Whoops! CIA Man Retracts Claim on Waterboarding

[Queen]

I believe that we were justified in the use of enhanced measures, and I believe they were only used when it was thought that lives could be saved.

Obviously your belief is wrong, since we waterboarded him 83 times in one month. How many times per day is that? That's not intelligence gathering, that's punishment.

 

[Queen]

We used water boarding on 3 people. Supposedly we received some valuable information from them that probably saved American lives. At the time it was sanctioned by the Government, now it isn't. I don't know about this former agent and why he would lie. Obviously we cannot believe anything he says now.

I believe that we were justified in the use of enhanced measures, and I believe they were only used when it was thought that lives could be saved.

At least be honest and call it what it is: torture.

I know, that's such a lame copout. Calling torture enhanced interrogation. It's a "dark side" Cheney thing. It's the cowards way.

 

[Coyote]

We used water boarding on 3 people. Supposedly we received some valuable information from them that probably saved American lives. At the time it was sanctioned by the Government, now it isn't. I don't know about this former agent and why he would lie. Obviously we cannot believe anything he says now.

I believe that we were justified in the use of enhanced measures, and I believe they were only used when it was thought that lives could be saved.

At least be honest and call it what it is: torture.

I know, that's such a lame copout. Calling torture enhanced interrogation. It's a "dark side" Cheney thing. It's the cowards way.

Yes. If you are going to defend it, call it what it is and stand up for it.

 

[Coyote]

oh no... Sonofabitch first Class insists that it's just "Enhanced Measures". See how that works?

It's jargon. It's a way of making something abhorant sound...benign. Like friendly fire. It's impossible to have an honest discussion on whether or not it should be used if you can't even be honest enough to call it what it is.

You see coyote that's where so many of us disagree. It is torture to force water into someones stomach and then beat their stomachs, Which is what the Japanese did during WW2. We place our own troops under water boarding as a matter of training. And it is not as easy as some people want you to believe. They cannot quit after a few seconds. I have never done it as I was not Special Forces. But I have friends who were special forces and I'm glad there are men like them out there. Because I'll admit I sure as hell do not want to go through what they do.

Ollie...I respect many of your views, but disagree here. Waterboarding is torture and every description I have read of it - including the words of those who went through it agree - it is torture. Even though we put certain specialists throught it - that doesn't mean it isn't torture.
One big difference about what Special Forces training does and what is done to prisoners is this: they KNOW that they are in friendly hands and they KNOW they will not be killed. Big difference deep down.

The fact that they used it on so few prisoners speaks volumes doesn't it? What ever they called .... "enhanced interrogation techniques" (that's the PC version) - they knew exactly what it was they were inflicting. John McCain - a man who surely knows what he is talking about called it torture.

If you are going to defend it as a means of getting important information then call it what it is and don't pretend it's simply interrogation.

 

[PatekPhilippe]

One big difference about what Special Forces training does and what is done to prisoners is this: they KNOW that they are in friendly hands and they KNOW they will not be killed. Big difference deep down.

Sorry...you are mistaken and you CANNOT speak for us who have attended SERE as you haven't served. You are entitled to your opinion but don't place your misguided liberalspeak you read on some website into our mouths...OK?

 

[rightwinger]

It's jargon. It's a way of making something abhorant sound...benign. Like friendly fire. It's impossible to have an honest discussion on whether or not it should be used if you can't even be honest enough to call it what it is.

You see coyote that's where so many of us disagree. It is torture to force water into someones stomach and then beat their stomachs, Which is what the Japanese did during WW2. We place our own troops under water boarding as a matter of training. And it is not as easy as some people want you to believe. They cannot quit after a few seconds. I have never done it as I was not Special Forces. But I have friends who were special forces and I'm glad there are men like them out there. Because I'll admit I sure as hell do not want to go through what they do.

Ollie...I respect many of your views, but disagree here. Waterboarding is torture and every description I have read of it - including the words of those who went through it agree - it is torture. Even though we put certain specialists throught it - that doesn't mean it isn't torture.
One big difference about what Special Forces training does and what is done to prisoners is this: they KNOW that they are in friendly hands and they KNOW they will not be killed. Big difference deep down.

The fact that they used it on so few prisoners speaks volumes doesn't it? What ever they called .... "enhanced interrogation techniques" (that's the PC version) - they knew exactly what it was they were inflicting. John McCain - a man who surely knows what he is talking about called it torture.

If you are going to defend it as a means of getting important information then call it what it is and don't pretend it's simply interrogation.

Torture is the act of a coward. They hide behind code words, rationalizations and excuses.

It is always the fault of the person being tortured. He deserved it, we did it to save lives....its not torture if we don't leave marks

 

[PatekPhilippe]

while we're at it...please cite the specific U.S. Statute where it specifically says "waterboarding is torture".

 

[SFC Ollie]

Impressive post. Call it anything you like. But it's this present Administration that has really mastered doublespeak, or dare we say "Newspeak"?

Either way, torture or enhanced interrogation, it still worked and saved innocent American lives.

And it still isn't anywhere near as inhumane as what our troops have been subjected to.

 

[Coyote]

One big difference about what Special Forces training does and what is done to prisoners is this: they KNOW that they are in friendly hands and they KNOW they will not be killed. Big difference deep down.

Sorry...you are mistaken and you CANNOT speak for us who have attended SERE as you haven't served. You are entitled to your opinion but don't place your misguided liberalspeak you read on some website into our mouths...OK?

Bullshit. I will say what I want to say and quite frankly, it is no more misguided then your attempt to make waterboarding sound like simply another interrogation technique. Unlike you, I at least link to someone who speaks of this training first hand, so no - this is not my "misguided liberalspeak". I imagine you think that John McCain is similarly misguided?

And, since you have never been President of the U.S. .... why do you think you can speak for what goes on in the White House?

 

[Coyote]

Impressive post. Call it anything you like. But it's this present Administration that has really mastered doublespeak, or dare we say "Newspeak"?

Either way, torture or enhanced interrogation, it still worked and saved innocent American lives.

And it still isn't anywhere near as inhumane as what our troops have been subjected to.

No more so than any other Administration. It's what politicians do.

 

[Coyote]

while we're at it...please cite the specific U.S. Statute where it specifically says "waterboarding is torture".

Specifically huh?

US CODE: Title 18,2340. Definitions

Of course it doesn't specifically define waterboarding yet waterboarding falls within that definition.

But then hey...it doesn't specifically say
cutting off your head with a dull knife
inserting slivers under your fingernails
drawling and quartering you
putting you to the rack
mutilating your genitals
raping your children

or any of a dozen things are torture either.

 

[SFC Ollie]

while we're at it...please cite the specific U.S. Statute where it specifically says "waterboarding is torture".

Specifically huh?

US CODE: Title 18,2340. Definitions

Of course it doesn't specifically define waterboarding yet waterboarding falls within that definition.

But then hey...it doesn't specifically say
cutting off your head with a dull knife
inserting slivers under your fingernails
drawling and quartering you
putting you to the rack
mutilating your genitals
raping your children

or any of a dozen things are torture either.

Did you notice the disclaimer?

"(1) “torture” means an act committed by a person acting under the color of law specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions) upon another person within his custody or physical control; "

So right back to square one, what is lawful sanctions?

 

[Coyote]

while we're at it...please cite the specific U.S. Statute where it specifically says "waterboarding is torture".

Specifically huh?

US CODE: Title 18,2340. Definitions

Of course it doesn't specifically define waterboarding yet waterboarding falls within that definition.

But then hey...it doesn't specifically say
cutting off your head with a dull knife
inserting slivers under your fingernails
drawling and quartering you
putting you to the rack
mutilating your genitals
raping your children

or any of a dozen things are torture either.

Did you notice the disclaimer?

"(1) “torture” means an act committed by a person acting under the color of law specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions) upon another person within his custody or physical control; "

So right back to square one, what is lawful sanctions?

It does not provide a definition of "lawful sanctions" which gives it a nice loophole for condoning torture.

But - does that make it "not torture"? Was McCain "not tortured" because what was done to him was lawful under the laws of those that did it?

Is that the only definition of torture? If so, then the definition of "torture" has more to do with semantical weaseling than any reality and that is discouraging and dishonest. Discouraging because it means as far as the apologists are concerned - nothing is torture.

What is the difference between that and what the Japanese did and what the Vietnamese did except a matter of degree and of who is in the position of power? That is not a road I'd like our country to travel down.

What is worth preserving then?

 

[PatekPhilippe]

Bullshit. I will say what I want to say and quite frankly, it is no more misguided then your attempt to make waterboarding sound like simply another interrogation technique.

and I said you're entitled to your own opinion and don't put words in my fucking mouth!!!! Learn how to read.
misguided interpretations are certainly what's got us into the situation we are in today...wouldn't you agree? Yet no where in a U.S. statute do you find where it specifically states that watwerboarding is torture...isn't that so Coyote? But your real quick to play lawyer and say it does belong there and then we see NOT A SINGLE PERSON has been charged with any waterboarding "crime" arising out the interrogations of Al Qaeda prisoners. Hmmmmmm...I wonder why that is? looks like the law is on my side. Not yours.

Have a nice day.

 

[Coyote]

Bullshit. I will say what I want to say and quite frankly, it is no more misguided then your attempt to make waterboarding sound like simply another interrogation technique.

and I said you're entitled to your own opinion and don't put words in my fucking mouth!!!!

Don't put words in my mouth then.

Learn how to read.
misguided interpretations are certainly what's got us into the situation we are in today...wouldn't you agree? Yet no where in a U.S. statute do you find where it specifically states that watwerboarding is torture...isn't that so Coyote? But your real quick to play lawyer and say it does belong there and then we see NOT A SINGLE PERSON has been charged with any waterboarding "crime" arising out the interrogations of Al Qaeda prisoners. Hmmmmmm...I wonder why that is? looks like the law is on my side. Not yours.

Have a nice day.

The "Law" may be on your side, but if it is PatekePhillipe - does that make it right? The way it sounds, it's perfectly legal for us to:
use red-hot metal to sear the flesh and mutilate the bodies of the accused
how about the infamous "witch's-chair" which contained hundreds of spikes and needles that would pierce the skin of the accused everywhere their skin touched the chair (and, if they wouldn't confess, straps would be tightened causing deeper penetration)
do what the Japanese did in WW2
do what the Vietnamese did to their prisoners

In fact - what would NOT be legal under the guise of "lawful sanctions"?

Yet despite that, water boarding was designated as illegal by U.S. generals in Vietnam over 40 years ago.

A photograph that appeared in The Washington Post of a U.S. soldier involved in water boarding a North Vietnamese prisoner in 1968 led to that soldier's severe punishment.

"The soldier who participated in water torture in January 1968 was court-martialed within one month after the photos appeared in The Washington Post, and he was drummed out of the Army," recounted Darius Rejali, a political science professor at Reed College.

Earlier in 1901, the United States had taken a similar stand against water boarding during the Spanish-American War when an Army major was sentenced to 10 years of hard labor for water boarding an insurgent in the Philippines.

"Even when you're fighting against belligerents who don't respect the laws of war, we are obliged to hold the laws of war," said Rejali. "And water torture is torture."

So regardless of what the "law" reads - which is majorly ambiguous with that huge loophole - at least be honest and call it what it is if you are going to defend the practice and "neccessity" of torture. I do not think many who have been subjected to it, would say otherwise.

 

[PatekPhilippe]

Bullshit. I will say what I want to say and quite frankly, it is no more misguided then your attempt to make waterboarding sound like simply another interrogation technique.

and I said you're entitled to your own opinion and don't put words in my fucking mouth!!!!

Don't put words in my mouth then.

Learn how to read.
misguided interpretations are certainly what's got us into the situation we are in today...wouldn't you agree? Yet no where in a U.S. statute do you find where it specifically states that watwerboarding is torture...isn't that so Coyote? But your real quick to play lawyer and say it does belong there and then we see NOT A SINGLE PERSON has been charged with any waterboarding "crime" arising out the interrogations of Al Qaeda prisoners. Hmmmmmm...I wonder why that is? looks like the law is on my side. Not yours.

Have a nice day.

The "Law" may be on your side, but if it is PatekePhillipe - does that make it right? The way it sounds, it's perfectly legal for us to:
use red-hot metal to sear the flesh and mutilate the bodies of the accused
how about the infamous "witch's-chair" which contained hundreds of spikes and needles that would pierce the skin of the accused everywhere their skin touched the chair (and, if they wouldn't confess, straps would be tightened causing deeper penetration)
do what the Japanese did in WW2
do what the Vietnamese did to their prisoners

In fact - what would NOT be legal under the guise of "lawful sanctions"?

Yet despite that, water boarding was designated as illegal by U.S. generals in Vietnam over 40 years ago.

A photograph that appeared in The Washington Post of a U.S. soldier involved in water boarding a North Vietnamese prisoner in 1968 led to that soldier's severe punishment.

"The soldier who participated in water torture in January 1968 was court-martialed within one month after the photos appeared in The Washington Post, and he was drummed out of the Army," recounted Darius Rejali, a political science professor at Reed College.

Earlier in 1901, the United States had taken a similar stand against water boarding during the Spanish-American War when an Army major was sentenced to 10 years of hard labor for water boarding an insurgent in the Philippines.

"Even when you're fighting against belligerents who don't respect the laws of war, we are obliged to hold the laws of war," said Rejali. "And water torture is torture."

So regardless of what the "law" reads - which is majorly ambiguous with that huge loophole - at least be honest and call it what it is if you are going to defend the practice and "neccessity" of torture. I do not think many who have been subjected to it, would say otherwise.

Torture has specific definitions in codified U.S. Law. Waterboarding DID NOT fall under any of those laws. If it did, Obama wouldn't have had to ban it now would he? You can argue all you want over semantics but clearly the law will have to be adhered to. In this case prior to Obama specifically outlawing the interrogation method, it was legal. SERE school started in the 1950's. Students were waterboarded there for 60 years. It wasn't illegal. Time to move on...this won't win any more elections for the progressives.

 

[Coyote]

Torture is torture whether it is illegal or not.

 

[CMike]

Tsk tsk you have to read what the article says.

He didn't say that the terrorist didn't give up the information.

He said that he wasn't there. He only heard what happened. That doesn't mean that it didn't happen.

From the OP's link.

What I told Brian Ross in late 2007 was wrong on a couple counts," he writes. "I suggested that Abu Zubaydah had lasted only thirty or thirty-five seconds during his waterboarding before he begged his interrogators to stop; after that, I said he opened up and gave the agency actionable intelligence."

But never mind, he says now.

"I wasn't there when the interrogation took place; instead, I relied on what I'd heard and read inside the agency at the time."

 

[CMike]

A CIA memo declassified by Obama confirmed what happened.

The terrorists were uncooperative, when asked about further terrorist attacks, they responded "soon, you will know."

Only after being waterboarded did they reveal information that stopped a planned terrorist attack of a Los Angeles building.

The link below is to the actual CIA declassified memo.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/nation/pdf/OLCmemo_May30_Part1.pdf?sid=ST2009041602877

 

[CMike]

CNSNews.com - CIA Confirms: Waterboarding 9/11 Mastermind Led to Info that Aborted 9/11-Style 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.
CNSNews.com - CIA Confirms: Waterboarding 9/11 Mastermind Led to Info that Aborted 9/11-Style Attack on Los Angeles

“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