Rove "Proud" US Tortured Detainees

[Wicked Jester]

Karl Rove “Proud” U.S. Tortured Detainees | The Moderate Voice

Posted by MICHAEL STICKINGS, Assistant Editor in Politics, War.
Mar 12th, 2010 | View Comments

Karl Rove says he is “proud we used techniques that broke the will of these terrorists… Yes, I’m proud that we kept the world safer than it was, by the use of these techniques. They’re appropriate, they’re in conformity with our international requirements and with US law.”

Of course, the U.S. did a lot of nasty things to its detainees, at Abu Ghraib and elsewhere, and a lot of what it did amounted to torture as defined by any decent human being.

What Rove was specifically focusing on, though, was waterboarding, which he does not consider torture. This is how they get around it. Bush repeatedly said the U.S. doesn’t torture, but it only doesn’t torture if you don’t consider waterboarding torture. It’s just a form of “enhanced interrogation,” a horrible euphemism.

But it is simply incorrect to assert that what the U.S. did conforms with “international requirements” (under the Geneva Conventions) and American law. Unless, of course, in this case, you define waterboarding down — that is, unless you lie about what waterboarding is.

Well, a lot has been written about waterboarding, including by some who have experienced it, but Mark Benjamin’s recent “Waterboarding for dummies” piece at Salon graphically exposed the brutal truth about waterboarding and the use thereof by U.S. interrogators. It’s a must-read, though a deeply disturbing one.

It’s hardly the harmless “dunk in the water” Cheney said it was:

Why wouldn't he be?

After all, torturing Abu Zubaydah, a schizophrenic AQ travel agent falsely represented as "the number three man in Al Qaeda,"gave us all those great terror warnings in 2002 that were all complete bunk.

And torturing Sheikh al Libi gave us the "evidence" that Iraq and Al Qaeda were working together on chem weapons, evidence used in Powell's UN presentation and the 2003 State of the Union. Of course, al Libi was passionately anti-Ba'athist and most likely did it on purpose, but hey.

And don't forget that waterboarding KSM helped stop a terrorist attack that was foiled a year before he was captured.

Pol Pot was a dictator that liked to get people to confess for various crimes, not because they were guilty, but because they were threats to his rule, and he wanted them executed or in jail.

He then researched the best way to get a false confession out of someone, and found out that waterboarding would consistently yield results.

Figures that Bush Jr. and Cheney would use the same technique........after all, they DID have to sell WMD's and Saddam's connection with AQ before the nation would get involved.

Shall we get out the montage of dem's selling the WMD, AQ connection?

Or how about I once again throw Sadaam's own confessions to interrogators in everybody's face yet again.

LMAO!

Fact is, we haven't tortured!

What Pol Pot or the Japanese did, WAS TORTURE. The teqniques they used are a world away from the way we do it. And that's a fact.

 

[mal]

Karl Rove “Proud” U.S. Tortured Detainees | The Moderate Voice

Posted by MICHAEL STICKINGS, Assistant Editor in Politics, War.
Mar 12th, 2010 | View Comments

Karl Rove says he is “proud we used techniques that broke the will of these terrorists… Yes, I’m proud that we kept the world safer than it was, by the use of these techniques. They’re appropriate, they’re in conformity with our international requirements and with US law.”

Of course, the U.S. did a lot of nasty things to its detainees, at Abu Ghraib and elsewhere, and a lot of what it did amounted to torture as defined by any decent human being.

What Rove was specifically focusing on, though, was waterboarding, which he does not consider torture. This is how they get around it. Bush repeatedly said the U.S. doesn’t torture, but it only doesn’t torture if you don’t consider waterboarding torture. It’s just a form of “enhanced interrogation,” a horrible euphemism.

But it is simply incorrect to assert that what the U.S. did conforms with “international requirements” (under the Geneva Conventions) and American law. Unless, of course, in this case, you define waterboarding down — that is, unless you lie about what waterboarding is.

Well, a lot has been written about waterboarding, including by some who have experienced it, but Mark Benjamin’s recent “Waterboarding for dummies” piece at Salon graphically exposed the brutal truth about waterboarding and the use thereof by U.S. interrogators. It’s a must-read, though a deeply disturbing one.

It’s hardly the harmless “dunk in the water” Cheney said it was:

You're Thread Title is Misleading...

That is NOT what Rove said he was Proud of...

But you Know this.



peace...

 

[CMike]

Letting the terrorist attacks occur and allowing thousands of americans to be murdered is what would be immoral.

For what? To keep 3 arch terrorists who were taunting interrogators from being waterboarded? That is sick IMO.

 

[ihopehefails]

Don't you ever back any of your statements up with anything other than name calling and personal rage. It's a shame the world is so different than the myopic way you see it. Must be awfully frightening.

What would you like me to back up?

What have you backed up?

Why don't you answer the question?

"Search your soul and tell me that you would rather we had another 9-11 type attack instead"

Come on rdean, tell us that your image of us is more important than saving lives.

Once again you make the assertion that torture stops attacks without any evidence.

Funny, everyone water-boarded calls it torture. Only behind the desk chicken hawks say it's not. I prefer to believe those who have actually been waterboarded. And don't lie and say you have been.

Would it matter if it was torture as much as it would matter if it was constitutional? I believe the constitution 'general welfare' clause gives the US government the right to torture for the purpose of the 'general welfare'.

 

[DE3]

So, what I am getting here is that it is okay to torture if it may save some American lives.

All of the reports show that we did not know if it would save American lives. They also show that we did not prevent another imminent attack. They also show that we did gain what is considered to be a greater understanding of how al-qaeda operates.

So, does understanding more about your enemy justify torture?

 

[boedicca]

So, what I am getting here is that it is okay to torture if it may save some American lives.

All of the reports show that we did not know if it would save American lives. They also show that we did not prevent another imminent attack. They also show that we did gain what is considered to be a greater understanding of how al-qaeda operates.

So, does understanding more about your enemy justify torture?

That's not true. The information acquired via waterboarding was used to thwart planned attacks. We have not had the equivalent of another 9/11.

 

[Wicked Jester]

So, what I am getting here is that it is okay to torture if it may save some American lives.

All of the reports show that we did not know if it would save American lives. They also show that we did not prevent another imminent attack. They also show that we did gain what is considered to be a greater understanding of how al-qaeda operates.

So, does understanding more about your enemy justify torture?

We haven't tortured so, your argument is completely moot.

Let's just hope that it's all you bleeding heart lil' sympathizers who are running down the streets with your asses on fire the next time they pull off an attack. And they will pull off another attack. It's inevitable.

 

[DE3]

So, what I am getting here is that it is okay to torture if it may save some American lives.

All of the reports show that we did not know if it would save American lives. They also show that we did not prevent another imminent attack. They also show that we did gain what is considered to be a greater understanding of how al-qaeda operates.

So, does understanding more about your enemy justify torture?

We haven't tortured so, your argument is completely moot.

Let's just hope that it's all you bleeding heart lil' sympathizers who are running down the streets with your asses on fire the next time they pull off an attack. And they will pull off another attack. It's inevitable.

"We haven't tortured."

I don't think you have any supporting evidence to back up that statement. We have prosecuted the act at home and abroad.

Bleeding heart? Uh, no.

You didn't answer the question.

So, does understanding more about your enemy justify torture?

 

[DE3]

So, what I am getting here is that it is okay to torture if it may save some American lives.

All of the reports show that we did not know if it would save American lives. They also show that we did not prevent another imminent attack. They also show that we did gain what is considered to be a greater understanding of how al-qaeda operates.

So, does understanding more about your enemy justify torture?

That's not true. The information acquired via waterboarding was used to thwart planned attacks. We have not had the equivalent of another 9/11.

No, it did not thwart any planned attacks.

 

[boedicca]

So, does understanding more about your enemy justify torture?

What a bogus question.

Understanding what? What his favorite color is?

Calling enhanced interrogation torture demeans the real victims of torture.

 

[DE3]

The CIA inspector general in 2004 found that there was no conclusive proof that waterboarding or other harsh interrogation techniques helped the Bush administration thwart any "specific imminent attacks," according to recently declassified Justice Department memos.

Helgerson also concluded that waterboarding was riskier than officials claimed and reported that the CIA's Office of Medical Services thought that the risk to the health of some prisoners outweighed any potential intelligence benefit, according to the memos.

Read more: CIA official: No proof harsh techniques stopped terror attacks | McClatchy

 

[DE3]

So, does understanding more about your enemy justify torture?

What a bogus question.

Understanding what? What his favorite color is?

Calling enhanced interrogation torture demeans the real victims of torture.

No it doesn't. Just because there are varying levels of torture does not diminish the perhaps less gruesome methods from being torture. Secondly, it does not demean anyone who was subjected to harsher methods.

Your statement makes no logical sense.

 

[DE3]

Oh, and I would like to add that after the CIA Inspector General's report waterboarding was stopped in 2004.

The FBI refused to waterboard because they deemed it torture.

 

[boedicca]

No, it did not thwart any planned attacks.

You have provided no evidence to support that claim. Former Bush administration officials have claimed they did. You can claim they are liars, but they do have access to a great deal of classified info. And the fact that we had no major attacks on U.S. soil after 9/11 and during the rest of their watch supports their claims.

 

[DE3]

No, it did not thwart any planned attacks.

You have provided no evidence to support that claim. Former Bush administration officials have claimed they did. You can claim they are liars, but they do have access to a great deal of classified info. And the fact that we had no major attacks on U.S. soil after 9/11 and during the rest of their watch supports their claims.

The CIA report which largely has been declassified says there is no evidence that it thwarted any attacks. I linked the article on the report you can find the report online.

The FBI director has stated they did not prevent any attacks as well.

I ask Mueller: So far as he is aware, have any attacks on America been disrupted thanks to intelligence obtained through what the administration still calls “enhanced techniques”?

“I’m really reluctant to answer that,” Mueller says. He pauses, looks at an aide, and then says quietly, declining to elaborate: “I don’t believe that has been the case.”

Flashback: Bush’s FBI Director Said Torture Didn’t Foil Any Terror Plots | The Plum Line

He also later stated that his statement was correct.

 

[DE3]

FBI: Interrogation tactics might be illegal

WASHINGTON (AP) — FBI Director Robert Mueller on Wednesday recalled warning the Justice Department and the Pentagon that some U.S. interrogation methods used against terrorists might be inappropriate, if not illegal.


FBI protocol "wouldn't engage in torture," said Rep. Stephen Cohen, D-Tenn. "But if you find out that other agencies may engage in torture, that you believe is illegal — does your protocol include informing those agencies that you believe their actions are illegal?"

"Yes," Mueller answered.

"Who did you inform?" Cohen asked.

"At points in time, we have reached out to DoD, DoJ, in terms of activity that we were concerned might not be appropriate, let me put it that way," Mueller said. DoD refers to the Department of Defense and DoJ to the Department of Justice.

Mueller said some of the FBI's concerns dated back to 2002, when top al-Qaeda detainees were waterboarded by CIA interrogators.


FBI: Interrogation tactics might be illegal - USATODAY.com

 

[DE3]

And again, if waterboarding was so perfectly fine, legal, and useful, why the the Bush administration stop the practice in 2004?

 

[bodecea]

Hmmmm...they chop the heads off of civilians.

We waterboard them to find out who they are planning to kill next.

The two are not morally equalivent.

No, we torture them as revenge...

 

[bodecea]

And again, if waterboarding was so perfectly fine, legal, and useful, why the the Bush administration stop the practice in 2004?

And why hasn't Hannity done his waterboarding for charity yet?

 

[mal]

Hmmmm...they chop the heads off of civilians.

We waterboard them to find out who they are planning to kill next.

The two are not morally equalivent.

No, we torture them as revenge...

Wrong.



peace...