The excrement intersects the ventilator...

[Bullypulpit]

It would seem that, despite its claims to the contrary, they Bush administration had information and advice that the use of torture was counter productive. But history has borne that out repeatedly. The memo cited by the Levin report is the Joint Personnel Recovery Agency, which is responsible for SERE training for US forces.

The JPRA memo states it thus:

The key operational deficits related to the use of torture is its impact on the
reliability and accuracy of the information provided. If an interrogator produces information that
resulted from the application of physical and psychological duress, the reliability and accuracy of
this information is in doubt. In other words, a subject in extreme pain may provide an answer,
any answer, or many answers in order to get the pain to stop.

BUt, of course there are those syncophants, cronies, apologists and former members of the Bush administration who continue to forward the notion that in a "ticking time bomb" scenario, torture would provide the needed intel in the most expeditious manner. The JPRA memo contradicts this notion...

The requirement to obtain information from an uncooperative source as quickly as
possible-in time to prevent, for example, an impending terrorist attack that could result in loss
oflife-has been forwarded as a compelling argument for the use of torture. Conceptually,
proponents envision the application of torture as a means to expedite the exploitation process. In
essence, physical and/or psychological duress are viewed as an alternative to the more time consuming
conventional interrogation process. The error inherent in this line of thinking is the
assumption that, through torture, the interrogator can extract reliable and accurate intelligence.
History and a consideration of human behavior would appear to refute this assumption.

This memo did not see the light of day until it was released yesterday.

And then there was Phillip Zelikow, a counselor at the Department of State, and a deputy to Secretary Rice, from 2005-2007. Upon gaining access to the Bybee/Yoo memos in 2005, he wrote a brief declaring the positions in those memos to be gravely flawed. He went on to say,

At the time, in 2005, I circulated an opposing view of the legal reasoning. My bureaucratic position, as counselor to the secretary of state, didn't entitle me to offer a legal opinion. But I felt obliged to put an alternative view in front of my colleagues at other agencies, warning them that other lawyers (and judges) might find the OLC views unsustainable. My colleagues were entitled to ignore my views. They did more than that: The White House attempted to collect and destroy all copies of my memo. I expect that one or two are still at least in the State Department's archives.

This active suppression of dissenting opinion was nothing new to the Bush administration. Knowing as they did, however, that the use of torture in interrogations produces unreliable information leave one to wonder at the true motives of the Bush administration in pursuing this policy of deliberate policy of torture. One of the key uses of torture throughout history has been to elicit confessions...false confessions...which is why any evidence obtained through such coercive measures is inadmissible in courts of law. How much of this activity by the Bush administration was aimed at securing just such false confessions? Confessions aimed at establishing a link between 9/11 and Iraq that did not exist...A link to further justify the US invasion of Iraq.

This is why Dick Cheney is opening his foetid pie-hole in an attempt to head off any investigation into the matter. This is why Cheney is asking for the very narrow declassification and release of information about the supposed efficacy of torture, even as his timeline on the matter doesn't coincide with the actual progression of events. Cheney, being the fear driven little bastard that he is, is scared shitless that he and/or his undelings will be hed accountable for their actions.

 

[Skull Pilot]

except none of the interrogation techniques now banned by obama caused extreme pain did they?

 

[Bullypulpit]

except none of the interrogation techniques now banned by obama caused extreme pain did they?

Would you care to provide documentation supporting the baseless right wing talking points you keep mindlessly repeating Skull Merkin?

 

[Skull Pilot]

except none of the interrogation techniques now banned by obama caused extreme pain did they?

Would you care to provide documentation supporting the baseless right wing talking points you keep mindlessly repeating Skull Merkin?

you're the one implying that extreme pain was caused, not me. You prove that there was pain caused by the ten techniques that were used at Gitmo.

And may I ask what your obsession is with pubic wigs? Or shall I just call you Bully Pulls It?

 

[PoliticalChic]

It would seem that, despite its claims to the contrary, they Bush administration had information and advice that the use of torture was counter productive. But history has borne that out repeatedly. The memo cited by the Levin report is the Joint Personnel Recovery Agency, which is responsible for SERE training for US forces.

The JPRA memo states it thus:

The key operational deficits related to the use of torture is its impact on the
reliability and accuracy of the information provided. If an interrogator produces information that
resulted from the application of physical and psychological duress, the reliability and accuracy of
this information is in doubt. In other words, a subject in extreme pain may provide an answer,
any answer, or many answers in order to get the pain to stop.

BUt, of course there are those syncophants, cronies, apologists and former members of the Bush administration who continue to forward the notion that in a "ticking time bomb" scenario, torture would provide the needed intel in the most expeditious manner. The JPRA memo contradicts this notion...

The requirement to obtain information from an uncooperative source as quickly as
possible-in time to prevent, for example, an impending terrorist attack that could result in loss
oflife-has been forwarded as a compelling argument for the use of torture. Conceptually,
proponents envision the application of torture as a means to expedite the exploitation process. In
essence, physical and/or psychological duress are viewed as an alternative to the more time consuming
conventional interrogation process. The error inherent in this line of thinking is the
assumption that, through torture, the interrogator can extract reliable and accurate intelligence.
History and a consideration of human behavior would appear to refute this assumption.

This memo did not see the light of day until it was released yesterday.

And then there was Phillip Zelikow, a counselor at the Department of State, and a deputy to Secretary Rice, from 2005-2007. Upon gaining access to the Bybee/Yoo memos in 2005, he wrote a brief declaring the positions in those memos to be gravely flawed. He went on to say,

At the time, in 2005, I circulated an opposing view of the legal reasoning. My bureaucratic position, as counselor to the secretary of state, didn't entitle me to offer a legal opinion. But I felt obliged to put an alternative view in front of my colleagues at other agencies, warning them that other lawyers (and judges) might find the OLC views unsustainable. My colleagues were entitled to ignore my views. They did more than that: The White House attempted to collect and destroy all copies of my memo. I expect that one or two are still at least in the State Department's archives.

This active suppression of dissenting opinion was nothing new to the Bush administration. Knowing as they did, however, that the use of torture in interrogations produces unreliable information leave one to wonder at the true motives of the Bush administration in pursuing this policy of deliberate policy of torture. One of the key uses of torture throughout history has been to elicit confessions...false confessions...which is why any evidence obtained through such coercive measures is inadmissible in courts of law. How much of this activity by the Bush administration was aimed at securing just such false confessions? Confessions aimed at establishing a link between 9/11 and Iraq that did not exist...A link to further justify the US invasion of Iraq.

This is why Dick Cheney is opening his foetid pie-hole in an attempt to head off any investigation into the matter. This is why Cheney is asking for the very narrow declassification and release of information about the supposed efficacy of torture, even as his timeline on the matter doesn't coincide with the actual progression of events. Cheney, being the fear driven little bastard that he is, is scared shitless that he and/or his undelings will be hed accountable for their actions.

WASHINGTON - President Obama’s national intelligence director told colleagues in a private memo last week that the harsh interrogation techniques banned by the White House did produce significant information that helped the nation in its struggle with terrorists.
NYT: Harsh techniques worked, intel chief says - White House- msnbc.com

 

[Truthmatters]

William Krystle thought that too until he was waterboarded by people who he knew would not let him be harmed (unlike detainees) and after 20 seconds he changed his mind about it not being torture.

 

[Skull Pilot]

William Krystle thought that too until he was waterboarded by people who he knew would not let him be harmed (unlike detainees) and after 20 seconds he changed his mind about it not being torture.

Not the point. The point is that Bully pulls It is implying that extreme pain is ineefective yet the ten aggressive interrogation techniques outlined in the NYT did not cause extreme pain.

 

[Truthmatters]

WASHINGTON - President Obama’s national intelligence director told colleagues in a private memo last week that the harsh interrogation techniques banned by the White House did produce significant information that helped the nation in its struggle with terrorists.
NYT: Harsh techniques worked, intel chief says - White House- msnbc.com[/QUOTE]


Every expert on interigations will tell you that the effect of torturing people for intel is intell which a mixture of lies, say anything to make it stop and a smatterihng of truth.

Then you can NO LONGER go back and get the MOST reliable intell that standard interogations provide.

The subject then will never be won over by the Most efficient type of gathering which involves outsmarting them with various types of pshycological methods.

If waterboarding works so well why the hell did they have to do in 186 times it one guy?

 

[Truthmatters]

William Krystle thought that too until he was waterboarded by people who he knew would not let him be harmed (unlike detainees) and after 20 seconds he changed his mind about it not being torture.

Not the point. The point is that Bully pulls It is implying that extreme pain is ineefective yet the ten aggressive interrogation techniques outlined in the NYT did not cause extreme pain.

Torture doesnt work, is an international war crime, its a crime we have prosicuted our own soldiers for, official government memos have caterogised it as torture and the only ones saying its not are the people who will likely go to prison (or support for political reasons the people who will go to prison) when the trials are done.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Bully, you have made a claim. You have claimed that the procedures used by the Bush Team, as you put it, involved EXTREME PAIN. It is now incumbent on YOU to prove your claim. It is NOT our job to disprove it.

And for the KICKER? PROVE the techniques were against the law when used. And no sorry, AFTER the fact does not count, you see in this Country you can not make retroactive Laws.

THEN explain why every member of the Democratic caucus that was on the Intel committee at the House AND the Senate had ZERO problems with the 10 listed techniques. For several YEARS.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

William Krystle thought that too until he was waterboarded by people who he knew would not let him be harmed (unlike detainees) and after 20 seconds he changed his mind about it not being torture.

Not the point. The point is that Bully pulls It is implying that extreme pain is ineefective yet the ten aggressive interrogation techniques outlined in the NYT did not cause extreme pain.

Torture doesnt work, is an international war crime, its a crime we have prosicuted our own soldiers for, official government memos have caterogised it as torture and the only ones saying its not are the people who will likely go to prison (or support for political reasons the people who will go to prison) when the trials are done.

NONE of the 10 procedures were illegal at the time they were used. Most still are NOT. If you can provide actual EVIDENCE they were a Crime in the US BEFORE they were used trot it out. Treaties are VERY SPECIFIC, provide evidence that any of the 10 were specifically banned by any treaty we are a member of WHILE we were using them.

 

[Skull Pilot]

WASHINGTON - President Obama’s national intelligence director told colleagues in a private memo last week that the harsh interrogation techniques banned by the White House did produce significant information that helped the nation in its struggle with terrorists.
NYT: Harsh techniques worked, intel chief says - White House- msnbc.com

Every expert on interigations will tell you that the effect of torturing people for intel is intell which a mixture of lies, say anything to make it stop and a smatterihng of truth.

Then you can NO LONGER go back and get the MOST reliable intell that standard interogations provide.

The subject then will never be won over by the Most efficient type of gathering which involves outsmarting them with various types of pshycological methods.

If waterboarding works so well why the hell did they have to do in 186 times it one guy?[/QUOTE]

you do realize that one second of water boarding can be called an incident? So the total time he was actually water boarded, was probably just minutes and not the hours and days that most people imply.

But why this obsession with only one of the now banned techniques? Do you agree that sleep deprivation is torture? How about grabbing someone's shirt? Or slapping someone's belly with an open hand? Feeding them bland tasteless food?, Sitting them in a hot or cold room?

 

[Bullypulpit]

William Krystle thought that too until he was waterboarded by people who he knew would not let him be harmed (unlike detainees) and after 20 seconds he changed his mind about it not being torture.

Not the point. The point is that Bully pulls It is implying that extreme pain is ineefective yet the ten aggressive interrogation techniques outlined in the NYT did not cause extreme pain.

Link please. In other words, Skull Merkin, put up or shut up.

 

[Skull Pilot]

William Krystle thought that too until he was waterboarded by people who he knew would not let him be harmed (unlike detainees) and after 20 seconds he changed his mind about it not being torture.

Not the point. The point is that Bully pulls It is implying that extreme pain is ineefective yet the ten aggressive interrogation techniques outlined in the NYT did not cause extreme pain.

Link please. In other words, Skull Merkin, put up or shut up.

Link to what Pud Puller?

I have linked to the NYT piece in several other threads to which you have replied, so you must not have bothered to read it.

 

[Truthmatters]

WASHINGTON - President Obama’s national intelligence director told colleagues in a private memo last week that the harsh interrogation techniques banned by the White House did produce significant information that helped the nation in its struggle with terrorists.
NYT: Harsh techniques worked, intel chief says - White House- msnbc.com

Every expert on interigations will tell you that the effect of torturing people for intel is intell which a mixture of lies, say anything to make it stop and a smatterihng of truth.

Then you can NO LONGER go back and get the MOST reliable intell that standard interogations provide.

The subject then will never be won over by the Most efficient type of gathering which involves outsmarting them with various types of pshycological methods.

If waterboarding works so well why the hell did they have to do in 186 times it one guy?

you do realize that one second of water boarding can be called an incident? So the total time he was actually water boarded, was probably just minutes and not the hours and days that most people imply.

But why this obsession with the one of the now banned techniques? Do you agree that sleep deprivation is torture? How about grabbing someone's shirt? Or slapping someone's belly with an open hand? Feeding them bland tasteless food?, Sitting them in a hot or cold room?[/QUOTE]


yeah they waterboarded him for just 186 seconds , like that makes it better?

This type of technic was develpoed to illicit FALSE confessions.

The FBI is the go to guys for Interigations, they are the experts at sloving crime thorugh these methods. They refused to have anything to do with the CIA once they started this shit.

Ask yourslef why did the aministration picked the method that was designed to give you anything you want to hear out of subjects intstead of the tried and true methods designed to gleen truth?

 

[Bullypulpit]

For you right wing tools, I don't have to 'splain nothin'.

Article 1, Para 1 of the UN Convention Against Torture states,

For the purposes of this Convention, torture means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity.

Common Article 3 of the Fourth Geneva Convention specifically prohibits torture. And for those of you whi still claim that the Geneva Convention doesn't apply to detainees, the SCOTUS ruled otherwise in the case of Hamdan v. Rumsfeld.

In 2007,Major General John L. Fugh USA(Ret.), Rear Admiral Don Gutter USN(Ret), Rear Admiral John D. Hutson USN(Ret), and Brigadier General David M. Brahms USMC(Ret), all former Judge Advocates General for their respective services, wrote the following in a letter to Senator Patrick Leahy regarding the confirmation hearings for former Attorney General Michael Mukasey:

The Rule of Law is fundamental to our existence as a civilized nation. The Rule of Law is not a goal which we merely aspire to achieve; it is the floor below which we must not sink. For the Rule of Law to function effectively, however, it must provide actual rules that can be followed. In this instance, the relevant rule - the law - has long been clear: Waterboarding detainees amounts to illegal torture in all circumstances. To suggest otherwise - or even to give credence to such a suggestion - represents both an affront to the law and to the core values of our nation.

Furthermore, in 2006, in response to questions submitted by the Senate Judiciary Committee, Major General Scott Black, U.S. Army Judge Advocate General, Major General Jack Rives, U.S. Air Force Judge Advocate General, Rear Admiral Bruce MacDonald, U.S. Navy Judge Advocate General, and Brigadier Gen. Kevin Sandkuhler, Staff Judge Advocate to the Commandant of the U.S. Marine Corps all stated unanimously that waterboarding is "...inhumane and illegal and would constitute a violation of international law, to include Common Article 3 of the 1949 Geneva Conventions."

Title 18, Chapter 113C, Sec 2340 of the US Code defines torture thus,

(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;
(2) “severe mental pain or suffering” means the prolonged mental harm caused by or resulting from—
(A) the intentional infliction or threatened infliction of severe physical pain or suffering;
(B) the administration or application, or threatened administration or application, of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or the personality;
(C) the threat of imminent death; or
(D) the threat that another person will imminently be subjected to death, severe physical pain or suffering, or the administration or application of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or personality; and
(3) “United States” means the several States of the United States, the District of Columbia, and the commonwealths, territories, and possessions of the United States.
(A) the intentional infliction or threatened infliction of severe physical pain or suffering;
(B) the administration or application, or threatened administration or application, of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or the personality;
(C) the threat of imminent death; or
(D) the threat that another person will imminently be subjected to death, severe physical pain or suffering, or the administration or application of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or personality; and
(3) “United States” means the several States of the United States, the District of Columbia, and the commonwealths, territories, and possessions of the United States.

Oh, and then there's this...

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. - McClatchy

Sorry dickweeds, but the weight of legal opinion AND law is against you and your fellow travelers. And Gunny, you should be ashamed of yourself. You, of all people here, should know better.

 

[Skull Pilot]

wow so even threatening to hurt someone is torture?

Well then if the spirit of the UN crap is to be followed, the mere incarceration of people can be considered as inflicting mental anguish. So incarceration in itself is torture. After all what could be worse than losing your freedom to rape, kill, pillage and burn?

and since when does the U.N. have the best interests if the U.S. in mind?

 

[Bullypulpit]

wow so even threatening to hurt someone is torture?

Well then if the spirit of the UN crap is to be followed, the mere incarceration of people can be considered as inflicting mental anguish. So incarceration in itself is torture. After all what could be worse than losing your freedom to rape, kill, pillage and burn?

and since when does the U.N. have the best interests if the U.S. in mind?

Care to refute any of it...? Or are you just going to continue to waste bandwidth with your mindless regurgitation of right wing talking points? No need to answer...it's a rhetorical question, tool

 

[Skull Pilot]

wow so even threatening to hurt someone is torture?

Well then if the spirit of the UN crap is to be followed, the mere incarceration of people can be considered as inflicting mental anguish. So incarceration in itself is torture. After all what could be worse than losing your freedom to rape, kill, pillage and burn?

and since when does the U.N. have the best interests if the U.S. in mind?

Care to refute any of it...? Or are you just going to continue to waste bandwidth with your mindless regurgitation of right wing talking points? No need to answer...it's a rhetorical question, tool

refute what? some UN "resolution" like that holds any weight?

There have been multiple posts with links saying that the interrogation techniques used at Gitmo resulted in credible information. The NYT article described all the techniques used at Gitmo. I do not consider them torture, you do.

It seems that you are fond of an expanded definition that includes "mental pain" as if that can somehow be quantified, where a mere threat of violence is considered torture.

As I said before, mere incarceration can then be seen as torture because of the mental pain it causes.

So this is Bully Pulls It's idea of an interrogation

BULLYPULLSIT: Tell me where you are storing your dirty bomb materials.

TERRORIST: No

BULLYPULLSIT: Thank you for your cooperation. You are free to go.

 

[Bullypulpit]

wow so even threatening to hurt someone is torture?

Well then if the spirit of the UN crap is to be followed, the mere incarceration of people can be considered as inflicting mental anguish. So incarceration in itself is torture. After all what could be worse than losing your freedom to rape, kill, pillage and burn?

and since when does the U.N. have the best interests if the U.S. in mind?

Care to refute any of it...? Or are you just going to continue to waste bandwidth with your mindless regurgitation of right wing talking points? No need to answer...it's a rhetorical question, tool

refute what? some UN "resolution" like that holds any weight?

There have been multiple posts with links saying that the interrogation techniques used at Gitmo resulted in credible information. The NYT article described all the techniques used at Gitmo. I do not consider them torture, you do.

It seems that you are fond of an expanded definition that includes "mental pain" as if that can somehow be quantified, where a mere threat of violence is considered torture.

As I said before, mere incarceration can then be seen as torture because of the mental pain it causes.

So this is Bully Pulls It's idea of an interrogation

BULLYPULLSIT: Tell me where you are storing your dirty bomb materials.

TERRORIST: No

BULLYPULLSIT: Thank you for your cooperation. You are free to go.

Guess what numbnuts...? The UN Convention Against Torture is NOT a resolution. It is a treaty to which teh US is a signatory. As such, the Constitution gives it the full weight and force of US law. Get over it. And speaking of US law, I'm thinking you're looking at Title 18, Chapter 113C of the US code as some meaningless bit of fluff. As for your links, they're op-ed pieces which present nothing in the way of verifiable evidence that "actionable intel" was obtained through torture. They have only say-so of the Bush administration and its apologists.

Dismissed.