Bush, on 'waterboarding'

Johro · 10-11-2010 02:36AM #1

(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 · 10-11-2010 02:39AM

(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 · 10-11-2010 02:47AM

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 · 10-11-2010 02:52AM

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 · 10-11-2010 02:55AM

Bush still thinks waterboarding is a form of surfing.

No wonder he approved of its use.

Senna · 10-11-2010 03:03AM

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 · 10-11-2010 03:05AM

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 · 10-11-2010 03:06AM

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 · 10-11-2010 03:15AM

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 · 10-11-2010 03:16AM

its all about cost v reward tbh

10-11-2010 03:16AM

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 · 10-11-2010 03:18AM

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

scientific1982 · 10-11-2010 03:23AM

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

Ghost Estate · 10-11-2010 03:24AM

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 · 10-11-2010 03:30AM

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 · 10-11-2010 03:30AM

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 · 10-11-2010 03:37AM

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 · 10-11-2010 03:44AM

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 · 10-11-2010 03:46AM

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 · 10-11-2010 03:53AM

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 · 10-11-2010 04:38AM

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 · 10-11-2010 08:22AM

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 · 10-11-2010 10:46PM

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 · 10-11-2010 10:49PM

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 · 10-11-2010 10:49PM

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 · 10-11-2010 10:59PM

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 · 10-11-2010 11:15PM

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 · 10-11-2010 11:37PM

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 · 10-11-2010 11:53PM

"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 · 11-11-2010 12:04AM

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 · 11-11-2010 12:36AM

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.

Bush, on 'waterboarding'

Comments