Bush, on 'waterboarding'

Johro

(Reuters) - When then-President George W. Bush was asked to approve a tough interrogation technique known as waterboarding on September 11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, he wasted little time in deciding.
"Damn right," he said.
Bush's approval of waterboarding, a form of simulated drowning condemned by human rights activists as torture, to try to wrench information from captured al Qaeda operatives was among the most controversial decisions he made during eight years in the White House.
In his memoir, "Decision Points," Bush strongly defends the use of waterboarding as critical to his efforts to prevent a repeat of the September 11, 2001, attacks on the United States. He says waterboarding was limited to three detainees and led to intelligence breakthroughs that thwarted attacks.

Waterboarding, which human rights groups contend is illegal under the Geneva Conventions, was banned by Bush's successor, President Barack Obama, shortly after taking office in 2009.
Interrogators are now required to follow interrogation guidelines laid out in the U.S. Army Field Manual.
During Bush's presidency, the United States came under international criticism for its treatment of prisoners in Iraq and Afghanistan and foreign terrorism suspects held at the U.S. naval base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
Bush writes that waterboarding was first approved for Abu Zubaydah, an al Qaeda figure arrested in Pakistan in 2002 who was suspected of involvement in a plot to attack Los Angeles International Airport.
When Abu Zubaydah stopped answering questions from the FBI, CIA Director George Tenet told Bush he thought the detainee had more information to offer.
Bush writes that CIA and Justice Department lawyers conducted a careful legal review and came up with an "enhanced interrogation program," which he said complied with the U.S. Constitution and all applicable laws, including those that ban torture.
Bush writes that there were two techniques, which he does not describe, that he felt went too far even though they were legal and he ordered that they not be used. But he approved the use of waterboarding.

"No doubt the procedure was tough, but medical experts assured the CIA that it did no lasting harm," Bush writes.
He says the new methods proved "highly effective," and Abu Zubaydah revealed large amounts of information about al Qaeda's structure as well as the location of Ramzi bin al Shibh, who he called the logistical planner of September 11 attacks.
Abu Zubaydah later explained to interrogators why he began answering questions again, according to the book.

"His understanding of Islam was that he had to resist interrogation only up to a certain point.
Waterboarding was the technique that allowed him to reach that threshold, fulfill his religious duty, and then cooperate," Bush writes.

"You must do this for all the brothers," Bush quotes Abu Zubaydah as saying.
Bush says Mohammed proved difficult to break, "but when he did, he gave us a lot." He disclosed plans to attack American targets with anthrax and "directed us to three people involved in the al Qaeda biological weapons program," among other breakthroughs, Bush writes.
In sum, Bush writes, the CIA interrogation program saved lives.

"Had we captured more al Qaeda operatives with significant intelligence value, I would have used the program for them as well," he writes.

Your opinion on this?
Mine is that 'waterboarding' is a form of torture, and as such should never be used.
You can't claim to have the moral high ground and continue these practices.
As for the 'significant intelligence value', we can only take the CIA's word for that. It's not verifiable.

Johro

(Reuters) - No CIA personnel will face criminal charges for destroying videotapes of harsh interrogations of terrorism suspects, the U.S. Justice Department said on Tuesday.
While the decision will spare the CIA and the Obama administration the potential backlash and embarrassment that a trial could have generated, another federal probe continues into possible abuse of detainees by CIA personnel.
The videotapes probe was launched in January 2008 by then-U.S. Attorney General Michael Mukasey after revelations that the CIA in 2005 had destroyed hundreds of hours of videotapes of the interrogations of terrorism suspects Abu Zubaydah and Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri.
Zubaydah was one of three terrorism suspects who was subjected to waterboarding, a procedure in which the person experiences simulated drowning. It was believed that the tapes included footage of the waterboarding.

Einhard

I think that, just as there are different forms of torture, there are also different levels of torture, and I'd consider waterboarding to be on the lower scale on what can be inflicted.

I also believe that there are plausible situations where torture might be a necessary method of gaining information. I remember a few years ago reading about a case in Germany where a paedophile had abducted a boy, but was himself soon captured. The police believed that the boy was still alive, and threatened to torture the man unless his whereabouts were revealed. There was a huge amount of debate at the time about whether torture should be used on him to discover the location. Indeed, the police chief was convicted of a crime for just making the threat. I can't recall if the victim died because his abductor refused to divulge his location, or whether he was already dead, but were it the former, I believe that torture would have been justified.

Ghost Estate

waterboarding isnt the worst idea.

Maybe we can use it on a few Fianna Fail politicians to find out why anglo is really being bailed out

snow ghost

Bush still thinks waterboarding is a form of surfing.

No wonder he approved of its use.

Senna

snow ghost wrote: »

Bush still thinks waterboarding is a form of surfing.

I thought the article was going to be Bush wondering why the CIA wanted to take a prisoner to the beach for water sports.

Johro

Einhard wrote: »

I think that, just as there are different forms of torture, there are also different levels of torture, and I'd consider waterboarding to be on the lower scale on what can be inflicted.

I also believe that there are plausible situations where torture might be a necessary method of gaining information. I remember a few years ago reading about a case in Germany where a paedophile had abducted a boy, but was himself soon captured. The police believed that the boy was still alive, and threatened to torture the man unless his whereabouts were revealed. There was a huge amount of debate at the time about whether torture should be used on him to discover the location. Indeed, the police chief was convicted of a crime for just making the threat. I can't recall if the victim died because his abductor refused to divulge his location, or whether he was already dead, but were it the former, I believe that torture would have been justified.

Tough one, that.. Would that mean you are 'for' torture? Coz if you were against, you can't allow it in one instance and not another. Things are never that clear cut I guess.
As for waterboarding, I'm sure it wouldn't feel on the lower scale of what could be inflicted if you were the victim.. You'd have no way of knowing how far they'd go, would be pretty terrifying.

Ghost Estate

Senna wrote: »

I thought the article was going to be Bush wondering why the CIA wanted to take a prisoner to the beach for water sports.

Its cheaper than fighting a war against them and if one fella has such a great time at the beach the rest of them will just drop their guns and come over

scientific1982

Its definitely torture. To the person getting waterboarded its exactly the same sensation as drowning. Christopher Hitchens initially contended that it wasnt torture. He got it done for an article in vanity fair and changed his mind. The effectivness of torture is questionable and its morally wrong.

Helix

its all about cost v reward tbh

Black Swan

You have to compensate for GW Bush's low level of intelligence and how he confuses things. When you say water boarding, he thinks of this, not torture.

Link: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d2/Oahu_North_Shore_surfing_hand_drag.jpg

snow ghost

There is a rumour that they also showed prisoners naked pictures of Mary Harney... the words war crimes tribunal comes to mind.

scientific1982

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4LPubUCJv58

Ghost Estate

snow ghost wrote: »

There is a rumour that they also showed prisoners naked pictures of Mary Harney... the words war crimes tribunal comes to mind.

you'd have to be in america before she'd even fit in the frame

snow ghost

Ghost Estate wrote: »

you'd have to be in america before she'd even fit in the frame

They used a weather satelite orbiting the Earth.

kryogen

I honestly have some serious conflict on the issue, on the one hand, i believe torutre to be wrong. On the other hand, I would subscribe to an end jusitifies the means policy in certain areas also

I would have no problem with someones finger nails being pulled off, waterboarding or electricution of genitals or whatever if it led to saving lives

Helix

sure at the end of the day, whats the difference between waterboarding and "your mate already signed a confession saying it was you, we think he might be lying though, tell us what really happened and we'll throw his out"

both mental torture, one is perfectly fine the other isnt

youre not going to die from either, theyll both just raise the stress levels

Manic Moran

Johro wrote: »

Tough one, that.. Would that mean you are 'for' torture? Coz if you were against, you can't allow it in one instance and not another. Things are never that clear cut I guess.
As for waterboarding, I'm sure it wouldn't feel on the lower scale of what could be inflicted if you were the victim.. You'd have no way of knowing how far they'd go, would be pretty terrifying.

Look up the case of Lt Col Allen West for an excellent example.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allen_West_(politician)

While serving in Taji, Iraq, on August 20, 2003, as commander of the 2d Battalion, 20th Field Artillery Regiment, Lieutenant Colonel West was in charge of an interrogation of a civilian Iraqi police officer who was suspected of having pertinent information regarding attacks on American soldiers in the area. Interrogators had learned that the detainee had information about a planned ambush. When the interrogators were unable to extract the needed important information for some time, LTC West was asked to come try to obtain the important information. As the detainee continued to hold back the information, LTC West fired his pistol past the detainee's head into a clearing barrel, frightening (but not physically harming) the detainee and getting him to finally give the information

LTC West was subsequently forced to retire from the Army. Though it was pretty uncontroversial (by the letter of the law, it was maltreatment of a military prisoner, even though the maltreatment was rather mild), he was widely considered something of a martyr. Indeed, LTC West (Ret) is now to become Congressman West, he won election in Florida's 22nd District last week, so he must have no small amount of support.

NTM

Caliden

I'd like to hear people's alternatives on how to deal with people who aren't afraid to die?
If they want to blow themselves up, then I say waterboarding is fine by me.

kryogen

Alternative view? if they are truly not afraid to die, find what they are afraid of and use that against them, whatever is necessary, i.e. torture, mutilation, execution or torture of family members (think i may have watched too much 24)

brendansmith

kryogen wrote: »

Alternative view? if they are truly not afraid to die, find what they are afraid of and use that against them, whatever is necessary, i.e. soap, shampoo, antiperspirant etc(think i may have watched my parents do too much 69ing)

I think you may have buddy. I think you may have.

syklops

In that video, there is one thing that struck me. The caption says at the start "Christoher Hitchen's Boss asked him if he would allow himself to be waterboarded, and he said yes". I can think of a million and one forms of torture he would not have even considered. Like:

Editor:"We're doing this piece on torture. Would it be ok if we took a Blow torch to your nipples?"
Hitchen:"No".
Editor:"Car battery to your genitals?"
Hitchen:"No chance"
Editor:"Pliers to your fingernails?"
Hitchen:"Not happening"
Editor:"Waterboarding"
Hitchen:"Huh, er, yeah ok".


The UN has said that torture is wrong. Well done UN. How long did it take them to come up with that nugget of information?

Maybe if they come out with a statement that suicide bombings, murder and rape are wrong, maybe people will stop doing them.

Johro

Caliden wrote: »

I'd like to hear people's alternatives on how to deal with people who aren't afraid to die?
If they want to blow themselves up, then I say waterboarding is fine by me.

If they have the right people. And that's a pretty big 'if'.
Not that long ago in England a Brazilian student got shot to sh!t on a train. Sometimes the 'intelligence' is flawed.
It's also a known fact that a large number of Guantanamo prisoners were found innocent. They could easily have been subjected to torture, some were.

Johro

Helix wrote: »

sure at the end of the day, whats the difference between waterboarding and "your mate already signed a confession saying it was you, we think he might be lying though, tell us what really happened and we'll throw his out"

both mental torture, one is perfectly fine the other isnt

youre not going to die from either, theyll both just raise the stress levels

Waterboarding is physical torture, and a very different matter from saying 'your friend already said it was you' etc.

amacachi

syklops wrote: »

The UN has said that torture is wrong. Well done UN. How long did it take them to come up with that nugget of information?

Maybe if they come out with a statement that suicide bombings, murder and rape are wrong, maybe people will stop doing them.

Aye, I saw an ad from the UN the other day saying how great suicide bombings are.

Johro

syklops wrote: »

In that video, there is one thing that struck me. The caption says at the start "Christoher Hitchen's Boss asked him if he would allow himself to be waterboarded, and he said yes". I can think of a million and one forms of torture he would not have even considered. Like:

Editor:"We're doing this piece on torture. Would it be ok if we took a Blow torch to your nipples?"
Hitchen:"No".
Editor:"Car battery to your genitals?"
Hitchen:"No chance"
Editor:"Pliers to your fingernails?"
Hitchen:"Not happening"
Editor:"Waterboarding"
Hitchen:"Huh, er, yeah ok".


The UN has said that torture is wrong. Well done UN. How long did it take them to come up with that nugget of information?

Maybe if they come out with a statement that suicide bombings, murder and rape are wrong, maybe people will stop doing them.

?? Seriously?
You assume that because the UN has said torture is wrong, torture has stopped. Nothing could be further from the truth. Neither side really seems to care what the UN says, 'cause it has no teeth.
The UN said the war on Iraq was illegal. We all know what happened there.
'Israeli settlements are illegal.' Cue shrugging of shoulders.

Johro

Manic Moran wrote: »

Look up the case of Lt Col Allen West for an excellent example.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allen_West_(politician)



LTC West was subsequently forced to retire from the Army. Though it was pretty uncontroversial (by the letter of the law, it was maltreatment of a military prisoner, even though the maltreatment was rather mild), he was widely considered something of a martyr. Indeed, LTC West (Ret) is now to become Congressman West, he won election in Florida's 22nd District last week, so he must have no small amount of support.

NTM

That's a matter of degrees, whether you believe that case to be a case of torture or not.
I don't think a law prohibiting torture will stop that kind of thing.
Cops have used it, and other forms of intimidation since cops existed. I would think most people would be of the opinion that it depends on the case, level of criminality, and context. Would be hard to legislate for that, other than an outright ban on torture, with acts of torture clearly outlined. People will always find ways around it though, and it simply won't be enforced in some quarters.

jackiebaron

Einhard wrote: »

I think that, just as there are different forms of torture, there are also different levels of torture, and I'd consider waterboarding to be on the lower scale on what can be inflicted.

I also believe that there are plausible situations where torture might be a necessary method of gaining information. I remember a few years ago reading about a case in Germany where a paedophile had abducted a boy, but was himself soon captured. The police believed that the boy was still alive, and threatened to torture the man unless his whereabouts were revealed. There was a huge amount of debate at the time about whether torture should be used on him to discover the location. Indeed, the police chief was convicted of a crime for just making the threat. I can't recall if the victim died because his abductor refused to divulge his location, or whether he was already dead, but were it the former, I believe that torture would have been justified.

Then you believe that the international ban on torture should be scrapped?

jackiebaron

"Should any American soldier be so base and infamous as to injure any prisoner...by such conduct they bring shame, disgrace and ruin to themselves and their country."

General George Washington, 1775.

ascanbe

Einhard wrote: »

I think that, just as there are different forms of torture, there are also different levels of torture, and I'd consider waterboarding to be on the lower scale on what can be inflicted.

I also believe that there are plausible situations where torture might be a necessary method of gaining information. I remember a few years ago reading about a case in Germany where a paedophile had abducted a boy, but was himself soon captured. The police believed that the boy was still alive, and threatened to torture the man unless his whereabouts were revealed. There was a huge amount of debate at the time about whether torture should be used on him to discover the location. Indeed, the police chief was convicted of a crime for just making the threat. I can't recall if the victim died because his abductor refused to divulge his location, or whether he was already dead, but were it the former, I believe that torture would have been justified.

Hard cases make bad law.
A country shouldn't base its laws on imagining the worst possible scenario/case; laws should be drafted to deal with average circumstance and should reflect the ethics of the country.
On the Christopher Hitchens video:
What he experienced doesn't at all equate to actual water-boarding, though it no doubt was an extremely uncomfortable physical sensation.
He knows exactly what he's going into/that he's being water-boarded, that he's taking part in an experiment, that he is amongst 'friends' and that they will stop when he gives the pre-arranged signal.
In terms of psychological damage, there is no parallel.

starbelgrade

Torture isn't justifiable in any circumstance.

Firstly, it presumes that the person being tortured is guilty of something without trial & secondly it is contravention of their human rights.

And lastly, it is a very unreliable way of extracting information, as many people who are tortured will eventually say what their captors want them to say whether it's actually true or not.

Nodin

Of course the thing is that the US has prosecuted those who use waterboarding from as far back as the Spanish American war, up past world war II, and has executed those who used it, on occassion.

kryogen

brendansmith wrote: »

I think you may have buddy. I think you may have.

Altering somebodys post when you quote them is not only funny, its clever too


Funny and Clever

Nodin

Longish article, but worth the read....

As a result of such accounts, a number of Japanese prison-camp officers and guards were convicted of torture that clearly violated the laws of war. They were not the only defendants convicted in such cases. As far back as the U.S. occupation of the Philippines after the 1898 Spanish-American War, U.S. soldiers were court-martialed for using the "water cure" to question Filipino guerrillas.

More recently, waterboarding cases have appeared in U.S. district courts. One was a civil action brought by several Filipinos seeking damages against the estate of former Philippine president Ferdinand Marcos. The plaintiffs claimed they had been subjected to torture, including water torture. The court awarded $766 million in damages, noting in its findings that "the plaintiffs experienced human rights violations including, but not limited to . . . the water cure, where a cloth was placed over the detainee's mouth and nose, and water producing a drowning sensation."

In 1983, federal prosecutors charged a Texas sheriff and three of his deputies with violating prisoners' civil rights by forcing confessions. The complaint alleged that the officers conspired to "subject prisoners to a suffocating water torture ordeal in order to coerce confessions.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/02/AR2007110201170.html
Prosecuting other states forces, its own forces, and its law enforcement officials operating internally.....yet all of a sudden its "legal".....

Pace2008

Einhard wrote: »

I think that, just as there are different forms of torture, there are also different levels of torture, and I'd consider waterboarding to be on the lower scale on what can be inflicted.

Apparently, it is complete agony.

Helix

Johro wrote: »

Waterboarding is physical torture, and a very different matter from saying 'your friend already said it was you' etc.

is it physical though? isnt it more the mental thing that your body thinks youre going to die, when in actual fact youre not

its making you think one thing when the truth is the opposite, so imo its as much mental torture as physical

enfant terrible

Johro wrote: »

Waterboarding is physical torture, and a very different matter from saying 'your friend already said it was you' etc.

So to be clear your ok with mental torture just not physical torture?

Son Of A Vidic

Lets get some of our **** Bankers lined up for some good old waterboarding.

Nodin

Helix wrote: »

is it physical though? isnt it more the mental thing that your body thinks youre going to die, when in actual fact youre not

Your body "thinks" its going to die because you're being effectively drowned and are physically reacting to that scenario. The only reason its wrong is because they'll stop before you do, not because its not "real".

jumpguy

scientific1982 wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4LPubUCJv58

Wow, I'm shocked they did it on him tbh, he doesn't seem to be in the best physical state and could easily have had a heart attack...

Snowie

My opinion is, if a human has been proven to be a member of a terrorist organisation, or broke the law, they forfit all of there human rights.

enfant terrible

What methods of enhanced interrogation would people opposed to waterboarding be ok with if any

1. Yelling
2. Loud music, and light control
3. Environmental manipulation
4. Sleep deprivation/adjustment
5. Stress positions
6. 20-hour interrogations
7. Controlled fear (muzzled dogs)
8. Psychological
9. Pharmacologic

Nodin

Snow-Monkey wrote: »

My opinion is, if a human has been proven to be a member of a terrorist organisation, or broke the law, they forfit all of there human rights.

So some young kid who robs a choclate bar deserves Guantanamo? I'm glad you devoted so much thought to that.

Pace2008

Snow-Monkey wrote: »

My opinion is, if a human has been proven to be a member of a terrorist organisation, *or broke the law*, they forfit all of there human rights.

You what now?

The Saint

As was stated above, it does seem strange that in the past the US prosecuted America troops during the Vietnam war for waterboarding prisoners and they also executed Japanese troops after WWII for waterboarding American POWs. Why is it now ok?

From a legal perspective there is no doubt. Torture is a non-derogable violation of international law. This means that under NO circumstances can torture be used. These are conventions that the US signed up to.

Also, from a strategic perspective it seems counterproductive. Say a US soldier is captured and tortured in Iraq. US protestations would ring quite hollow when it condemns these actions and accusations of hypocracy would abound. Also, if a country such as the US uses torture, it gives a percieved legitimacy for the action to be carried out by other states that perhaps be less inclined to do so otherwise. If another country then engages in torture and the "West" condemns this actions, it can easily be dismissed as the beakon of the Western world, that shining city on the hill engages in the same activity.

All this would therefore lead to the undoing the progress made in anti-torture legislation and practise since the end of WWII.

Snowie

Nodin wrote: »

So some young kid who robs a choclate bar deserves Guantanamo? I'm glad you devoted so much thought to that.

yes and unicef people should be dissembowled for there guilt mongering.

The Saint

Snow-Monkey wrote: »

My opinion is, if a human has been proven to be a member of a terrorist organisation, or broke the law, they forfit all of there human rights.

Violating people's human rights is breaking the law so by your logic, those removing or violating those rights should therefore forfit their human rights. Interesting logic. Miniature brazen bulls for some, torture for all.

Snowie

The Saint wrote: »

Violating people's human rights is breaking the law so by your logic, those removing or violating those rights should therefore forfit their human rights. Interesting logic. Miniature brazen bulls for some, torture for all.

so let me get this straight
if some one raped Your mother, would you be happy for that person to get 5 years in jail?

No as far as im concerned if you choose to kill, rape or gbh some one and affect there life why should that person have rights.

So if to, men or women who decide to bomb an building and kill 5 people and are proved guilty do they diserve to be treated well, theyve taken life, theyved caused maybe 200 people misserey why should they be given rights ?

The Saint

Snow-Monkey wrote: »

so let me get this straight
if some one raped Your mother, would you be happy for that person to get 5 years in jail?

No as far as im concerned if you choose to kill, rape or gbh some one and affect there life why should that person have rights.

Firstly, you cannot make laws on a hypothetical scenarios of actions taken against a family member. If relatives of the victims of crimes sat on the juries of the perpetrators you would have some very interesting sentencing. That is why justice must be blind. If it is not then it is based on irrationality and revenge. Frankly, I don't want to live in a country with a justice system like that.

Secondly, no I would not be happy to see someone get five years for rape. But this is not an excuse for the stripping of all of someones human rights, it does justify a review of sentencing for such crimes.

Snow-Monkey wrote: »

So if to, men or women who decide to bomb an building and kill 5 people and are proved guilty do they diserve to be treated well, theyve taken life, theyved caused maybe 200 people misserey why should they be given rights ?

People should be punished within the law, not outside of it. Everyone should have rights. I know it is easy to say "should Hitler have had rights, blah, blah, blah". However, you selectively apply basic human rights. It is either justice and human rights for all or no one. If a state starts violating criminial's rights then the state itself becomes criminal, no? I don't want to live in a state that engages in similar actions of criminals while professing to defending against them in the same breath, do you?

Nodin

The Saint wrote: »

As was stated above, it does seem strange that in the past the US prosecuted America troops during the Vietnam war for waterboarding prisoners and they also executed Japanese troops after WWII for waterboarding American POWs. Why is it now ok?.

Essentially, this is what happens when a team of lawyers with a dangerous agenda get into power.

The Saint wrote: »

From a legal perspective there is no doubt. Torture is a non-derogable violation of international law. This means that under NO circumstances can torture be used. These are conventions that the US signed up to.

True. But if you define certain techniques as "Torture" and certain things as not being torture, you can stand there and say - as Condoleeza Rice did - "We don't torture" while torturing.

And of course, if one bunch of experts or lawyers tell you something you don't like
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/24/AR2009042403171.html?hpid=topnews

you ignore them until you find the kind of people who say what you want them to say.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A26401-2004Jun8.html
http://lawofwar.org/Torture_Memos_analysis.htm

To really understand the kind of thinking that went on, the best read is this, which is long and covers far more than torture, but is very informative.
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/cheney/

This is the specific section on torture
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/cheney/chapters/pushing_the_envelope_on_presi/

Nodin

Snow-Monkey wrote: »

so let me (.....)they be given rights ?

And what if they're wrongly accussed?