Teribus
Date: 22 Apr 08 - 01:12 PM

Tell us what a Windor Knot is Guest

Subject: RE: BS: Torture!!!!
From: Teribus
Date: 22 Apr 08 - 01:06 PM

Oh, forgot to put in that last post of mine.

Don the reasoning outlined in your post of 18 Apr 08 - 01:51 p.m., has got more holes in it than a collander.

Ticking bomb scenario, with the mind-set of the current terrorists:

You are onboard an aircraft mid-Atlantic, mid-Pacific. You are informed that there is a bomb onboard and the identity of the person who has it is known. You have one hour to extract the location of the bomb and instructions how to disarm it.

Under those circumstances anyone onboard that aircraft who says that they would have qualms about any means of interrogation used, or think twice about what they had to do to get that information is a liar. I would venture to guess under such circumstances, whether successful or not, you and the "terrorist" are all in the same boat, you do nothing and you are going to die for certain, attempt to forcefully interrogate the "terrorist" and you stand a chance of surviving, it is the only option realistically open to you and you do want to live.

Now Don the holes in your hypothetical scenario, which you laid out as follows:

Part 1:
"Apart from the moral issue, there is the question of whether or not torture is an effective way of extracting accurate information. Especially with the mid-set of the current terrorists, it obviously is not."

Well those Al-Qaeda members who have been interrogated so far must have passed on some information of worth judging by the number of senior operational figures rolled-up to date and the number of operations that have been exposed. By the bye Don as to the mind-set of the terrorists Kahlid Sheik Mohammed has got no more desire to enter paradise than Osama bin Laden or any of the other leaders of the jihadist terrorist groups, they're the fat-cats who get their lieutenants to con others into carrying-out the attacks, they would never dream of carrying them out themselves.

Part 2:
"Let's take the standard scenario that many advocates of torture present:    A nuclear bomb has been planted in a major city and is set to go off in a very few hours. We have captured a terrorist who was in on the plot and knows where the bomb is located. Of course, he refuses to say what city it's in and where it is within that city."

In your scenario neither the interrogator or the terrorist is in danger, unless of course you both happen to be in Washington, D. C., but you did not state that.

You also ommit to provide detail as to how the terrorist came to be in your hands, but you imply that it is known that he, "was in on the plot", therefore you were not running blind, you were "on to him", you must have had more information - this bit is important.

Part 3:
"So we apply the thumb-screws. Literally. Waterboarding, electric shock to the genitals, whatever strikes the torturers sadistic fancy. AHA! Success! He blurts out that the bomb is in New York City, and he gives the exact location.   We make a quick phone call and a team of specialists rushes to the location.

Just as they discover that there is nothing there, Washington, D. C. goes up in a horrendous fireball."

Thumb-screws, waterboarding, electric shocks, naw just, "sit him down with his bags off slap his toger and in a floury bap with a pork chop bring in a Cocker Spaniel and shout "lunchtime Fido". Your description has hallmarks of Hollywood. What is wrong with it is this:

- In all probability your terrorist has not been trained to withstand interrogation.

- You as interrogator however know full well that he will try to resist, he will try to delay, he will try to mislead.

- From the minute that he has been caught, he is robbed of any means of knowing the time, he has no idea of how long he has to hold out, you as interrogator make sure of that.

- You must have had some knowledge, some information, from some source, that led to his capture. It had to be something that he was completely unaware of otherwise he would not have been caught.

- So you question him about some aspect of his capture, something that know the answer to, but he does not. He will resist, he will try to delay, he will try to mislead, but you know the answer that you are looking for, so you continue until finally you get the correct answer. You as interrogator have broken your man you now know his threshold.

- Only then do you ask him about the bomb.

Part 4:
"The terrorist knows that he's dead meat anyway. And when he is not just willing to die for his cause, but eager to do so because he believes it assures him a place in Paradise, he sits back and laughs. No matter what they do to him now, he has just bought himself a first-class ticket to Allah's favor and a state of Eternal Bliss."

Knows he's dead meat? Not in the slightest Don, he wasn't intending to die in the attack, it wasn't part of the plan was it? At least not as described in your scenario. Not wishing to point out the obvious flaw in your arguement Don if he is not only willing to die, but as eager to die as you suggest he would have been standing guard by the bomb, not swanning around getting caught many miles distant. And that is where the Cocker Spaniel, the floury Bap and the Pork Chop come into play- Any devout muslim who engages in bestiality involving the eating of pork ain't buying a first-class ticket to anywhere, least of all Allah's favour, and is not bound for Paradise.

Subject: RE: BS: Torture!!!!
From: GUEST,Windor Knot
Date: 22 Apr 08 - 01:01 PM

Teribus, tell us about your exciting military experiences in this field.

Subject: RE: BS: Torture!!!!
From: CarolC
Date: 22 Apr 08 - 12:13 PM

Both the above came as a result of me saying this:
"To use such techniques, is it justifiable? I would think it could be perfectly justifiable under certain circumstances, and I could understand that those circumstances could vary dramatically."

No it didn't. At least not in my case. Mine came as a result of your posts over a long period of time. This is a pretty good example...

Yes Bryn you probably did deserve everything that came your way, you were probably begging for it.

Sounds like when you did it, you enjoyed it, too.

Subject: RE: BS: Torture!!!!
From: Peace
Date: 22 Apr 08 - 11:57 AM

That rant was NOT addressed to you at all, Amos. I KNOW the agitatin' you do. It was a general cry for "let's get off our collective arse, stop making excuses as to why those bastards can't be impeached, and IMPEACH the fu#kers." PERIOD.

Subject: RE: BS: Torture!!!!
From: Teribus
Date: 22 Apr 08 - 11:57 AM

"In the case of the hat pins dipped in dog crap (although I find it truly abhorrent) the people using them were not members of a recognized government agency and therefore the Geneva convention does not apply. Also use of the contaminated hat pins in an offensive or defensive manner is not "torture" but might be considered terrorism." - Guest Chief Chaos

It is not the case that you have to be members of a recognised government agency to be brought to book under the terms of the Geneva Convention. The Geneva Convention applies across the board and terrorists commit many more "war crimes" than organised armed forces.

I was not attempting imply that use of contaminated hat pins was "torture", I was pointing out that some contraventions of the Geneva Convention seem to be quite acceptable when practiced by the side one happens to support, while others are totally abhorrent when practiced by the side one opposes. That is what I would call hypocrisy.

Subject: RE: BS: Torture!!!!
From: GUEST,Chief Chaos
Date: 21 Apr 08 - 04:26 PM

I'd like to point out that in John McCain's experience the principal factors conducting the torture were members of a recognized government agency which means they were subject to the Geneva Convention. As such they are war criminals!

In the case of the hat pins dipped in dog crap (although I find it truly abhorrent) the people using them were not members of a recognized government agency and therefore the Geneva convention does not apply. Also use of the contaminated hat pins in an offensive or defensive manner is not "torture" but might be considered terrorism.

It's funny but the best way I can describe the current situation is to use a song title from David Bowie, "This Is Not America".

Subject: RE: BS: Torture!!!!
From: Amos
Date: 21 Apr 08 - 03:57 PM

Well, Iw ouldn't have posted the damns tory if I didn't give a rat's ass. I also sent a flaming letter to the editor of the NY Times. The story came out int he Times two days later, and I am sure it was not because of my letter alone, but maybe it helped.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Torture!!!!
From: Peace
Date: 21 Apr 08 - 02:53 PM

Regardless, Teribus is not the problem on this thread. The problem is that the President of the USA broke the law as did the VP and his then Sec State (?). Why are they not hauled up by their 'short and curlies' and the top two impeached. Why is Condi not be prosecuted for criminal activity? WHERE IS THS DEMOCRACY that used to exist in the US. Folks were quick enough to impeach Clinton for lying. Keriste, does ANYone give a rat's ass about the USA?

Subject: RE: BS: Torture!!!!
From: Don Firth
Date: 21 Apr 08 - 02:38 PM

Almost invariable, when the subject of torture comes up in discussion, someone will claim that torture is "justifiable under certain circumstances." When asked what those circumstances might be, their stock example is the ticking bomb scenario. Either that or something involving an "innocent child" who will die within hours unless found and rescued (blantant emotional appeal?).

I believe I have dealt with that "justification" in an above post—18 Apr 08 - 01:51 p.m.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Torture!!!!
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 21 Apr 08 - 01:42 PM

No significant difference whatsoever that I can see, I'm afraid. "Could be" and "under certain circumstances" don't in fact change the meaning at all.

You could equally have written "Torture is in principal justifiable, but not in all circumstances".

Subject: RE: BS: Torture!!!!
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 21 Apr 08 - 10:40 AM

Problem with Teribus' argument is that the "certain circumstances" don't seem to be defined.

Subject: RE: BS: Torture!!!!
From: Teribus
Date: 21 Apr 08 - 09:40 AM

Kevin, a question for you, please try and answer it honestly. Why couldn't you just quote the whole passage in context? - you surely must have been a journalist at one time or other:

Kevin's quote to "prove" that I support torture:

"To use such techniques, is it justifiable? I would think it could be perfectly justifiable..."

The whole passage actually stated:

"To use such techniques, is it justifiable? I would think it could be perfectly justifiable under certain circumstances, and I could understand that those circumstances could vary dramatically."

Now I would venture to point out that there is quite a bit of a difference there, wouldn't you? If you still cannot bring yourself to admit that, please explain why the justification was so heavily qualified, i.e. "could be" and "under certain circumstances".

Subject: RE: BS: Torture!!!!
From: Penny S.
Date: 21 Apr 08 - 05:46 AM

There was a piece in New Scientist recently based on an interview with a man who works against torture. I belive he was from the Middle East, but would not like to attribute him to a particular country without checking. His family had experience of the activity on the receiving end.
He suggested that a culture which includes initiation rites into accepted groups, and ritualised bullying of new recruits into organisations, and accepts dehumanising of prisoners is more likely to find the threshold to torture lower than others.
He was more specific than that, actually, referring to membership of fraternities.
Penny

Subject: RE: BS: Torture!!!!
From: Joe_F
Date: 20 Apr 08 - 08:58 PM

Read _Darkness at Noon_ by Arthur Koestler. Torture gets its toehold by extracting useful information, sometimes almost by accident. But once it becomes a habit, its chief use is to extract false confessions.

It used to be -- perhaps still is -- a common police practice in all countries. In the U.S. it was called the third degree.

It appears (it is very hard to research this question, and I am dependent on chance impressions) that in most parts of the world large numbers of children are routinely beaten -- not primarily for disciplinary reasons, but (so to speak) recreationally, so that when they grow up they cannot take anyone seriously who does not at least threaten to beat them. In such places civilized government is impossible. (Here my friends on the left will have observed that I am a dissenter from the religion in which blaming the victim is taboo.)

Subject: RE: BS: Torture!!!!
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 20 Apr 08 - 02:11 PM

Can anyone point out anywhere in what I have said that indicates that I..."Support torture"?

Teribus has already done that himself earlier in the same post: "To use such techniques, is it justifiable? I would think it could be perfectly justifiable"...

"Such techniques" - including "waterboarding" are a form of torture, when used for real.

Going through the motions in the context of training sessions, where in fact everyone involved knows that there is no threat of drowning, is not the same thing, anymore than a mock execution where the target know the guns are loaded with blanks is in any way comparable to one where they believe live ammunition is being used. (Another form of enhanced interrogation that amounts to torture.)

Subject: RE: BS: Torture!!!!
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 20 Apr 08 - 02:00 PM

Can anyone point out anywhere in what I have said that indicates that I..."Support torture"?

Teribus has already done that himself earlier in the same post: To use such techniques, is it justifiable? I would think it could be perfectly justifiable...

"Such techniques" - including "waterboarding" are a form of torture, when used for real.

Going through the motions in the context of training sessions, where in fact everyone involved knows that there is no treat of drowning, is not the same thing, anymore than a mock execution where the target know the guns are loaded with blanks is in any way comparable to one where they believe live ammunition is being used. (Another form of enhanced interrogation that amounts to torture.)

Subject: RE: BS: Torture!!!!
From: Gervase
Date: 20 Apr 08 - 01:44 PM

RTI training, although deeply unpleasant, is to torture what the Sealed Knot are to warfare. And what seems to have been sanctioned by the US administration is torture.
And what makes it all the more deplorable is that they carried on doing if even when it should have become evident that it clearly doesn't bloody work!

Subject: RE: BS: Torture!!!!
From: Peace
Date: 20 Apr 08 - 01:23 PM

I was about to post that in no way would Teribus condone torture, but I see he's said that already. He is a much nicer person than many give him credit for, (despite that he and I are often on opposing sides of issues).

IMO, the real issue here is summed up in the NYT article Amos linked to. I read it and went to cut and paste the following only to see that Amos had already done so. Not wishing to trash a perfectly good cut and paste, here it is again.

"Mr. Bush has sidestepped or quashed every attempt to uncover the breadth and depth of his sordid actions. Congress is likely to endorse a cover-up of the extent of the illegal wiretapping he authorized after 9/11, and we are still waiting, with diminishing hopes, for a long-promised report on what the Bush team really knew before the Iraq invasion about those absent weapons of mass destruction — as opposed to what it proclaimed.

At this point it seems that getting answers will have to wait, at least, for a new Congress and a new president. Ideally, there would be both truth and accountability. At the very minimum the public needs the full truth.

Some will call this a backward-looking distraction, but only by fully understanding what Mr. Bush has done over eight years to distort the rule of law and violate civil liberties and human rights can Americans ever hope to repair the damage and ensure it does not happen again."



That article should be read by every American in the USA, and anyone who continues to support Bush's action in this ugly representation of power gone mad, because what it states is what we all know. If we continue to knao and we continue to do nothing, an equal degree of guilt will rest with us.

Subject: RE: BS: Torture!!!!
From: Teribus
Date: 20 Apr 08 - 07:23 AM

"Teribus supports torture. I should have known it." - Guest,PMB

"I'm not so curious about whether or not Teribus has ever seen anyone who has been tortured as I am about whether or not he has ever participated in that sort of activity himself. He seem awfully keen on it." - CarolC

Both the above came as a result of me saying this:
"To use such techniques, is it justifiable? I would think it could be perfectly justifiable under certain circumstances, and I could understand that those circumstances could vary dramatically."

Rather over-egging the pudding aren't we?

Can anyone point out anywhere in what I have said that indicates that I:

A. "Support torture" (PMB's contention)

B. "Am awfully keen on it" (CarolC's contention)

Just to satisfy CarolC's curiousity re: having "ever participated in that sort of activity himself." The answer to that is yes on a number of occasions as the person being interrogated - from my first post to this thread:

"Reading through what was supposed to be permitted, it is no more than is used in the training of any combat aircrew; naval attack swimmer; SBS swimmer/canoeist; SAS Trooper."

The categories I participated in were connected to training and exercises relating to diving and qualification as a "Forward Observer" Both were courses that taught escape and evasion and resistance to interrogation. Of the courses run by the RN the worst to go through was the one for combat aircrew, mainly because it was more intense, extremely realistic and longer in duration.

By the bye, just for the record, I neither A) Support torture, or B) Am awfully keen on it.

Subject: RE: BS: Torture!!!!
From: Amos
Date: 20 Apr 08 - 02:39 AM

"...Mr. Bush has sidestepped or quashed every attempt to uncover the breadth and depth of his sordid actions. Congress is likely to endorse a cover-up of the extent of the illegal wiretapping he authorized after 9/11, and we are still waiting, with diminishing hopes, for a long-promised report on what the Bush team really knew before the Iraq invasion about those absent weapons of mass destruction Ñ as opposed to what it proclaimed.

At this point it seems that getting answers will have to wait, at least, for a new Congress and a new president. Ideally, there would be both truth and accountability. At the very minimum the public needs the full truth.

Some will call this a backward-looking distraction, but only by fully understanding what Mr. Bush has done over eight years to distort the rule of law and violate civil liberties and human rights can Americans ever hope to repair the damage and ensure it does not happen again."

Ibid

Subject: RE: BS: Torture!!!!
From: Amos
Date: 20 Apr 08 - 02:36 AM

I am sire many others besides me wrote to the New York Times upbraiding them for their silence on the issue of Bush's revelations that he approved the torture planning sessions.

I am glad they finally spoke up about it.

"The Torture Sessions

Published: April 20, 2008

Ever since Americans learned that American soldiers and intelligence agents were torturing prisoners, there has been a disturbing question: How high up did the decision go to ignore United States law, international treaties, the Geneva Conventions and basic morality?

The Board Blog
Additional commentary, background information and other items by Times editorial writers.
Go to The Board È
The answer, we have learned recently, is that Ñ with President BushÕs clear knowledge and support Ñ some of the very highest officials in the land not only approved the abuse of prisoners, but participated in the detailed planning of harsh interrogations and helped to create a legal structure to shield from justice those who followed the orders.

We have long known that the Justice Department tortured the law to give its Orwellian blessing to torturing people, and that Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld approved a list of ways to abuse prisoners. But recent accounts by ABC News and The Associated Press said that all of the presidentÕs top national security advisers at the time participated in creating the interrogation policy: Vice President Dick Cheney; Mr. Rumsfeld; Condoleezza Rice, the national security adviser; Colin Powell, the secretary of state; John Ashcroft, the attorney general; and George Tenet, the director of central intelligence.

These officials did not have the time or the foresight to plan for the aftermath of the invasion of Iraq or the tenacity to complete the hunt for Osama bin Laden. But they managed to squeeze in dozens of meetings in the White House Situation Room to organize and give legal cover to prisoner abuse, including brutal methods that civilized nations consider to be torture..."

Subject: RE: BS: Torture!!!!
From: heric
Date: 19 Apr 08 - 09:51 PM

>> . . . he found the experience terrifying and thought that it clearly simulated drowning.<<

I read somewhere and I now know not where, that waterboarding was much more than simulated drowning. It was actual drowning, with inhalation of water and subsequent resuscitation. If that reference was correct - simulated death would be a better term than simulated drowning.

Subject: RE: BS: Torture!!!!
From: CarolC
Date: 19 Apr 08 - 08:27 PM

Can someone refresh my memory about where McCain really stands on torture when it is inflicted by the US?

As far as I can tell, he's against torture, but his definition of torture seems to not be in agreement with that of international law, US law, and the Geneva Convention.

Subject: RE: BS: Torture!!!!
From: Amos
Date: 19 Apr 08 - 06:38 PM

Bush Administration Blocked Waterboarding Critic

Former DOJ Official Tested the Method Himself, in Effort to Form Torture Policy

By JAN CRAWFORD GREENBURG and ARIANE de VOGUE
Nov. 2, 2007Ñ

A senior Justice Department official, charged with reworking the administration's legal position on torture in 2004 became so concerned about the controversial interrogation technique of waterboarding that he decided to experience it firsthand, sources told ABC News.

Daniel Levin, then acting assistant attorney general, went to a military base near Washington and underwent the procedure to inform his analysis of different interrogation techniques.

After the experience, Levin told White House officials that even though he knew he wouldn't die, he found the experience terrifying and thought that it clearly simulated drowning.

Levin, who refused to comment for this story, concluded waterboarding could be illegal torture unless performed in a highly limited way and with close supervision. And, sources told ABC News, he believed the Bush Administration had failed to offer clear guidelines for its use.

Bush Administration Blocked Critic

The administration at the time was reeling from an August 2002 memo by Jay Bybee, then the head of the Office of Legal Counsel, which laid out possible justifications for torture. In June 2004, Levin's predecessor at the office, Jack Goldsmith, officially withdrew the Bybee memo, finding it deeply flawed.

When Levin took over from Goldsmith, he went to work on a memo that would effectively replace the Bybee memo as the administration's legal position on torture. It was during this time that he underwent waterboarding.

In December 2004, Levin released the new memo. He said, "Torture is abhorrent" but he went on to say in a footnote that the memo was not declaring the administration's previous opinions illegal. The White House, with Alberto Gonzales as the White House counsel, insisted that this footnote be included in the memo.

But Levin never finished a second memo imposing tighter controls on the specific interrogation techniques. Sources said he was forced out of the Justice Department when Gonzales became attorney general.

Subject: RE: BS: Torture!!!!
From: An Pluiméir Ceolmhar
Date: 19 Apr 08 - 02:37 PM

Can someone refresh my memory about where McCain really stands on torture when it is inflicted by the US?

I have a distinct recollection of being greatly disillusioned at reading some time ago that he had voted in favour of a piece of Cheney (OK Bush if you prefer) regime legislation authorising some form of supposedly "lite" torture. But when I google "McCain" and "torture", all I get is page after page of stuff about what seems to be a bill that he subsequently introduced, apparently with the aim of whitewashing his image.

Subject: RE: BS: Torture!!!!
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 19 Apr 08 - 01:26 PM

I suspect that one effect of 24 has been to encourage the American Public to see torture as part of the American Way, and as OK, so long as it's done by the Right People.

"It's a dirty job, but someone has to do it" is the line, and an awful lot of people buy it. Very much the same as that laid out by Himmler talking to the SS: "To have gone through this and yet - apart from a few exceptions, examples of human weakness - to have remained decent fellows, this is what has made us hard. This is a glorious page in our history that has never been written and shall never be written."

Subject: RE: BS: Torture!!!!
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 19 Apr 08 - 12:43 PM

Amos,
O.S.S. is right - sorry about that.
The programme was called 'Operation Sunrise' and was on RTE 2 at 8pm last night.
The Guardian article on the use of torture at Guantanamo puts much of it down to the series '24'. The journalist claims that some of the techniques and much of the morality for the use of torture has been lifted straight from this.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Torture!!!!
From: Amos
Date: 19 Apr 08 - 11:21 AM

Wasn't the SAS --it were the OSS.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Torture!!!!
From: irishenglish
Date: 19 Apr 08 - 10:44 AM

Jim Carroll-just as an aside, I wouldn't consider the SAS to be a precursor to the CIA. They are an extremely elite commando unit, and for sure they are the ones involved in deep covert activity, but they are not an intelligence orgainization in and of themselves. But I am interested in that program.

Subject: RE: BS: Torture!!!!
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 19 Apr 08 - 08:53 AM

Front page lead in today's Guardian Top Bush aides pushed for Guantánamo torture:

America's most senior general was "hoodwinked" by top Bush administration officials determined to push through aggressive interrogation techniques of terror suspects held at Guantánamo Bay, leading to the US military abandoning its age-old ban on the cruel and inhumane treatment of prisoners, the Guardian reveals today.

General Richard Myers, chairman of the US joint chiefs of staff from 2001 to 2005, wrongly believed that inmates at Guantánamo and other prisons were protected by the Geneva conventions and from abuse tantamount to torture.

The way he was duped by senior officials in Washington, who believed the Geneva conventions and other traditional safeguards were out of date, is disclosed in a devastating account of their role, extracts of which appear in today's Guardian...

Subject: RE: BS: Torture!!!!
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 19 Apr 08 - 08:43 AM

Last night I watched a programme on how the SAS (forerunner to the CIA) conspired with the Nazis against The Soviet Union.
This morning I opened my paper to read a long article on how top members of the US Government are sanctioning the use of torture in its 'war on terror'
Threads like this give me hope that the US isn't entirely comprised of fascist shitbags - thanks for that folks.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Torture!!!!
From: Bobert
Date: 19 Apr 08 - 07:02 AM

Exactly, Barry...

We need an extreme make-over that promotes humanism...

Until we change the "culture" we wil be like hamsters in a wheel wondering why things aren't getting better for US...

And this "culture" change needs to be top-to-bottom... I don't think the rich folk really want US to end up looking like Haiti where they are only *safe* ib their compounds (Green Zones)...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Torture!!!!
From: Barry Finn
Date: 19 Apr 08 - 06:43 AM

Somewhere I'd read an essay on the ten steps towards a Dictatorship & as torture beings one of the steps in point, it was noted that every Dictorship that used torture on their enemies eventually somewhere going down the lined ended up using torture on their own citizens.

I'd fully agree with Don's assessment. Where Don says

"its because the "way of life" of some of the richest Americans is on their backs, and has been for generations."

I'd change "on their backs" to
"under their thumbs"

I've always felt that we (the US) conveniently deal with terrorism in a way a doctor would treat the symptoms of a disease, using a knee jerk reaction rather than investigating the cause of the disease/problem & dealing with the root source.
I would want to ask why someone would feel so desprate as to resort to mass murder not just "Bush it under the rug" buy saying their culture hates us. No one hates with out some sort of cause. What's the cause? It's just to easy to fire back & invade unless that the purpose to begin with.

Barry