The Torture Memos

LostinKildare

Here's a link to the OLC torture memos: http://documents.nytimes.com/justice-department-memos-on-interrogation-techniques#p=1

and here's Obama's statement on it: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/16/us/politics/16text-obama.html.

The money quote: "In releasing these memos, it is our intention to assure those who carried out their duties relying in good faith upon legal advice from the Department of Justice that they will not be subject to prosecution." Oh, and this is a good one too: "The United States is a nation of laws. My Administration will always act in accordance with those laws, and with an unshakeable commitment to our ideals."

Anyone else out there wringing their hands in despair?

Pocono Joe

Unbelievable! Barack Obama needs to stop politicking and playing president... and be President.

I don’t think he would intentionally endanger our nation. That leads me to assume he either believes we are no longer at war with extremists who pose grave danger to our national security, or he is a dunderhead. He released it over the objections of the intelligence community, and four Office of Legal Counsel memos that concluded certain interrogation techniques used in the last several years by CIA officers on certain al Qaeda terrorists were legal.

A sobering comment I read about this action by Obama stated "The release of these opinions was unnecessary as a legal matter, and is unsound as a matter of policy. Its effect will be to invite the kind of institutional timidity and fear of recrimination that weakened intelligence gathering in the past, and that we came sorely to regret on Sept. 11, 2001."

Obama stated in relation to this memo that "we have been through a dark and painful chapter in our history." Well I have news for him... the old policies worked. For the good of our nation his new policies better work.

About the only good news in my opinion from Obama in this matter is his statement "In releasing these memos, it is our intention to assure those who carried out their duties relying in good faith upon legal advice from the Department of Justice that they will not be subject to prosecution." So for that part I say good for him!

LostinKildare

My opinion seems to be diametrically opposed to yours.

I am very glad that the memos were released mostly unredacted, and I give the DOJ credit for that. But this makes me angry: "The United States is a nation of laws. My Administration will always act in accordance with those laws, and with an unshakeable commitment to our ideals." His administration is OBLIGED to prosecute these war crimes regardless of political fallout, and if they don't they are not acting in accordance with the law:

Convention Against Torture -- signed by Reagan in 1988, ratified in 1994 by Senate:

Each State Party shall ensure that all acts of torture are offences under its criminal law (Article 4) . . . . The State Party in territory under whose jurisdiction a person alleged to have committed any offence referred to in article 4 is found, shall in the cases contemplated in article 5, if it does not extradite him, submit the case to its competent authorities for the purpose of prosecution.

No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat or war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture. . . . An order from a superior officer or a public authority may not be invoked as a justification of torture.

Geneva Conventions, Article 146:

Each High Contracting Party shall be under the obligation to search for persons alleged to have committed, or to have ordered to be committed, such grave breaches, and shall bring such persons, regardless of their nationality, before its own courts.

Charter of the International Tribunal at Nuremberg, Article 8:

The fact that the Defendant acted pursuant to order of his Government or of a superior shall not free him from responsibility, but may be considered in mitigation of punishment if the Tribunal determines that justice so requires.

U.S. Constitution, Article VI:

[A]ll Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land.

Pocono Joe

LostinKildare wrote: »

My opinion seems to be diametrically opposed to yours.

This is the first time I’ve ever heard that. :rolleyes:

The best quote I’ve read so far regarding the release of these memos comes from Michael Hayden and Michael Mukasey of The Wall Street Journal:

"Disclosure of the techniques is likely to be met by faux outrage, and is perfectly packaged for media consumption. It will also incur the utter contempt of our enemies. Somehow, it seems unlikely that the people who beheaded Nicholas Berg and Daniel Pearl, and have tortured and slain other American captives, are likely to be shamed into giving up violence by the news that the U.S. will no longer interrupt the sleep cycle of captured terrorists even to help elicit intelligence that could save the lives of its citizens.

Let me ask you something. Have you considered going down to your local law enforcement office and recant every time you rolled through a stop sign, or exceeded the speed limit, or drove with a little too much to drink, and ask them to throw you in the hoosegow for a couple of years and fine you tens of thousands of dollars? Not implying right or wrong, but isn’t what’s good for the goose also good for the gander?

The Director of National Intelligence, Dennis Blair stated "Those methods, read on a bright, sunny, safe day in April 2009, appear graphic and disturbing." Makes a lot of sense, don’t you think.

GuanYin

Considering the nature of the US mentality under Bush, I imagine it would be pointless to go after those who carried out torture. They were most likely low level thugs who knew no better or were told that it was their duty. I'm sure they'll be put out to pasture quietly.

The wording strikes me as open to going after those in the top brass though. The ones who *did* know better.

Or has that been ruled out.

Mr.Micro

LostinKildare wrote: »

Here's a link to the OLC torture memos: http://documents.nytimes.com/justice-department-memos-on-interrogation-techniques#p=1

and here's Obama's statement on it: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/16/us/politics/16text-obama.html.

The money quote: "In releasing these memos, it is our intention to assure those who carried out their duties relying in good faith upon legal advice from the Department of Justice that they will not be subject to prosecution." Oh, and this is a good one too: "The United States is a nation of laws. My Administration will always act in accordance with those laws, and with an unshakeable commitment to our ideals."

Anyone else out there wringing their hands in despair?

They should seek out the scum and prosecute them as war criminals at the Hague IMO. It appears countries like the US and Israel can interpret international law/ Geneva convention, basic human rights as they see fit or completely ignore them altogether, and still always be right. It is a disgusting and despicable legacy of Bush that will blight the name of the US for some time to come.

Obama did the right thing but should have allowed the full force of the law to be let loose on these vile thugs doing "their duties". If the US stopped interfering in other countries and mind its own business then its fear of terrorists will subside. I guess they have to have something to replace the commies.

Pocono Joe

Mr.Micro wrote: »

If the US stopped interfering in other countries and mind its own business then its fear of terrorists will subside.

Sooooooooo…. We should shut this down completely then ehh?
http://www.usaid.gov/

Well… Ahhh… You Know… Ahhh… That’s different… Ahhh… (I thought as much)


"There's the one thing no nation can ever accuse us of and that is secret diplomacy. Our foreign dealings are an open book, generally a check book."
— Will Rodgers (1879 - 1935)

Mr.Micro

Pocono Joe wrote: »

Sooooooooo…. We should shut this down completely then ehh?
http://www.usaid.gov/

Well… Ahhh… You Know… Ahhh… That’s different… Ahhh… (I thought as much)


"There's the one thing no nation can ever accuse us of and that is secret diplomacy. Our foreign dealings are an open book, generally a check book."
— Will Rodgers (1879 - 1935)

Has the US ever tried non interference? Export peace, tolerance and understanding. Do you think that US aid then is a balance to torture, extraordinary rendition, Guantanamo bay and all the other stuff to do with the war on terror? Most countries in the west do aid to other countries not just the US, only other countries leave it at that and do not wreak destruction for dubious political reasons or perceived terror threats like "reds under the bed ". The US went astray for many years under Bush but hopefully Obama will bring the good name of the US back again.

Nodin

Pocono Joe wrote: »

Unbelievable! Barack Obama needs to stop politicking and playing president... and be President. !

The US presidency is a political office.

This has greatly damaged US standing abroad, therefore its vital he make it clear that those methods are done with.

Two eejits wrote:

"Disclosure of (....)citizens.!

Reality begs to differ
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/28/AR2009032802066.html?hpid=topnews

LostinKildare

Pocono Joe wrote: »

The best quote I’ve read so far regarding the release of these memos comes from Michael Hayden and Michael Mukasey of The Wall Street Journal:

Disclosure of the techniques is likely to be met by faux outrage, and is perfectly packaged for media consumption. It will also incur the utter contempt of our enemies. Somehow, it seems unlikely that the people who beheaded Nicholas Berg and Daniel Pearl, and have tortured and slain other American captives, are likely to be shamed into giving up violence by the news that the U.S. will no longer interrupt the sleep cycle of captured terrorists even to help elicit intelligence that could save the lives of its citizens.

Whoa, that quote is so offensive. First of all, I can assure you that my outrage is not faux. Second, trivializing torture as “interrupting the sleep cycle” is just repellent. And “shaming terrorists into giving up violence” was not the point of disclosing the torture techniques. How absurd.

These are war crimes, and the US has a legal and moral obligation to prosecute them. I agree that Rumsfeld, Yoo, etc. have a greater degree of responsibility, but the actual torturers aren’t blameless. They weren’t hapless thugs, they were highly trained CIA professionals, and they weren’t forced to do what they did. (Ever quit a job, folks?) They weren’t guaranteed that their actions were legal, either – the Bradbury memo says specifically “we cannot predict with confidence that a court of law would agree with this conclusion.” If there were interrogators who sincerely were acting in “good faith,” well they could have argued that defense in court.

I think this is a signal that the top brass won’t be pursued. If the govt had prosecuted the lower-level operatives they might through plea bargains or immunity agreements have gotten necessary evidence of intent against the higher-ups; instead they’re giving them immunity for nothing.

Benedict XVI

The reaction to Obamas pardon on this thread is interesting

Seriously do people really believe that Obama was going to bring CIA agents or former members of the Bush administration to a court in the Hague over this ?

Not a chance, no politician on any side would take such a drastic move.

I think it's a case of people being disappointed that Obama is not the radical that many expected him to be.

Mr.Micro

Benedict XVI wrote: »

The reaction to Obamas pardon on this thread is interesting

Seriously do people really believe that Obama was going to bring CIA agents or former members of the Bush administration to a court in the Hague over this ?

Not a chance, no politician on any side would take such a drastic move.

I think it's a case of people being disappointed that Obama is not the radical that many expected him to be.

I for one did not believe Obama is a radical, but perhaps a breath of fresh air after the putresence of the Bush terms. Like any politician he has his eye on re-election so he will not go too far beyond the pale. At least its acknowledgement of the wrong doings publicly, whether it will last is another matter.

Overheal

im afraid i have to agree with Kildare about the Convention Against Torture - it is extremely explicit in its wording. A presidential pardon for these Torturers is a violation against that convention signed into law.

jonny72

Iranians have now sentenced that journalist to 8 years in prison.

Now according to these morons...

"Disclosure of the techniques is likely to be met by faux outrage, and is perfectly packaged for media consumption. It will also incur the utter contempt of our enemies. Somehow, it seems unlikely that the people who beheaded Nicholas Berg and Daniel Pearl, and have tortured and slain other American captives, are likely to be shamed into giving up violence by the news that the U.S. will no longer interrupt the sleep cycle of captured terrorists even to help elicit intelligence that could save the lives of its citizens."

They shouldn't have even given her a trial, mere suspicion was enough. They should hold her indefinitely, drop a little water on her head, make her 'stand' for a bit and 'interrupt her sleep cycle a bit'.

Pocono Joe

jonny72 wrote: »

They shouldn't have even given her a trial, mere suspicion was enough. They should hold her indefinitely, drop a little water on her head, make her 'stand' for a bit and 'interrupt her sleep cycle a bit'.

So you think this girl was plotting to fly aircraft into buildings holding thousands of innocent people then ehh? Lets get real here.

Nodin

Pocono Joe wrote: »

So you think this girl was plotting to fly aircraft into buildings holding thousands of innocent people then ehh? Lets get real here.

Ok...she was trying to undermine the Iranian government, which would lead to a coup supported by the west, the new Iranian dictator giving them the bulk of Irans oil revenue for 25 years as a reward, while he consolidates his regime by use of assasination and torture....

Mr.Micro

Pocono Joe wrote: »

So you think this girl was plotting to fly aircraft into buildings holding thousands of innocent people then ehh? Lets get real here.

One way of finding out ask the CIA for help in the womans interrogation, I am sure they would be only too glad to help, now that some of them might have a bit of time on their hands before another torture session.

When its a US citizen then its different is it? 9/11 was a terrible outrage but so were the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and all those nameless people who died are just as relevant to all the poor people who died in 9/11.

jonny72

Pocono Joe wrote: »

So you think this girl was plotting to fly aircraft into buildings holding thousands of innocent people then ehh? Lets get real here.

Yes but if they torture her she will admit to anything. And if they do that there will be outrage, absolute outrage..

Yet when we in the West capture some innocent taxi driver, hold him without trial for 5 years, torture him, the release him.. I don't have to explain..

People who support torture are simply wrong, not because some of these Al Qaeda types don't deserve what they get, but because it UNDERMINES the principles we stand on and the values we fight and have fought for.

Nodin

jonny72 wrote: »

People who support torture are simply wrong, not because some of these Al Qaeda types don't deserve what they get, but because it UNDERMINES the principles we stand on and the values we fight and have fought for.

And the fact that some people tend to hold a grudge over things like beatings, deprivation of liberty and anal rape......

Mr.Micro

CIA torture exemption 'illegal'
A detainee being carried to an interrogation in Guantanamo Bay prison
Mr Obama has banned the use of controversial interrogation techniques

US President Barack Obama's decision not to prosecute CIA agents who used torture tactics is a violation of international law, a UN expert says.

The UN special rapporteur on torture, Manfred Nowak, says the US is bound under the UN Convention against Torture to prosecute those who engage in it.

Mr Obama released four "torture memos" outlining harsh interrogation methods sanctioned by the Bush administration.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8006597.stm


The law only applies if it suits I guess.

Nodin

Mr.Micro wrote: »

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8006597.stm


The law only applies if it suits I guess.

If he tried to prosecute anyone for it, I doubt he could count on his own party to back him - theres no political will for it, particularily when not a few senior democrats knew what was going on and said SFA about it. Theres not much point chucking some lowly CIA dude to the lions. Gonzalez, Cheney, Adlington (sp? Evil sod) and the rest are all lawyers surrounded by lawyers. You've better chance of nailing smoke to the wall.

This isn't the first time a US Government has engaged in dubious business amid much hubub and protestation by the opposition. There was only one conviction for the bombing of cambodia, and that was some Captain at the bottom of the food chain.

Mr.Micro

Nodin wrote: »

If he tried to prosecute anyone for it, I doubt he could count on his own party to back him - theres no political will for it, particularily when not a few senior democrats knew what was going on and said SFA about it. Theres not much point chucking some lowly CIA dude to the lions. Gonzalez, Cheney, Adlington (sp? Evil sod) and the rest are all lawyers surrounded by lawyers. You've better chance of nailing smoke to the wall.

This isn't the first time a US Government has engaged in dubious business amid much hubub and protestation by the opposition. There was only one conviction for the bombing of cambodia, and that was some Captain at the bottom of the food chain.

I agree with you completely. There is no point in the US preaching to the world about human rights and abuses when it has allowed, indeed condoned such methods of torture and then protects the very perpetrators. It will not wash with most people anymore.

Pocono Joe

Some good viewing from others who think Obama’s releasing of these memos puts American national security at risk.
http://www.politico.com/blogs/politicolive/0409/Hayden_Intelligence_officers_will_be_constrained.html
http://video.newsmax.com/?assetId=V3677591
I doubt we will ever get anything of consequence out of prisoners hell bent on killing innocent people again. Now the interrogators can’t rely on a president, a justice department, and congress getting briefed ahead of time... they also now have to worry what the New York Times thinks, all potential political candidates viewpoints, and the liberal blogosphere (that includes the Mainstream Media). Welcome Back Carter!

Mr.Micro

Pocono Joe wrote: »

Some good viewing from others who think Obama’s releasing of these memos puts American national security at risk.
http://www.politico.com/blogs/politicolive/0409/Hayden_Intelligence_officers_will_be_constrained.html
http://video.newsmax.com/?assetId=V3677591
I doubt we will ever get anything of consequence out of prisoners hell bent on killing innocent people again. Now the interrogators can’t rely on a president, a justice department, and congress getting briefed ahead of time... they also now have to worry what the New York Times thinks, all potential political candidates viewpoints, and the liberal blogosphere (that includes the Mainstream Media). Welcome Back Carter!

Get real. Its 2009. Justification of interrogation and the methods used harks back to comminist Russia and the Eastern Bloc during the cold war with the CIA being the KGB or Stazi. The US is no innocent party when it comes to killing innocent people. Your interrogators can practice on US citizens and see how far they get. It would not be tolerated for one second.

LostinKildare

The great Jon Stewart:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/04/21/daily-show-takes-on-tortu_n_189356.html

Overheal

You could argue that this allows our enemies to train against these torture techniques, but at the same time, we are not meant to be using torture techniques so it should not matter if they are trained to resist torture.

Pocono Joe

You just got to love Dick Cheney...

In a recent interview after Obama’s release of the terror memos, Cheney explained the Bush administration's interrogation methods in terms of the situation after 9/11. The Bush administration knew little about al-Qaida, and had to quickly get up to speed with much of New York City already in ruins.

"One of the things that I find a little bit disturbing about this recent disclosure is they put out the legal memos, the memos that the CIA got from the Office of Legal Counsel, but they didn't put out the memos that showed the success of the effort," the former vice president said. "And there are reports that show specifically what we gained as a result of this activity. They have not been declassified."

"I formally asked that they be declassified now," Cheney said. "I haven't announced this up until now, I haven't talked about it, but I know specifically of reports that I read, that I saw that lay out what we learned through the interrogation process and what the consequences were for the country."

"And I've now formally asked the CIA to take steps to declassify those memos so we can lay them out there and the American people have a chance to see what we obtained and what we learned and how good the intelligence was, as well as to see this debate over the legal opinions."

Overheal

Wow. Dick calling for Transparency 0_0 I might have just rep+1'd him.

He's right though. Dead right. In fact in its purest Theory, Democracy only functions when The People are aware of all aspects. It thrives on transparency and wilts in secrecy - which erm, Dick himself and a few of his buddies remain accused of... but still. And he may be right: If we had all the facts about our torture practices, we would be able to make a much better informed decision/view on the subject.

Overheal

In Breaking News, Obama is just now saying that 'Those who carried out the acts of torture, as advised by their superiors within the "4 corners of the law as set by the Acting Government (White House)"... As for those who Created these Policies, in and around Washington, "That is a matter I will leave to the Attorney General, and I do not want to Pre-empt their conclusion."'

So it may not be a closed book yet for people like Karl Rove and Dick Cheney.

Pocono Joe

The people of Los Angles should be bowing down kissing the feet of Bush and Cheney! Today they sit in relative safety and enjoy the right to criticize and condemn the very people who might just have saved their lives.
http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=46949

bobbyjoe

How are we supposed to believe anything that comes from torture?

oscarBravo

Pocono Joe wrote: »

The people of Los Angles... sit in relative safety...

Yup. Los Angeles would now be a smoking hole on the west coast, if America didn't torture people.

PJ, I have a rock here you might like to borrow - it keeps away tigers. I know it works, because there are no tigers around here.

Pocono Joe

oB... do you have one that keeps away Lefties? Then I would be interested.

oscarBravo

I think it does that too - there's nobody in the room more left-wing than me.

I accept PayPal.

Pocono Joe

oscarBravo wrote: »

I think it does that too - there's nobody in the room more left-wing than me.

I accept PayPal.

And yet you are still here LOL.

Forget PayPal. If interested, I could look into getting some Obama stimulus money so you can perfect your URR (Undesirable Rock Repellent).

Mr.Micro

Pocono Joe wrote: »

The people of Los Angles should be bowing down kissing the feet of Bush and Cheney! Today they sit in relative safety and enjoy the right to criticize and condemn the very people who might just have saved their lives.
http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=46949

No they are just grateful that the Bush and Cheney are gone and are waking up to the despicable acts that were carried out in their names. Its incredible the amount of brain washing that seems to have occurred with much of the US population in expecting a terrorist attack, which of course suited Bush and Co as it kept people in fear and allowed them to carry on unquestioned. It appears some posters are still under such an illlusion.

Nodin

Pocono Joe wrote: »

You just got to love Dick Cheney...

No, and I doubt even torture would change that.

Pocono Joe wrote: »

In a recent interview after Obama’s release of the terror memos, Cheney explained the Bush administration's interrogation methods in terms of the situation after 9/11....

The appeal to fear and outrage. Quelle Suprise.

Pocono Joe wrote: »

"One of the things (....)see this debate over the legal opinions."

....which of course is a bit of hocus pocus, in that deciding what would be considered valuable information would require a massive overall release of documentation, which will not happen while theres still an Al Qaeda. Of course such a release is already tainted, as we know the CIA have destroyed certain records. Thus, even if nothing appears (in the future, when 'liberals' finally evolve horns) future winged republicans can say the proof was erased.

Pocono Joe wrote: »

The people of Los Angles should be bowing down kissing the feet of Bush and Cheney! Today they sit in relative safety and enjoy the right to criticize and condemn the very people who might just have saved their lives.

Very unlikely.

Pocono Joe

Nodin wrote: »

Very unlikely.

Finally we agree on something.

Pocono Joe

My inside sources have informed me that in the spirit of the Obama Administration’s FWI (Four Winds Initiative) for which policy is dictated (and enhanced) based on how the political wind blows, CIA interrogation methods are changing. Now the only CIA interrogation methods allowed for extremists committed to killing innocent Americans will be based solely on the Monty Python "Spanish Inquisition" skit. In extreme cases where a terrorist is highly suspected to contain key information, which if obtained could save countless thousands of lives, the CIA is authorized to use methods up-to-and-including such infamous devices as "The Comfy Chair" and "The Extra Pillow." They are also contemplating a drastic interrogation method referred to as "Confinement With Dick Cheney, but current Whitehouse lawyers are fighting internally as to whether or not it would be considered cruel and unusual punishment.

In addition, the CIA is now producing posters to be distributed to their worldwide offices (taken from a sign once hanging over the desk of a CIA operative in Rome) that reads "BIG OPS, BIG PROBLEMS... NO OPS, NO PROBLEMS."


And before the faux outrage starts, my comment was simply satire.

LostinKildare

Pocono Joe wrote: »

And before the faux outrage starts, my comment was simply satire.

Why do you persist in labeling the opposing view as "faux outrage"? Can you really not accept that others are sincerely and legitimately disgusted by torture, even if you are not?

Pocono Joe

LostinKildare wrote: »

Why do you persist in labeling the opposing view as "faux outrage"? Can you really not accept that others are sincerely and legitimately disgusted by torture, even if you are not?

Well, I won’t go down the path of what constitutes torture... that one has been done already. My comment was meant for those who in the past have failed to grasp my use of satire, even though some of them often tout the satire used on the Comedy Channel’s two political shows... ergo my use of the term "faux".

jank

Pocono Joe wrote: »

Well, I won’t go down the path of what constitutes torture... that one has been done already. My comment was meant for those who in the past have failed to grasp my use of satire, even though some of them often tout the satire used on the Comedy Channel’s two political shows... ergo my use of the term "faux".

So what is your point? The only thing I see is the right trying to legitimize torture.

No attacks since 9/11, because of the use of torture is like trying to justify that it is good for if its not good then it can only be bad? Right!

So, yeah for torture. If you are so in favour of it why not advocate to have your local law enforcement agency use it for would be criminal suspects? You wouldn't know it might cut crime and you know less crime is good and its a vote winner too!

VOTE for ME! I'll torture your ass so we can live in a safe neighborhood!:D

LostinKildare

jank wrote: »

If you are so in favour of it why not advocate to have your local law enforcement agency use it for would be criminal suspects? You wouldn't know it might cut crime and you know less crime is good and its a vote winner too!

VOTE for ME! I'll torture your ass so we can live in a safe neighborhood!:D

On that point:
Philip Zelikow, a prominent member of the Bush administration -- a senior aide to Condi Rice as well as the Director of the 9/11 Commission (so he knew in great detail the specifics of the interrogations of Al Qaeda suspects) wrote a memo warning Bush et al. that according to the flawed “authoritative” legal arguments of the OLC memos, the “enhanced interrogation techniques” would be fine to use on Americans down in the county jail.

Clearly the White House was alarmed by this: they attempted to collect and destroy every copy of Zelikow’s memo.

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. . . .

The underlying absurdity of the administration's position can be summarized this way. Once you get to a substantive compliance analysis for "cruel, inhuman, and degrading" you get the position that the substantive standard is the same as it is in analogous U.S. constitutional law. So the OLC must argue, in effect, that the methods and the conditions of confinement in the CIA program could constitutionally be inflicted on American citizens in a county jail.

In other words, Americans in any town of this country could constitutionally be hung from the ceiling naked, sleep deprived, water-boarded, and all the rest -- if the alleged national security justification was compelling. I did not believe our federal courts could reasonably be expected to agree with such a reading of the Constitution.

Quote from: http://shadow.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2009/04/21/the_olc_torture_memos_thoughts_from_a_dissenter

Maddow has a great interview with Zelikow here: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908#30335366

Pocono Joe

jank wrote: »

So what is your point? The only thing I see is the right trying to legitimize torture.

No attacks since 9/11, because of the use of torture is like trying to justify that it is good for if its not good then it can only be bad? Right!

So, yeah for torture. If you are so in favour of it why not advocate to have your local law enforcement agency use it for would be criminal suspects? You wouldn't know it might cut crime and you know less crime is good and its a vote winner too!

VOTE for ME! I'll torture your ass so we can live in a safe neighborhood!:D

Once again, it depends on what you consider torture. Do you personally know anyone who has been waterboarded... I DO!

Let me ask you a question. If you had children who were in imminent danger of dying from a terrorist threat, but one individual linked to the terrorist event has information which would save their lives, would you be so against waterboarding... or would you let your children die?

Nodin

Pocono Joe wrote: »

Once again, it depends on what you consider torture.

The US has been prosecuting people for using those tactics since the Spanish-American war, including its own citizens. Thats over a century of precedent. I believe this has been pointed out before.

Pocono Joe wrote: »

Let me ask you a question. If you had children who were in imminent danger of dying from a terrorist threat, but one individual linked to the terrorist event has information which would save their lives, would you be so against waterboarding... or would you let your children die?

An emotive demagogic argument which presumes you have somebody who knows enough to prevent the attack, that you know he knows this for certain, that you know the attack is imminent, and that you can force him to divulge the information in time to prevent the attack. Of course, if you knew all that, you'd probably be able to prevent the attack by investigating the individual you had' movements and contacts, rather than torturing him.

As cells and intelligence operatives work on a need to know basis, and are advised to hold out for 24hr-48hrs max whilst those at large change location and move arms, the odds of getting anything worthwhile out in time are minimal, to say the least.

Pocono Joe

Nice dodge Nodin... but you didn't answer the question.

Nodin

Pocono Joe wrote: »

Nice dodge Nodin... but you didn't answer the question.

It's not a dodge. The fact is that its a 'trick' question which logical thinking demands one say no to, on every level, literal and otherwise.

Pocono Joe

Nodin wrote: »

It's not a dodge. The fact is that its a 'trick' question which logical thinking demands one say no to, on every level, literal and otherwise.

No it’s not a trick question. It’s a question regarding a specific situation… like the situations in which those 3 terrorists were waterboarded. Not to worry... I understand it can be a troubling delimma when it becomes personal.

Nodin

Pocono Joe wrote: »

No it’s not a trick question. It’s a question regarding a specific situation….

Really? Then - presuming you have a person, know theres an "imminent" plot,know hes involved and know he knows enough to prevent it, why couldn't just using the usual methods work?

Pocono Joe wrote: »

like the situations in which those 3 terrorists were waterboarded.

Well it can't be, because there was no imminent plot at the time.

Mr.Micro

Pocono Joe wrote: »

Once again, it depends on what you consider torture. Do you personally know anyone who has been waterboarded... I DO!

Let me ask you a question. If you had children who were in imminent danger of dying from a terrorist threat, but one individual linked to the terrorist event has information which would save their lives, would you be so against waterboarding... or would you let your children die?

A hypothesis / dilemma strictly for debate. The only terrorist threats these days are mostly in Iraq, the aftermath of US involvement there. The incompetent intelligent services got it all wrong with WMD and all they could do was go back to the middle ages for inspiration and torture people. Will they be burning witches next? Iraqi people have to live daily with this....



Iraq: Suicide bombs kill scores

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8014390.stm

LostinKildare

Pocono Joe wrote: »

The people of Los Angles should be bowing down kissing the feet of Bush and Cheney! Today they sit in relative safety and enjoy the right to criticize and condemn the very people who might just have saved their lives.
http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=46949

I had to go back for this one, because it's such a great illustration of the desperation that's rising.

This is a lie. The article alleges that after being waterboarded, Khalid Sheik Mohammad (KSM) gave up information that allowed the govt to thwart a 9/11-style attack on L.A.

It correctly quotes the May 30, 2005 Bradbury DOJ memo: "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." (My emphasis of lawyer's CYA construction)

In 2007 the White House put out a fact sheet ("Keeping America Safe from Attack" http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2007/05/20070523.html)
that said "In 2002, we broke up a plot by KSM to hijack an airplane and fly it into the tallest building on the West Coast . . . . KSM stated that the intended target was the Library Tower in Los Angeles." Bush said it in a speech as well.

KSM wasn't even captured until March (or April?) 2003, and he wasn't waterboarded until August of that year. So the story is demonstrably false.

Nice try.