Officials OK'd "Torture"

[superpunk]

Bush administration officials from Vice President Dick Cheney on down signed off on using harsh interrogation techniques against suspected terrorists after asking the Justice Department to endorse their legality, The Associated Press has learned.

The officials also took care to insulate President Bush from a series of meetings where CIA interrogation methods, including waterboarding, which simulates drowning, were discussed and ultimately approved.

A former senior U.S. intelligence official familiar with the meetings described them Thursday to the AP to confirm details first reported by ABC News on Wednesday. The intelligence official spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to publicly discuss the issue.

Between 2002 and 2003, the Justice Department issued several memos from its Office of Legal Counsel that justified using the interrogation tactics, including ones that critics call torture.

[View Full Quote] "If you looked at the timing of the meetings and the memos you'd see a correlation," the former intelligence official said. Those who attended the dozens of meetings agreed that "there'd need to be a legal opinion on the legality of these tactics" before using them on al-Qaida detainees, the former official said.

The meetings were held in the White House Situation Room in the years immediately following the Sept. 11 attacks. Attending the sessions were Cheney, then-Bush aides Attorney General John Ashcroft, Secretary of State Colin Powell, CIA Director George Tenet and national security adviser Condoleezza Rice.

The White House, Justice and State departments and the CIA refused comment Thursday, as did a spokesman for Tenet. A message for Ashcroft was not immediately returned.

Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, D-Mass., lambasted what he described as "yet another astonishing disclosure about the Bush administration and its use of torture."

"Who would have thought that in the United States of America in the 21st century, the top officials of the executive branch would routinely gather in the White House to approve torture?" Kennedy said in a statement. "Long after President Bush has left office, our country will continue to pay the price for his administration's renegade repudiation of the rule of law and fundamental human rights."

The American Civil Liberties Union called on Congress to investigate.
"With each new revelation, it is beginning to look like the torture operation was managed and directed out of the White House," ACLU legislative director Caroline Fredrickson said. "This is what we suspected all along."

The former intelligence official described Cheney and the top national security officials as deeply immersed in developing the CIA's interrogation program during months of discussions over which methods should be used and when.

At times, CIA officers would demonstrate some of the tactics, or at least detail how they worked, to make sure the small group of "principals" fully understood what the al-Qaida detainees would undergo. The principals eventually authorized physical abuse such as slaps and pushes, sleep deprivation, or waterboarding. This technique involves strapping a person down and pouring water over his cloth-covered face to create the sensation of drowning.

The small group then asked the Justice Department to examine whether using the interrogation methods would break domestic or international laws.
"No one at the agency wanted to operate under a notion of winks and nods and assumptions that everyone understood what was being talked about," said a second former senior intelligence official. "People wanted to be assured that everything that was conducted was understood and approved by the folks in the chain of command."

The Office of Legal Counsel issued at least two opinions on interrogation methods.

In one, dated Aug. 1, 2002, then-Assistant Attorney General Jay Bybee defined torture as covering "only extreme acts" causing pain similar in intensity to that caused by death or organ failure. A second, dated March 14, 2003, justified using harsh tactics on detainees held overseas so long as military interrogators did not specifically intend to torture their captives.
Both legal opinions since have been withdrawn.

The second former senior intelligence official said rescinding the memos caused the CIA to seek even more detailed approvals for the interrogations.
The department issued another still-secret memo in October 2001 that, in part, sought to outline novel ways the military could be used domestically to defend the country in the face of an impending attack. The Justice Department so far has refused to release it, citing attorney-client privilege, and Attorney General Michael Mukasey declined to describe it Thursday at a Senate panel where Democrats characterized it as a "torture memo."

Not all of the principals who attended were fully comfortable with the White House meetings.

The ABC News report portrayed Ashcroft as troubled by the discussions, despite agreeing that the interrogations methods were legal.

"Why are we talking about this in the White House?" the network quoted Ashcroft as saying during one meeting. "History will not judge this kindly."

———
Associated Press writer Pete Yost contributed to this report.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/WireS...4631535&page=3

[BrAinPaiNt]

Really!?!?!

I am Shocked!!!

Had No Clue!!!

[Vintage]

Our special forces are trained in anti-interrogation techniques. Rather than not talking, they talk. They inform the other side of small, unimportant things that can be confirmed. The stuff gets confirmed, and the process continues. Then, they eventually talk about stuff that can't be confirmed. Then the other side has to make a decision of whether or not they are telling the truth. They can't know for sure, since they cannot confirm it. The whole point being, it becomes a giant waste of time.

If we train our people like this; you can bet the other side does as well.


Further more, torture may help with small, tactical stuff. But the broad political purpose of any military action gets undermined. The other side can use that to undermine the legitimacy of a gov't, which is half of their goal.

[Cajuncowboy]

I have no problem with any of this.

Waterboarding torture?

Really!

They have no permanent damage done to them after it's over. Other than they just talked.

This country is becoming a country full of wussies who are afraid to hurt a terrorist because they may be violated but at the same time some of these same goofballs say that 9/11 was an inside job and such.

I say take them all and waterboard each one of them. When the word gets out that we are doing this maybe they will be quicker to give up the info.

Right now they figure that some in our own government would protect them.

For crying out loud, THEY WAT TO KILL US!

Some people don't get this.

[superpunk]

As the term ‘waterboarding’ slowly found its way into the American consciousness, some interesting facts about its history were exposed. In 1947 the U.S. charged a Japanese army officer, Yukio Asano, with war crimes for using the technique on an American citizen. He was convicted and sentenced to fifteen years of hard labor.

Hell, we dropped an atomic bomb on their country. I guess he was justified because we wanted to kill them. Maybe we can acquit him and clear his record posthumously?

[Cajuncowboy]

Originally Posted by superpunk

Hell, we dropped an atomic bomb on their country. I guess he was justified because we wanted to kill them. Maybe we can acquit him and clear his record posthumously?

The difference was that we didn't start that war or this one.

We just ended it.

[Vintage]

Originally Posted by Cajuncowboy

The difference was that we didn't start that war or this one.

We just ended it.

Forgot who said it.... although I know McNamara talks about in Fog of War....

"Thank God we won the war, or we'd have been prosecuted for war crimes."


Point being; justification comes not through what actions are done... but by the victor.

[superpunk]

Originally Posted by Cajuncowboy

The difference was that we didn't start that war or this one.

We just ended it.

Your justification earlier was merely that they want to kill us, and so "any means necessary" is justified - no matter what treaties it violates or moral status it dissolves. I guess since that doesn't jive with history you had to expand it a bit to :or if someone starts a war with you."

This country agreed that torture was unacceptable back in the day. They didn't agree that it was unacceptable unless your enemy wants to kill you, or starts a war with you. Now top members of the executive branch sit around in rooms deciding just how they're going to torture people. Their secrecy and disregard for principles and treaties that the country has decided to live by is appalling, and really shows their character.

[joseephuss]

Originally Posted by Cajuncowboy

The difference was that we didn't start that war or this one.

We just ended it.

Which war on you talking about? The War on Terror or the war in Iraq?

A group of Al Qaeda terrorists started the War on Terror when they attacked on 9/11 and the U.S. rightly reciprocated by going after them in Afghanistan.

Bush did start the war in Iraq. Iraq didn't invade or attack the U.S. first.

Water boarding is torture. The real question should be "is this form of torture(water boarding) going over the line or not?"

[theebs]

Originally Posted by joseephuss

Which war on you talking about? The War on Terror or the war in Iraq?

A group of Al Qaeda terrorists started the War on Terror when they attacked on 9/11 and the U.S. rightly reciprocated by going after them in Afghanistan.

Bush did start the war in Iraq. Iraq didn't invade or attack the U.S. first.

Water boarding is torture. The real question should be "is this form of torture(water boarding) going over the line or not?"

George Bush says the moon is blue and puppies can fly.

Do not argue with George Bush. He speaks to the almighty daily.

I wouldnt bother arguing with his defenders either. They can admit no wrong doing of any kind. Its a waste of everyones time. He will walk off into the sunset at the end of the year and the next man or woman will step into a mess like parcells stepped into in january of 03.

[burmafrd]

Torture is pulling out fingernails or using a cattle prod on genitals, etc. Only a wuss calls waterboarding that. Unfortunately some of our own people let the wusses convince them it was torture.

Another thing for the wusses there and on this board to consider:
If the terrorists win because we were not tough enough=are you going to feel righteous as they execute you and your family?

[burmafrd]

Do you bother to ever reallylook at what you post theebs?
Talk about self righteous and arrogant.

[theebs]

Originally Posted by burmafrd

Do you bother to ever reallylook at what you post theebs?
Talk about self righteous and arrogant.

Self Righteous? Hardly.

Sick of stubborn people defending parties instead of people and real issues. Yes.

[Doomsday101]

Originally Posted by joseephuss

Which war on you talking about? The War on Terror or the war in Iraq?

A group of Al Qaeda terrorists started the War on Terror when they attacked on 9/11 and the U.S. rightly reciprocated by going after them in Afghanistan.

Bush did start the war in Iraq. Iraq didn't invade or attack the U.S. first.

Water boarding is torture. The real question should be "is this form of torture(water boarding) going over the line or not?"

Iraq played no part in this war? They signed an agreement for the cease fire they continued for 12 years of kicking inspectors out and locking on and firing surface to air missiles at US fighter jets who were patrolling the no fly zone. They were given fair warning of the consequents and helped choose their own fate. Personally I think the US waited a few years too long in allowing Iraq to continually break the agreement as well as circumvent the sanction which proved to be a joke

[Vintage]

Originally Posted by burmafrd

Torture is pulling out fingernails or using a cattle prod on genitals, etc. Only a wuss calls waterboarding that. Unfortunately some of our own people let the wusses convince them it was torture.

Another thing for the wusses there and on this board to consider:
If the terrorists win because we were not tough enough=are you going to feel righteous as they execute you and your family?

Terrorists, when they attack, hope to draw a response. They want a response bec. it helps recruit people to their cause.

I am NOT saying they don't deserve a response NOR am I saying we should abstain from attacking when its needed.

I will now allow time for you to read that once more, before I continue.

.

.

.

.

.


The terrorists broad goal is to influence politics one way or another, for the benefit of whatever "cause" they happen to support.

One of their ways to do so is to delegitimize the other side. They have to show the common people that the government cannot provide the common people what they need. If they can do that, it creates political instability and gives the terrorists hope they can win the battle of ideals and win over the common people, gaining political power.

Torture might help at the tactical level.

But it also helps the terrorists too. They don't care if some of their members are tortured/killed. They care about perception.

If we use torture, it plays right into their hand. They will talk it up (nevermind that they use it too; that's irrelevant). They use it as propaganda to deligitimize what we are doing. And it works. Because the lack of education/access to free press prevents the common people from knowing what truly is going on.

If we are going to successfully fight the War on Terror, we cannot afford to let the terrorists delegitimize what we are doing.