Bush era DOJ torture memos released

[CRM114]

Sure. But as far as "pamphlet material" goes, I think it's a little too late for that kind of thinking.

As far as making it public, there were still people denying it even happened.

[classicman2]

Originally Posted by CRM114

The things in those memos, the things former director Hayden called "the outer limits" of interrogation, are now known as torture and are illegal. Why should they be kept secret if they are forbidden from use?

The Army Field Manual is on the internet.

I'm certain some terrorists have access to the internet.

If they know what's in store for them (nothing) if captured, there is very little to deter them.

I don't really know what course we should pursue.

I don't believe the AFM is sufficient to deal with folks who intend to do us real harm.

[kuroiinu]

Originally Posted by classicman2

Even the current CIA director opposed the releasing of these memos.

I think that he is just "doing his job" as a CIA director . If it bothers him that much, he should resign.

[CRM114]

Originally Posted by classicman2

I don't believe the AFM is sufficient to deal with folks who intend to do us real harm.

Who would the army be fighting that wouldn't "intend to do us real harm?"

[classicman2]

Originally Posted by CRM114

Who would the army be fighting that wouldn't "intend to do us real harm?"

[CRM114]

You imply the field manual doesn't apply to Islamic fundamentalists. But it did apply to Soviets and Nazis and Viet Cong?

[classicman2]

We're not talking about army interrogations.

We're talking about CIA interrogations.

[JasonF]

Originally Posted by classicman2

We're not talking about army interrogations.

We're talking about CIA interrogations.

Why is that distinction relevant? We needed to get information from captured Nazis and Japanese soldiers during WWII, and from captured VCs during the Vietnam War. We got by without thumbscrews then and we could and should have done so now. In fact, there is ample evidence that torture is counter-effective as an interrogation technique.

That's even giving the benefit of the doubt that these techniques were being employed for the purpose of getting information. We waterboarded Khalid Sheikh Mohammad 183 times in March 2003 alone. 183 times! That's six times a day for an entire month. What possible information-gathering benefit could that have provided?

[orangecrush]

Originally Posted by JasonF

That's even giving the benefit of the doubt that these techniques were being employed for the purpose of getting information. We waterboarded Khalid Sheikh Mohammad 183 times in March 2003 alone. 183 times! That's six times a day for an entire month. What possible information-gathering benefit could that have provided?

They had to use someone to teach the others the proper technique. Also, that is a crazy number of times to water board anyone.

[cpgator]

Originally Posted by orangecrush18

They had to use someone to teach the others the proper technique. Also, that is a crazy number of times to water board anyone.

Yet not nearly enough in my opinion...

[CRM114]

In your opinion, were these techniques used for interrogation or retribution?

If retribution, fine, then just execute him.

[classicman2]

Originally Posted by JasonF

Why is that distinction relevant? We needed to get information from captured Nazis and Japanese soldiers during WWII, and from captured VCs during the Vietnam War. We got by without thumbscrews then and we could and should have done so now. In fact, there is ample evidence that torture is counter-effective as an interrogation technique.

That's even giving the benefit of the doubt that these techniques were being employed for the purpose of getting information. We waterboarded Khalid Sheikh Mohammad 183 times in March 2003 alone. 183 times! That's six times a day for an entire month. What possible information-gathering benefit could that have provided?

The CIA directors don't agree with you.

WWII was a conventional war. The enemy wore uniforms. The Geneva Convention applied. They were not terrorists.

Do you still ned to ask why the distinction is relevant? :roleyes:

[classicman2]

Where did the 183 number come from - from the Red Cross?

[Nausicaa]

Originally Posted by JasonF

That's even giving the benefit of the doubt that these techniques were being employed for the purpose of getting information. We waterboarded Khalid Sheikh Mohammad 183 times in March 2003 alone. 183 times! That's six times a day for an entire month. What possible information-gathering benefit could that have provided?

More evidence that the guidelines outlined in the Bybee memo were not adhered to. And it makes sense. This whole notion that these techniques aren't torture because they supposedly cause less than 'severe' pain and suffering as outlined in the memo is ridiculous. If that's true, then what's the point of using them to begin with? Why would a detainee be compelled to reveal information if the interrogation is so mild? And is the person interrogating going to believe what the detainee says? Or will they push harder?

Mohammad is also one of the frequently cited 'ticking time bomb' cases used to justify torture. And they had to torture him for months.

[CRM114]

Originally Posted by classicman2

The CIA directors don't agree with you.

WWII was a conventional war. The enemy wore uniforms. The Geneva Convention applied. They were not terrorists.

Do you still ned to ask why the distinction is relevant?

Because they don't wear uniforms, it is acceptable to torture them? I'm not following.

[shadowhawk2020]

Originally Posted by classicman2

Where did the 183 number come from - from the Red Cross?

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- CIA interrogators used waterboarding at least 266 times on two top al Qaeda suspects, according to a Bush-era Justice Department memo released by the Obama administration.


Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, seen in a December sketch, was waterboarded 183 times in a month, a memo says.

The controversial technique that simulates drowning -- and which President Obama calls torture -- was used at least 83 times in August 2002 on suspected al Qaeda leader Abu Zubaydah, according to the memo.

Interrogators also waterboarded Khalid Sheikh Mohammed 183 times in March 2003. Mohammed is believed to be the mastermind behind the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the United States.

Obama released the memo Thursday, saying that "exceptional circumstances surround these memos and require their release." Watch other tactics outlined in memos »

The memo, dated May 30, 2005, was from then-Deputy Assistant Attorney General Steven G. Bradbury to John Rizzo, who was acting general counsel for the CIA.

It paints a different picture from the one described by former CIA officer John Kiriakou. In a December 2007 interview with CNN, Kiriakou said Zubaydah had been waterboarded for "about 30 seconds, 35 seconds" and agreed to cooperate with interrogators the following day.

In an interview on "Fox News Sunday," Michael Hayden, who directed the CIA from 2006 to 2009, was asked about the number of times Mohammed was waterboarded.


The 2005 memo refers to a letter that had contained the numbers as well. Part of the reference to the letter was redacted in the released memo.

Waterboarding is among the interrogation tactics that Obama has prohibited through an executive order.

The CIA also has admitted waterboarding Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, the first person charged in the United States for the 2000 attack on the USS Cole in Yemen that killed 17 U.S. sailors.

Obama said last week he felt comfortable releasing the classified memos because the Bush administration acknowledged using some of the practices associated with the memos, and the interrogation techniques were widely reported and have since been banned.


"Withholding these memos would only serve to deny facts that have been in the public domain for some time," Obama said in a statement. "This could contribute to an inaccurate accounting of the past, and fuel erroneous and inflammatory assumptions about actions taken by the United States."

The president applauded the work of the U.S. intelligence community and said no one who "carried out their duties relying in good faith upon legal advice from the Department of Justice" would be prosecuted.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/04/...ing/index.html

[Nausicaa]

Originally Posted by classicman2

Where did the 183 number come from - from the Red Cross?

No, it was in one of the Bradbury memos. And it cited a CIA report.

[JasonF]

Originally Posted by classicman2

Where did the 183 number come from - from the Red Cross?

Check the title of the thread.

[orangecrush]

Originally Posted by cpgator

Yet not nearly enough in my opinion...

Torture for retribution is unacceptable IMO. I would rather us kill him than torture.

[chess]

Originally Posted by orangecrush18

Torture for retribution is unacceptable IMO. I would rather us kill him than torture.

I agree 100%.

We could even try him...you know, just for fun.

You could even make it a slowish death, if it makes you feel better, but let's not change our values just for his sake.

[classicman2]

Have you all read the Army Field Manual?

Do you seriously believe that is sufficient in dealing with AQ & similar organizations?

[chess]

Originally Posted by classicman2

Have you all read the Army Field Manual?

The relevant parts, yes.

Do you seriously believe that is sufficient in dealing with AQ & similar organizations?

I don't think anybody is making that case, so I doubt you'll get much debate.

I think folks are simply putting FM 34-52 forward as a document that codifies what is and is not "torture"...or at least what's consistent with the Geneva Conventions.

Whether or not Geneva applies to AQ is another argument entirely, but I think it clearly does. The Bush admin chose to decide whether to apply Geneva according to whom we were up against. I would argue that Geneva is (or should be) a reflection of our values, and that it should apply regardless of who our enemy is.

I also think that the arguments for the effectiveness of torture as an intelligence collecting methodology are weak, and arguments that it is a deterrent are downright silly.

[orangecrush]

Originally Posted by classicman2

Have you all read the Army Field Manual?

Do you seriously believe that is sufficient in dealing with AQ & similar organizations?

I have not. I also am not entirely sure if torture works to get accurate information. I generally assume those who use it believe it works. I don't live in fantasy land where the bad guys will like us if we just try to understand them and reason with them. But I also don't want to see our interrogators torture the people they are questioning. If horrible things must be done to get accurate information, then so be it. I am just not comfortable with it and generally think we don’t need to do that.

[Heat]

Originally Posted by orangecrush18

Torture for retribution is unacceptable IMO. I would rather us kill him than torture.

It wasn't waterboarding* for retribution, it was waterboarding to get him to give out the information that he had.

And of course, it worked, providing very valuable evidence into the inner working of Al Quida. Now that he's spilled the information he is no longer being waterboarded, but of course they are seeking the death penalty against him.

* If waterboarding is really torture, it's a very mild form of torture, and I have read the accounts of torturers from Cental America during the '80s. Specifically, there were three types of people being interrogated - the weak ones who would give up the information with the threat of violence, the strong ones who would give up the information only after being beaten for a while, and the very strong ones who would only give up the information after having their eyeballs popped out with spoons. And you think waterboarding is bad?

[Nausicaa]

Originally Posted by orangecrush18

I have not. I also am not entirely sure if torture works to get accurate information. I generally assume those who use it believe it works. I don't live in fantasy land where the bad guys will like us if we just try to understand them and reason with them. But I also don't want to see our interrogators torture the people they are questioning. If horrible things must be done to get accurate information, then so be it. I am just not comfortable with it and generally think we don’t need to do that.

Specific to the cases at hand:

Abu Zubaydah had provided much valuable information under less severe treatment, and the harsher handling produced no breakthroughs, according to one former intelligence official with direct knowledge of the case. Instead, watching his torment caused great distress to his captors, the official said.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/18/wo...h.html?_r=3&hp

What I still want to know is, if the official reason these techniques aren't torture is because they don't inflict 'severe' mental or physical pain and suffering, how are they an effective means of gathering intelligence in the first place? If being water-boarded dozens of times is merely uncomfortable, why bother?