Waterboarding used 266 times on 2 suspects

jdobbin · April 20, 2009

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30302830/

The New York Times reported in 2007 that Mr. Mohammed had been barraged more than 100 times with harsh interrogation methods, causing C.I.A. officers to worry that they might have crossed legal limits and to halt his questioning. But the precise number and the exact nature of the interrogation method was not previously known.
The release of the numbers is likely to become part of the debate about the morality and efficacy of interrogation methods that the Justice Department under the Bush administration declared legal even though the United States had historically treated them as torture.

I know for some the methods used presents no problems. However, the value of the intelligence derived is questionable. Do people who are tortured give useful information?

Moreover, if waterboarding is not torture according to some who were in the previous administration, why do they think so? And why do they think it is useful?

cybercoma · April 20, 2009

Wikipedia article on waterboarding, for those that don't know what it is.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waterboarding

[*waits patiently for someone to run in and say "at least we don't behead people"]

If it's wrong for them to torture people, it's wrong for us to torture people. End of story.

tango · April 20, 2009

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30302830/
I know for some the methods used presents no problems. However, the value of the intelligence derived is questionable. Do people who are tortured give useful information?

Moreover, if waterboarding is not torture according to some who were in the previous administration, why do they think so? And why do they think it is useful?

Certainly Omar Kadhr did not give useful information under torture in Gitmo. He admitted he just said whatever they wanted to hear to get it to stop.

myata · April 20, 2009

I doubt there's much to be said about principles anymore. Anything goes, as long as it's wrapped into nice democratic package. Illegar wars, breaking up and creating countries, sponsoring and punishing agressors, you name it.

bush_cheney2004 · April 20, 2009

I doubt there's much to be said about principles anymore. Anything goes, as long as it's wrapped into nice democratic package. Illegar wars, breaking up and creating countries, sponsoring and punishing agressors, you name it.

Well....yea...that's what Kosovo and Haiti were all about. Torture is hardly new for western "democracies"....just Google "tiger cage" for the Vietnam War. Hell, there is "torture" in North American penitentiaries as well.

Even Maher Arar claims he was tortured....so the threshold is pretty damn low.

WIP · April 20, 2009

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30302830/
I know for some the methods used presents no problems. However, the value of the intelligence derived is questionable. Do people who are tortured give useful information?

Moreover, if waterboarding is not torture according to some who were in the previous administration, why do they think so? And why do they think it is useful?

I'm surprised the usual suspects haven't chimed in yet to give us the Jack Bauer theory of preventing terrorism -- the ends justify the means. Torture may have been conducted covertly in the past, but it was never approved as official policy before.

In 1774, when the American Revolution was at a crossroads, General Washington ordered his men not to seek revenge against 1000 or so captured mercenaries (I forget the battle), even though these German mercenaries were known to have tortured and murdered captured Americans.

They clearly fit the modern definition of "enemy combatant," and yet Washington established a principle before the nation began that the rule of law must be adhered to even where circumstances would favour breaking the rules. Too bad Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld didn't agree with this lesson. BTW how is it that Christian conservatives who claim to follow higher principles, are complete moral relativists when it comes to scoring a win against the enemy?

sharkman · April 20, 2009

Certainly Omar Kadhr did not give useful information under torture in Gitmo. He admitted he just said whatever they wanted to hear to get it to stop.

Yeah, uh, so what makes you think he's telling the truth about either what he said under duress or what he said about it after?

Borg · April 20, 2009

Perhaps if it were used more, there would be less terrorism in the world - most of them want nothing more to kill a western world person of any faith other than islam.

Borg

Molly · April 20, 2009

In some folks' POV, it qualifies as BEING terrorism.

At best, it's utter abandonment of moral high ground. I don't want my country doing things in my name, of which I must be ashamed.

I'd prefer to avoid extraordinary ties to any other country so morally bankrupt, too.

bush_cheney2004 · April 20, 2009

In some folks' POV, it qualifies as BEING terrorism.

OK by me....all part of the moralist's burden.

At best, it's utter abandonment of moral high ground. I don't want my country doing things in my name, of which I must be ashamed.

Any such shame is of your own making, and should at least be consistent with shame for many, many other things done "in your name".

I'd prefer to avoid extraordinary ties to any other country so morally bankrupt, too.

Of course, but you won't get much support for severing ordinary but large economic ties. Party on....

Edited April 20, 2009 by bush_cheney2004

August1991 · April 20, 2009

I know for some the methods used presents no problems. However, the value of the intelligence derived is questionable. Do people who are tortured give useful information?
Moreover, if waterboarding is not torture according to some who were in the previous administration, why do they think so? And why do they think it is useful?

The evidence that we have for the claim in your OP comes from a memo written in 2005. You can read it here (look at the bottom of page 37).

The discovery of this memo was made, I believe, by this blogger and then the NYT picked up the story.

In short, I don't how accurate the report is or whether the term "waterboarding" is properly used. (The practice has different meanings.)

In addition, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was one of the planners and masterminds behind the September 2001 attacks. It is understandable that the CIA would take great interest in him.

Here is what Bush Jnr said about this in 2006:

Once captured, Abu Zubaydah, Ramzi Binalshibh, and Khalid Sheikh Mohammed were taken into custody of the Central Intelligence Agency. The questioning of these and other suspected terrorists provided information that helped us protect the American people. They helped us break up a cell of Southeast Asian terrorist operatives that had been groomed for attacks inside the United States. They helped us disrupt an al-Qaeda operation to develop anthrax for terrorist attacks. They helped us stop a planned strike on a U.S. Marine camp in Djibouti, and to prevent a planned attack on the U.S. Consulate in Karachi, and to foil a plot to hijack passenger planes and to fly them into Heathrow Airport and London's Canary Wharf.

Link

I think that it is important to understand that we are dealing with people who are capable of flying large airplanes into big buildings.

Edited April 20, 2009 by August1991

JerrySeinfeld · April 21, 2009

Certainly Omar Kadhr did not give useful information under torture in Gitmo. He admitted he just said whatever they wanted to hear to get it to stop.

Yea Khadr's a real prince.

I say have at 'em. If our nations can be made safe from suicidal death-cult thugs by scaring the bejeezus out of said thugs, then by all means waterboard.

Of course, maybe it shouldn't be "official" documented business, but rather something that just kind of, well, happens when no one is looking.

The waterboarding is particularly good, however, because dude thinks he's soon gonna die and get his 76 virgins, but of course it never actually happens for him and he keeps drinkin' the "koolaid" so to speak.

hahahaa. :lol:

BubberMiley · April 21, 2009

If our nations can be made safe from suicidal death-cult thugs by scaring the bejeezus out of said thugs, then by all means waterboard.

However, if it doesn't make them safer and only makes them weaker by giving up moral authority, then I guess your argument is shot to hell.

tango · April 21, 2009

Of course, maybe it shouldn't be "official" documented business, but rather something that just kind of, well, happens when no one is looking.

Yeah ... just like a crime. :rolleyes:

Edited April 21, 2009 by tango

August1991 · April 21, 2009

However, if it doesn't make them safer and only makes them weaker by giving up moral authority, then I guess your argument is shot to hell.

Moral authority? The only moral authority of the scientific method is: Does it work?

Yeah ... just like a crime.

Crime? Special laws and court rooms were built to arrest and try the mafia and Red Brigade in Italy, the Baader-Meinhof in Germany and the Hell's Angels in Quebec.

We dealt with the Soviet Union and Maoist China differently too.

With al Qaeda or Islamofascists, we face a different form of threat and we must use different ways to deal with it.

-----

Tango and Bubbler, we must trust the basic institutions of western civilization. These institutions are worth defending because they mean that we in the West live in societies where individuals are largely free to choose.

jdobbin · April 21, 2009

I think that it is important to understand that we are dealing with people who are capable of flying large airplanes into big buildings.

And you believe that torture is the solution?

jdobbin · April 21, 2009

These institutions are worth defending because they mean that we in the West live in societies where individuals are largely free to choose.

However, you think these institutions should be broken in the pursuit of intelligence?

BubberMiley · April 21, 2009

Moral authority? The only moral authority of the scientific method is: Does it work?

No, there's lots of moral authority. But in this case, the scientific method hasn't proved it works.

Tango and Bubbler, we must trust the basic institutions of western civilization.

Exactly. I would defend institutions like the Geneva Convention, the rule of law, and moral authority from people who would drag us down.

(Cue BC2004 on my use of the first person plural.)

Oleg Bach · April 21, 2009

The Kennedy clan spawed from gangters - so did the Bush and Cheney clan - these are not honourble or kind people - 60 years ago their fathers would tie a man to a chair and beat him with a pipe - asking where the liquior shippment was...now it's the same thing with there decendants...What do we expect from the gangster class..Just because they hold high office does not mean they are not crimminals and hooligan sadists...so IF there were 266 documented waterboardings on 2 victims...THEN that means there where thousands of torturings going on...This is the fall of the empire...I am shocked that people did not understand the significance of such a horrific turn of events...THIS MEANS THAT AMERICA WILL NEVER EVER AGAIN HOLD THE HIGH MORAL GROUND -----------------------------------------------NEVER!

bush_cheney2004 · April 21, 2009

THIS MEANS THAT AMERICA WILL NEVER EVER AGAIN HOLD THE HIGH MORAL GROUND -----------------------------------------------NEVER!

Your recorder marker has been destroyed.

You have been examined.

Your ship must be destroyed.

We make assumption you have a deity or deities

or some such beliefs which comfort you.

We therefore grant you

10 Earth time periods known as minutes

to make preparations.

Moonlight Graham · April 21, 2009

Perhaps if it were used more, there would be less terrorism in the world - most of them want nothing more to kill a western world person of any faith other than islam.
Borg

Perhaps if we didn't occupy their countries, blow up their families, stage coups for their oil, and otherwise covertly screw with their gov'ts there would be less terrorism also.

Waterboarding being used 266 times on 2 people is disgusting. And Obama is turning a blind eye to all this garbage that's being uncovered.

Borg · April 21, 2009

Perhaps if we didn't occupy their countries, blow up their families, stage coups for their oil, and otherwise covertly screw with their gov'ts there would be less terrorism also.
Waterboarding being used 266 times on 2 people is disgusting. And Obama is turning a blind eye to all this garbage that's being uncovered.

That is a diversion - and you are an apologist.

The thousands in the World Trade Centre were not occupying anything other than their lives.

Islams started this and we need to finish it

Unless of course you want to live like they do.

Obama is an idiot at the best of times.

I am sure you will find a way to blame it all on Bush

Borg

August1991 · April 21, 2009

Unfortunate but important thread drift ahead.

Perhaps if we didn't occupy their countries, blow up their families, stage coups for their oil, and otherwise covertly screw with their gov'ts there would be less terrorism also.

We share the same planet.

The US doesn't occupy Canada, it doesn't blow up our families, it doesn't stage coups to steal our oil. In fact, the US has left us alone to resolve our serious federal issues alone. (Bill Clinton gave a pathetic speech in favour of Chretien that changed nothing.)

Sorry, Moonlight Graham, Americans buy Albertan oil and natural gas at world prices - and the Albertan government collects royalties.

In the mindframe of every US leftist, the US federal government had every reason to exploit the regional differences in Canada for the benefit of the US. (Anyone who knows anything about Canada knows that we have various language and energy arguments.) The US federal government, whether Democratic or Republican, President or Congress, largely left us alone.

This explains in part why I am pro-American. I am thankful that I live beside this American democracy. And then again, I sometimes remind Americans that they could not hope for better neighbours than we Canadians.

myata · April 21, 2009

I think that it is important to understand that we are dealing with people who are capable of flying large airplanes into big buildings.

Is it important to understand that there are people among us who are capable of executing these medieval interrogation techniques multiple times? As well as those who authorised it, in the high(est?) echelons of power?

If torture can be rationalized, what act could not / would not?