NationStates Jolt Archive

Okay, since the other thread got closed, since I found out that people had made that connection long ago, and since I'm not an American, I want to know: Is there any outrage in America right now about Bush's and Cheney's usage of torture WITH THE PURPOSE of getting faulty intel so as to get the war they so wanted?

No. There's still a mentality, evident on this very forum, that questioning Bush makes you a traitor.

Torture = BAD
Torture + Bad Intel = FAIL

No. There's still a mentality, evident on this very forum, that questioning Bush makes you a traitor.

What about outrage by, y'know, SMART people?

What about outrage by, y'know, SMART people?

Smart people are elitists. They don't speak if they know what's good for 'em.

Smart people also learn from previous experience, oh well.

there have been a string of op-eds in mainstream papers and magazines about it recently, so at least some of the elites have finally gotten around to being outraged (though a number of them have been outraged for years already). unfortunately, a lot of other wankers with platforms still seem to think that we shouldn't do anything about it because it would just be so rude and unpleasant to punish powerful people for the crimes we know they committed.

among the public, i'm not sure that fact has gotten through to a large enough segment yet. those who have heard and believe it were largely already calling for bush to be tried for war crimes, while many of those on the other side just choose not to hear and not to believe.

There's a lot of people who still think torture is effective. Dick Cheney dominates the airwaves with his nonsense, and the Dems haven't stepped up and bitch-slapped him back to an undisclosed location yet.

There's a lot of people who still think torture is effective. Dick Cheney dominates the airwaves with his nonsense, and the Dems haven't stepped up and bitch-slapped him back to an undisclosed location yet.

though since he is openly admitting to felonies regularly, i like to hold a secret hope that somebody among the dems has gamed this out and has not only given him enough rope, but gently pointed him in the direction of the lever that controls the trapdoor.

i also like to believe that this sort of thing is what is behind the obama admin seeming to say that there won't be prosecutions, knowing full well that it isn't their call and walking it back when called on it. if this is the strategy, it's a way to keep the dem leadership and obama in particular out of the process, to avoid potential political complications and even more whining from the wackjobs.

i'd like to think that that was what they were doing. but nobody has ever gotten burned assuming the democratic party as a whole is one giant clusterfuck.

No. There's still a mentality, evident on this very forum, that questioning Bush makes you a traitor.

With an extremist 20% of the U.S. population...precious few on these forums.

though since he is openly admitting to felonies regularly, i like to hold a secret hope that somebody among the dems has gamed this out and has not only given him enough rope, but gently pointed him in the direction of the lever that controls the trapdoor.

i also like to believe that this sort of thing is what is behind the obama admin seeming to say that there won't be prosecutions, knowing full well that it isn't their call and walking it back when called on it. if this is the strategy, it's a way to keep the dem leadership and obama in particular out of the process, to avoid potential political complications and even more whining from the wackjobs.

i'd like to think that that was what they were doing. but nobody has ever gotten burned assuming the democratic party as a whole is one giant clusterfuck.

IF they pull this off it'll be a Crowning Moment of Awesome. :D

I'm really hoping for prosecutions.

Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow on MSNBC have been expressing their outrage almost every night, and bringing on legal experts to discuss why prosecution should be downright mandatory under our treaty obligations. Obama's instincts are always to avoid unpleasant confrontation, but we shall see.

Okay, since the other thread got closed, since I found out that people had made that connection long ago, and since I'm not an American, I want to know: Is there any outrage in America right now about Bush's and Cheney's usage of torture WITH THE PURPOSE of getting faulty intel so as to get the war they so wanted?

Nahhh. Torture is bad. It is never good or less outrageous (although severe pain is worse than less pain and mutilation is worse than no mutilation).

Worse than the people who think that torture is still effective and save lives are those that think it matters. Does the effectiveness or ineffectiveness of torture in any way change the argument over whether it's right or wrong?

Okay, since the other thread got closed, since I found out that people had made that connection long ago, and since I'm not an American, I want to know: Is there any outrage in America right now about Bush's and Cheney's usage of torture WITH THE PURPOSE of getting faulty intel so as to get the war they so wanted?
Where did you read that the purpose of us torture was to get false confessions?

Torture is torture. I don't see why you need the reason behind it, other to really work yourself into a rage. Which probably isn't best for your mental health.

Where did you read that the purpose of us torture was to get false confessions?

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/227/story/66622.html

Report: Abusive tactics used to seek Iraq-al Qaida link

WASHINGTON — The Bush administration applied relentless pressure on interrogators to use harsh methods on detainees in part to find evidence of cooperation between al Qaida and the late Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein's regime, according to a former senior U.S. intelligence official and a former Army psychiatrist.
...
A former senior U.S. intelligence official familiar with the interrogation issue said that Cheney and former Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld demanded that the interrogators find evidence of al Qaida-Iraq collaboration.

"There were two reasons why these interrogations were so persistent, and why extreme methods were used," the former senior intelligence official said on condition of anonymity because of the issue's sensitivity.

"The main one is that everyone was worried about some kind of follow-up attack (after 9/11). But for most of 2002 and into 2003, Cheney and Rumsfeld, especially, were also demanding proof of the links between al Qaida and Iraq that (former Iraqi exile leader Ahmed) Chalabi and others had told them were there."

It was during this period that CIA interrogators waterboarded two alleged top al Qaida detainees repeatedly — Abu Zubaydah at least 83 times in August 2002 and Khalid Sheik Muhammed 183 times in March 2003 — according to a newly released Justice Department document.

"There was constant pressure on the intelligence agencies and the interrogators to do whatever it took to get that information out of the detainees, especially the few high-value ones we had, and when people kept coming up empty, they were told by Cheney's and Rumsfeld's people to push harder," he continued.

"Cheney's and Rumsfeld's people were told repeatedly, by CIA . . . and by others, that there wasn't any reliable intelligence that pointed to operational ties between bin Laden and Saddam, and that no such ties were likely because the two were fundamentally enemies, not allies."

Senior administration officials, however, "blew that off and kept insisting that we'd overlooked something, that the interrogators weren't pushing hard enough, that there had to be something more we could do to get that information," he said.

A former U.S. Army psychiatrist, Maj. Charles Burney, told Army investigators in 2006 that interrogators at the Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, detention facility were under "pressure" to produce evidence of ties between al Qaida and Iraq.

"While we were there a large part of the time we were focused on trying to establish a link between al Qaida and Iraq and we were not successful in establishing a link between al Qaida and Iraq," Burney told staff of the Army Inspector General. "The more frustrated people got in not being able to establish that link . . . there was more and more pressure to resort to measures that might produce more immediate results."

Excerpts from Burney's interview appeared in a full, declassified report on a two-year investigation into detainee abuse released on Tuesday by the Senate Armed Services Committee.
...

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/227/story/66622.html

Interesting...

However, Rumsfeld nor anybody else ever said that they found links between Iraq and Al-qaeda other from that initial source they had. Meaning either they just didn't want to tell anyone they had extra evidence, or the people they tortured never gave such "false confessions"

Also, the guy who was waterboarded 183 times, that information was used to stop the attack on Los Angeles. (according to that same report which said he was waterboarded 183 times)

Bush was not a war criminal He was just a fool who thought he would be pleasing his party by making certain decisions and hiring certain people. I've heard he actually is a nice guy to be around.

Oh Jesus, another Bush-bashing thread. I don't agree in torturing for bad intelligence, but I do agree with torturing for the sake of getting necessary information.

What about outrage by, y'know, SMART people?
Smart people don't visit NSG, nor make friends with people who visit NSG.

Oh Jesus, another Bush-bashing thread. I don't agree in torturing for bad intelligence, but I do agree with torturing for the sake of getting necessary information.

The second is immoral, even if it DID happen, which it doesn't.

Smart people don't visit NSG, nor make friends with people who visit NSG.

Case in point...

Also, the guy who was waterboarded 183 times, that information was used to stop the attack on Los Angeles. (according to that same report which said he was waterboarded 183 times)

small problem. that dude wasn't even captured until a year after said plot was foiled.

small problem. that dude wasn't even captured until a year after said plot was foiled.

Thanks to the Pentagon's time machine. ;)

Smart people don't visit NSG, nor make friends with people who visit NSG.

*pushes you into mud*

Case in point...
I'm no Newton even when sober, and when I'm in late stages of drunkenness or outright hung over, I'm clearly less than particularly smart. Otherwise I'd never post on NSG.

There's one thing smart people realize, it's that debating politics in an online forum is a pointless, obsolete instinct, that it's not going to change anything, and any other way to use the time is going to be more productive.

small problem. that dude wasn't even captured until a year after said plot was foiled.
From the report which everyone agrees is valid enough to say that people were tortured:


Both KSM and Zubaydah had ‘expressed their belief that the general U.S. population was ‘weak,’ lacked resilience and would be unable to ‘do what was necessary’ to prevent the terrorists from succeeding in their goals,’” said the memo. “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 waterboarded, KSM provided the CIA with information that allowed the U.S. government to close down a terror cell already “tasked” with flying a jet into a building in Los Angeles.

“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, referring to information CIA provided to Justice.

“You have informed us that information obtained from KSM also led to the capture of Riduan bin Isomuddin, better known as Hambali, and the discovery of the Guraba Cell, a 17-member Jemaah Islamiyah cell tasked with executing the ‘Second Wave,’” said the memo.

“More specifically, we understand that KSM admitted that he had (redaction) large sum of money to an al-Qaida associate (redaction) … . Khan subsequently identified the associate (Zubair), who was then captured,” said the memo. “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.”


It's the same source. If you doubt that they got valid information from the waterboarding, I also suggest you doubt if they were waterboarded.

From the report which everyone agrees is valid enough to say that people were tortured:

It's the same source. If you doubt that they got valid information from the waterboarding, I also suggest you doubt if they were waterboarded.

http://www.slate.com/id/2216601/

the chronology doesn't hold up

No. There's still a mentality, evident on this very forum, that questioning Bush makes you a traitor.

On the other hand it's the patriotic duty of every Real American™ to question and defy Sauron, and call for his ouster and declare him a failure at every slight pretense.

http://www.slate.com/id/2216601/

the chronology doesn't hold up

My impression from the memos is that they were able to find and arrest/detain 3 other members of the plot whom they had not captured before. (Zubair, Hambali, and al-Hadir) These three people were then able to confirm the information they had received from KSM a year earlier as being valid.

So I'm not sure why you say the chronology doesn't hold up.

My impression from the memos is that they were able to find and arrest/detain 3 other members of the plot whom they had not captured before. (Zubair, Hambali, and al-Hadir) These three people were then able to confirm the information they had received from KSM a year earlier as being valid.

So I'm not sure why you say the chronology doesn't hold up.

because confirming information that previously led to the foiling of a plot does not mean that you just now foiled the plot

also, i'll just leave this here
http://www.pubrecord.org/torture/869-conyers-nadler-formally-request-doj-appoint-torture-special-prosecutor.html

Okay, since the other thread got closed, since I found out that people had made that connection long ago, and since I'm not an American, I want to know: Is there any outrage in America right now about Bush's and Cheney's usage of torture WITH THE PURPOSE of getting faulty intel so as to get the war they so wanted?

i believe there is some. quite a bit in more liberal circles. but there's also, or appears to be, quite a few others who STILL cling to the notion of refusing to figgure that out yet.

yes, torture IS ALWAYS a MUCH better way of extracting FALSE confession then of every getting any kind of useful, let alone reliable, information.

pretending FALSE confessions aren't the real and only purpose of ever using it, is truly a self deceptive lie.

There's a lot of people who still think torture is effective. Dick Cheney dominates the airwaves with his nonsense, and the Dems haven't stepped up and bitch-slapped him back to an undisclosed location yet.

That's because, despite their denials, THEY ABSOLUTELY WERE BRIEFED on the proposed techniques ahead of time. Even if they disagreed, though the records show they were there, they didn't say anything against it then.

From the report which everyone agrees is valid enough to say that people were tortured:

It's the same source. If you doubt that they got valid information from the waterboarding, I also suggest you doubt if they were waterboarded.
Wee problem in your argument: You claim that a person was waterboarded 183 times before giving valid information and therefore this 'proves' that waterboarding is effective.
However a few points to consider:
1. Can it really be described as 'effective' when it needs to be administered 183 times before useful, valid information is retrieved? How much erroneous information that led agents on wild pointless goose chases was proffered during waterboarding #1 to #182?
2. How did they know that the information finally retrieved was genuine and useful? I can answer that one for you: They had to verify it against other information obtained through other means. Which raises the question of the usefulness of waterboarding. It's obviously going to generate more invalid data than valid and the only way they're going to know which is which is by using other, more trustworthy, research.
3. How do you know for certain that waterboarding was the reason for their confession? 183 waterboardings was done over a long period. Assuredly, they were using other interrogation methods as well during that time; many of them presumably not torturous. How do we know it wasn't one, or a combination, of the many other interrogatory methods used which elicited the useful information?