Torture

[ncboman]

Should 'we the people' stand by and let these crimes go unpunished by the ones that authorized and 'went along' with these policies?

These bastards have sabotaged the reputation of our military for years to come, and imho there's only one 'right way' to begin to restore it.

What young recruit wants to join a military known to torture the enemy? :mad:

ncboman

[Altjaeger]

As long as we have been around here and as much as I enjoy you, at times you remain an absolute enigma to me. You often seem to have both ends covered, but see no middle. On the one hand if the government seeks to increase security you often see a government plot to steal our rights. On the other if they maintain the status quo and something happens then it was negligent or more likely actually the instigator of a conspiracy.

In this case were would you start? The lawyers who rendered their best legal opinions or the officials who made a decision based on what they believed to be good legal counsel?

If you go after lawyers will future executives receive good legal counsel or counsel rendered to ensure that the lawyer or other advisor can past muster in future administrations that may be of another party seeking revenge? The reverse is true of the executive. Is he going to make the bold decisions that may be called for at times or act timidly to ensure his personal well being. Who is going to seek those positions if they are going to face the liability of millions in legal fees as Sarah Palin has in political witch hunts.

At this point who decides where that line is that defines torture and have our traditions prohibiting ex post facto prosecution any meaning? I think you are advocating a dangerous path.

[dave-t.]

If you look at the history of the US conflicts with muslims, there seems to be a trend. When we out mean them, we win.

Barbery Pirates, and Pershing in the Philipenes. The US generals and captians making the calls went berserk.

If we aren't willing to do what it takes to win, then we should do what it takes to appease them and avoid any and all conflict, imo.

WWII has been called "America's finest hour", but if you look at the devestation of Europe, mainly the civilian targets and casualties, and look at the Asian/Japanese battles, specifically the mutilation of enemy corpses and tactics to get into the heads of the enemy, it was very twisted and grim.

But it worked.



Currently, look at the treatment of our captured soldiers and the tactics of the muslims, nothing is out of bounds including decapitation and rape, and their fighting tactics such as shooting from hospitals and schools, etc.

If we adhere to the "rules", and they have nothhing that is off limits, then we will have the ongoing war with no final resolution except that they are willing to do what we won't and can pick their battles to hit us where we are weak and retreat to a safe zone, forever. US captives will be forced to talk or face the knife, while Muslim captives will get 3 hots and a cot until they decide to spill the beans??..... Recipe for disaster.

If you aren't going to do whatever it takes to win the conflict, then don't get involved at all.

What we have here in the US, and have had for 40yrs, is a fear to crush the enemy. The world knows we have the tools and personel to do it, but that we won't. That is our main weakness, that is the reason we take on the number of casualties we do, and that is the reason we have ongoing drug out extended wars with relatively small, poor, (comparitively) unorganized enemies/countries.

[ncboman]

In this case were would you start? The lawyers who rendered their best legal opinions or the officials who made a decision based on what they believed to be good legal counsel?


I doan need a lawyer to tell me right from wrong. I figure anybody that does is just lookin an excuse to do wrong and knows it.

Beside the fact that torture doan work, it justifies an enemy to use it on our boys. That's a no no in my book and will always be. ... no matter what.

Kill em, lock em up, or set em free, but no POW should ever be tortured. It is an inhumane crime.

I think our political machine pussyfoots at war too, and I think jr was a pussy for not standing down this torture business. That one thing made me hate the man. We are a better people than that.

If I were king I would annihilate torturers, no matter which side they be on. I am absolutely against it.

ncboman

[GF.]

I doan need a lawyer to tell me right from wrong. I figure anybody that does is just lookin an excuse to do wrong and knows it.




Amen, brother. ...If you hafta ask...

JMO - It's ridiculous to presume that our guys will somehow be protected from torture or other forms of maltreatment just because we draw a bright line that says We Will Not. But that's not the point. The point is, you either believe in honor or you don't.

Civilian casualties and other form of 'collateral damage' are inescapable in war, and all the more so when the enemy is pathetic enough to hide behind the skirts & diapers of their own women and children. In those cases, the civilian dead should be on the heads of the cowards who put them in harm's way, but I'm sure our Heroes find no comfort in that.

The human shields are innocents and the terrorists have rightly earned themselves all the tortures of hell, but there is still a huge gulf between taking out an active threat and torturing a defenseless captive--even if he does know something important. We are the Good guys, and the Good Guys don't pull that schitt.

Sad fact: you can't have a rule without the occasional exception, and our legal system recognizes that. Our Intelligence guys know what gives them good information and what doesn't. And since I can't claim to have BTDT, I'll say there probably are cases in which you have to commit a crime to prevent an atrocity. Surely there are conditions under which any one of us would do things that warrant a war crimes prosecution, and we'd be prepared to suffer the consequences, no matter what.

But that's the difference. Getting a legalistic get-outta-jail-free card to justify something that is dead wrong in the first place vs. being willing to sacrifice one's own life or liberty in order to save others, if that's what it's going to take.

Imagine a nuclear sub, several miles up-river from the ocean somewhere in the Soviet Union. Local fisherman snags the conning tower in his nets. SEAL Team goes top-side, SEAL Team comes back down. Betcha a nickel they weren't apologizing to the fisherman for the inconvenience.

[dave-t.]

I don't think torture is right either, but in the classic scenario, one guys pain vs. thousands of lives either killed or saved.... I don't care what it takes to get the info.

It should never be common place, it should never be a given that if the US takes you captive that you are going to be put through the wringer.

Still, there are those unique circumstances that I feel would be justified. Whether that is how it happened under W's watch or not, I don't know.


Also, GF, you well know that civilian cassualties in WWII were the goal of some big bombing missions, not the accidental result. My grandad flew a b-29 for 20 years through WWII and Korea, and by his own admission he had killed a lot of people in a lot of places, he was a mean cuss and had a dark side, but I would have an issue with anyone saying he was not an honorable man. The rules are different in war, imo. You may not have met an honorable person who firebombed a town of 90,000. I was partially raised by one.

[BILL K]

I'm with you on this Dave-T, but I'm not much of a typist so I'll just post this,
http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/wtc_burning_1.jpg
I still find it to be relevent and important.

[Altjaeger]

I doan need a lawyer to tell me right from wrong. I figure anybody that does is just lookin an excuse to do wrong and knows it.
ncboman

There is not a person in this forum that does not violate multiple laws every day. Our codes are so massive and complex that it is impossible to breath and not do so. Just our tax code is 16,000 pages, That is about 12-14 James Michener novels and we are not even talking about criminal or administrative codes. At our level we don't worry much because we are small fish and the machine cannot handle us all.

At that level there is always someone ready to find those violations and seek prosecution. There is a reason that as more power and money is involved people seek lawyers before they make decisions.
Only a fool would not have a full staff of lawyers.

Then we come to the issue of what is torture. I don't believe we reached it. I do not hear of bones broken, medical treatment denied, amputations or bamboo splints under the nails. I read of some introduction of fear, deprivation of sleep and minor roughing up. Nothing reaching torture in my book and nothing that three hots and a cot don't fix.

I am sorry but I don't buy into the propaganda of the left. As far as who will join the military I feel confident there are many. I signed my contract in 1972. You are my age and probably signed within a year or two of that also. What was the reputation of the military during the Viet Nam era? I think that should answer your question.

[Dennis Keith]

Sounds like there are still a bunch of folks on the LEFT side of our Aisle that are chaffed at Clinton getting impeached for telling lies to a Federal Judge. They seem to want to Criminalize the Politics of Previous Administrations. Well, if they do, then the Fat is truly in the Fire. Especially when the GANG now in charge finally are defeated. IF they successfully PERSECUTE the members of the Bush Administration, then I don't give two cents for their chances of even completing their first term prior to the breakout of open warfare against the Obama Government.

[venado]

I found the following article very enlightening, if people on both sides of the argument will take the time to read it, they will find a thoughtful consideration of the how and why "torture" (I use the word loosely) was used. Those that are so strongly against it have forgotten where we were immediately after 9/11.



Torture and the U.S. Intelligence Failure

By George Friedman
The Obama administration published a series of memoranda on torture issued under the Bush administration. The memoranda, most of which dated from the period after 9/11, authorized measures including depriving prisoners of solid food, having them stand shackled and in uncomfortable positions, leaving them in cold cells with inadequate clothing, slapping their heads and/or abdomens, and telling them that their families might be harmed if they didn't cooperate with their interrogators.
On the scale of human cruelty, these actions do not rise anywhere near the top. At the same time, anyone who thinks that being placed without food in a freezing cell subject to random mild beatings -- all while being told that your family might be joining you -- isn't agonizing clearly lacks imagination. The treatment of detainees could have been worse. It was terrible nonetheless.
Torture and the Intelligence Gap

But torture is meant to be terrible, and we must judge the torturer in the context of his own desperation. In the wake of 9/11, anyone who wasn't terrified was not in touch with reality. We know several people who now are quite blasé about 9/11. Unfortunately for them, we knew them in the months after, and they were not nearly as composed then as they are now.
Sept. 11 was terrifying for one main reason: We had little idea about al Qaeda's capabilities. It was a very reasonable assumption that other al Qaeda cells were operating in the United States and that any day might bring follow-on attacks. (Especially given the group's reputation for one-two attacks.) We still remember our first flight after 9/11, looking at our fellow passengers, planning what we would do if one of them moved. Every time a passenger visited the lavatory, one could see the tensions soar.
And while Sept. 11 was frightening enough, there were ample fears that al Qaeda had secured a "suitcase bomb" and that a nuclear attack on a major U.S. city could come at any moment. For individuals, such an attack was simply another possibility. We remember staying at a hotel in Washington close to the White House and realizing that we were at ground zero -- and imagining what the next moment might be like. For the government, however, the problem was having scraps of intelligence indicating that al Qaeda might have a nuclear weapon, but not having any way of telling whether those scraps had any value. The president and vice president accordingly were continually kept at different locations, and not for any frivolous reason.
This lack of intelligence led directly to the most extreme fears, which in turn led to extreme measures. Washington simply did not know very much about al Qaeda and its capabilities and intentions in the United States. A lack of knowledge forces people to think of worst-case scenarios. In the absence of intelligence to the contrary after 9/11, the only reasonable assumption was that al Qaeda was planning more -- and perhaps worse -- attacks.
Collecting intelligence rapidly became the highest national priority. Given the genuine and reasonable fears, no action in pursuit of intelligence was out of the question, so long as it promised quick answers. This led to the authorization of torture, among other things. Torture offered a rapid means to accumulate intelligence, or at least -- given the time lag on other means -- it was something that had to be tried.
Torture and the Moral Question

And this raises the moral question. The United States is a moral project: its Declaration of Independence and Constitution state that. The president takes an oath to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution from all enemies foreign and domestic. The Constitution does not speak to the question of torture of non-citizens, but it implies an abhorrence of rights violations (at least for citizens). But the Declaration of Independence contains the phrase, "a decent respect for the opinions of mankind." This indicates that world opinion matters.
At the same time, the president is sworn to protect the Constitution. In practical terms, this means protecting the physical security of the United States "against all enemies, foreign and domestic." Protecting the principles of the declaration and the Constitution are meaningless without regime preservation and defending the nation.
While this all makes for an interesting seminar in political philosophy, presidents -- and others who have taken the same oath -- do not have the luxury of the contemplative life. They must act on their oaths, and inaction is an action. Former U.S. President George W. Bush knew that he did not know the threat, and that in order to carry out his oath, he needed very rapidly to find out the threat. He could not know that torture would work, but he clearly did not feel that he had the right to avoid it.
Consider this example. Assume you knew that a certain individual knew the location of a nuclear device planted in an American city. The device would kill hundreds of thousands of Americans, but he individual refused to divulge the information. Would anyone who had sworn the oath have the right not to torture the individual? Torture might or might not work, but either way, would it be moral to protect the individual's rights while allowing hundreds of thousands to die? It would seem that in this case, torture is a moral imperative; the rights of the one with the information cannot transcend the life of a city.
Torture in the Real World

But here is the problem: You would not find yourself in this situation. Knowing a bomb had been planted, knowing who knew that the bomb had been planted, and needing only to apply torture to extract this information is not how the real world works. Post-9/11, the United States knew much less about the extent of the threat from al Qaeda. This hypothetical sort of torture was not the issue.
Discrete information was not needed, but situational awareness. The United States did not know what it needed to know, it did not know who was of value and who wasn't, and it did not know how much time it had. Torture thus was not a precise solution to a specific problem: It became an intelligence-gathering technique. The nature of the problem the United States faced forced it into indiscriminate intelligence gathering. When you don't know what you need to know, you cast a wide net. And when torture is included in the mix, it is cast wide as well. In such a case, you know you will be following many false leads -- and when you carry torture with you, you will be torturing people with little to tell you. Moreover, torture applied by anyone other than well-trained, experienced personnel (who are in exceptionally short supply) will only compound these problems, and make the practice less productive.
Defenders of torture frequently seem to believe that the person in custody is known to have valuable information, and that this information must be forced out of him. His possession of the information is proof of his guilt. The problem is that unless you have excellent intelligence to begin with, you will become engaged in developing baseline intelligence, and the person you are torturing may well know nothing at all. Torture thus becomes not only a waste of time and a violation of decency, it actually undermines good intelligence. After a while, scooping up suspects in a dragnet and trying to extract intelligence becomes a substitute for competent intelligence techniques -- and can potentially blind the intelligence service. This is especially true as people will tell you what they think you want to hear to make torture stop.
Critics of torture, on the other hand, seem to assume the torture was brutality for the sake of brutality instead of a desperate attempt to get some clarity on what might well have been a catastrophic outcome. The critics also cannot know the extent to which the use of torture actually prevented follow-on attacks. They assume that to the extent that torture was useful, it was not essential; that there were other ways to find out what was needed. In the long run, they might have been correct. But neither they, nor anyone else, had the right to assume in late 2001 that there was a long run. One of the things that wasn't known was how much time there was.
The U.S. Intelligence Failure

The endless argument over torture, the posturing of both critics and defenders, misses the crucial point. The United States turned to torture because it has experienced a massive intelligence failure reaching back a decade. The U.S. intelligence community simply failed to gather sufficient information on al Qaeda's intentions, capability, organization and personnel. The use of torture was not part of a competent intelligence effort, but a response to a massive intelligence failure.
That failure was rooted in a range of miscalculations over time. There was the public belief that the end of the Cold War meant the United States didn't need a major intelligence effort, a point made by the late Sen. Daniel Moynihan. There were the intelligence people who regarded Afghanistan as old news. There was the Torricelli amendment that made recruiting people with ties to terrorist groups illegal without special approval. There were the Middle East experts who could not understand that al Qaeda was fundamentally different from anything seen before. The list of the guilty is endless, and ultimately includes the American people, who always seem to believe that the view of the world as a dangerous place is something made up by contractors and bureaucrats.
Bush was handed an impossible situation on Sept. 11, after just nine months in office. The country demanded protection, and given the intelligence shambles he inherited, he reacted about as well or badly as anyone else might have in the situation. He used the tools he had, and hoped they were good enough.
The problem with torture -- as with other exceptional measures -- is that it is useful, at best, in extraordinary situations. The problem with all such techniques in the hands of bureaucracies is that the extraordinary in due course becomes the routine, and torture as a desperate stopgap measure becomes a routine part of the intelligence interrogator's tool kit.
At a certain point, the emergency was over. U.S. intelligence had focused itself and had developed an increasingly coherent picture of al Qaeda, with the aid of allied Muslim intelligence agencies, and was able to start taking a toll on al Qaeda. The war had become routinized, and extraordinary measures were no longer essential. But the routinization of the extraordinary is the built-in danger of bureaucracy, and what began as a response to unprecedented dangers became part of the process. Bush had an opportunity to move beyond the emergency. He didn't.
If you know that an individual is loaded with information, torture can be a useful tool. But if you have so much intelligence that you already know enough to identify the individual is loaded with information, then you have come pretty close to winning the intelligence war. That's not when you use torture. That's when you simply point out to the prisoner that, "for you the war is over." You lay out all you already know and how much you know about him. That is as demoralizing as freezing in a cell -- and helps your interrogators keep their balance.
U.S. President Barack Obama has handled this issue in the style to which we have become accustomed, and which is as practical a solution as possible. He has published the memos authorizing torture to make this entirely a Bush administration problem while refusing to prosecute anyone associated with torture, keeping the issue from becoming overly divisive. Good politics perhaps, but not something that deals with the fundamental question.
The fundamental question remains unanswered, and may remain unanswered. When a president takes an oath to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States," what are the limits on his obligation? We take the oath for granted. But it should be considered carefully by anyone entering this debate, particularly for presidents.

[dave-t.]

Good article.

I agree torture should not be anywhere near commonplace, that is a disgusting thought. I do think though that if it is needed, it won't matter what is legal or not, and hopefully the public will never have to find out about it.

[Twanger]

The idealist in me says we should not torture, because then we're no better than scumbag terrorists.

The realist in me says that in some special cases it may save countless lives, and how could we not use all means at our disposal to do so?

Quite a conundrum.

I do know that Obama went back on his word on this issue. He said he would look to the future, not dwell in the past. One more reason to hate him... like I needed another one. :p

I can't wait to put him and his administration on trial for coming down on the wrong side of the hard decisions that they are making, and will make in the future. Four years. All we have to do is make it four more years. Ghads. That's a long time.

[Herne]

Twanger - I agree. you don't torture people for two good reasons.

The first is the moral one.
The second is the practical one which is, true or not, they will tell you want you want to hear.

I have no objection to sleep deprivation, time disorientation, trickery amounting to deception, bugging, induced exhaustion etc. ie mental pressure, this not being a game.

For three good reasons;
1. You get the truth.
2. Not many can resist white noise, sleep deprivation, discomfort and skilled interrogation for long. - because there is no enemy to give the prisoner a facus for his mind.
3. It isn't demeaning physical torture.
2. Nobody holds out very long.

Back in the 70s we used these methods on IRA suspects (for about 3 days before the government folded on the issue), and in 3 days the information flow was so great we couldn't cope with it. We just had no way of keeping up, and we almost cleaned out PIRA as an affective fighting force in days. It took them months after the stop order to recover - nearly a year to recover from 3 days. I'm not saying that treatment was all that pleasant, or accommodation salubrious - sitting blindfolded on a concrete floor is not much fun (I know from the escape and evasion exercises, but we got the benefit of a soaking in midwinter and then sitting handcuffed and freezing out in the guardroom yard which PIRA didn't get), but we tortured no-one.

[dave-t.]

I think those techniques are being considered as torture here in the US.

[venado]

Meyrick, as stated, that is now considered "torture" by the current Obama administration hence me saying that I was loosely using the word. I have no doubt that the methods that you mention are effective. The key word that kicks the liberal non-realists in gear is "waterboarding" which was used very very sparingly but effectively. This thing we now call a president has the morals of a snake when it comes to those that protect our freedom.

[Altjaeger]

I think those techniques are being considered as torture here in the US.

They are by those who think it is politically expediendent and those who don't know better. Unfortunately those who want to use the ill defining of the word have the old line media to back them to convince more than should be. I think Meyrick makes many of the same points as a number of us and does it well.

[Herne]

I had posted a much stronger reply!!!, but I got this newest first thing wrong.

2 points. The methods outlined excluding waterboarding are within the Geneva convention (though it doesn't apply in irregular war), but whilst slightly unpleasant (:D) for the one interrogated, he is not physically abused or endangered.(Though good deception may persuade him that he could be - but that must be implied).

The second point is this. Double standards. The reason why we stopped our interrogation of IRA suspects was under pressure from the US govt - Irish vote and and powerful US Irish families etc. (Indeed the US threatened to stop its rather ineffective controls on weapons to Ireland if we did not stop) So its OK if you do it when the US is attacked, but its not OK when the Brits do it, when they have bombs going off in London and other cities?

Once you go that route, its a very dangerous road.

[Altjaeger]

If that was the late 70s as I suspect it was then it is not surprising and it is a shame that we ever elected The Worthless One from Georgia. He let us down on Iran and laid the groundwork for most of our problems in the Middle East today. He was little more than the idealogical predecessor for our current President having yet to meet a dictator he dislikes. He did your country and ours a disservice.

I am not intimately familiar with the Geneva Convention but not sure even water boarding is prohibited. It is simply fear inducing, but unlikely to be endangering. But the Geneva Convention would not apply in this situation as you said.

[Herne]

My point about the GC, aplicable in law or not, is that its a bench mark of reasonable behaviour by combatants. That was all.

The problem with all this is that one cannot take the moral high ground about being all lawful and innocent and decent, if you then go torturing people. Its not a high percentage sport. Worse it allows people to confuse issues and takes concentration off the real issues. Its a moral disaster and an unprofitable and reputation damaging sidetrack.

So its just crazy when you can more or less empty a persons mind without leaving a mark on him

[Altjaeger]

My point about the GC, aplicable in law or not, is that its a bench mark of reasonable behaviour by combatants. That was all.

The problem with all this is that one cannot take the moral high ground about being all lawful and innocent and decent, if you then go torturing people. Its not a high percentage sport. Worse it allows people to confuse issues and takes concentration off the real issues. Its a moral disaster and an unprofitable and reputation damaging sidetrack.

So its just crazy when you can more or less empty a persons mind without leaving a mark on him

I think we are in agreement then. I guess the only question is does the use of water boarding cross the line to torture. Although it does induce fear no injury is caused and under medical supervsion it should be exceptionally safe. I see little difference from sleep deprivation or other methods causing discomfort or disorientation..

[venado]

I am starting to be swayed by the brutality of our torture.



Muslims: 'We Do That On First Dates'
by Ann Coulter (http://www.humanevents.com/search.php?author_name=Ann+Coulter) (more by this author) (http://www.humanevents.com/search.php?author_name=Ann+Coulter)
Posted 04/29/2009 ET
Updated 04/29/2009 ET


Without any pretense of an argument, which liberals are neurologically incapable of, the mainstream media are now asserting that our wussy interrogation techniques at Guantanamo constituted "torture" and have irreparably harmed America's image abroad.

Only the second of those alleged facts is true: The president's release of the Department of Justice interrogation memos undoubtedly hurt America's image abroad, as we are snickered at in capitals around the world, where they know what real torture is. The Arabs surely view these memos as a pack of lies. What about the pills Americans have to turn us gay?

The techniques used against the most stalwart al-Qaida members, such as Abu Zubaydah, included one terrifying procedure referred to as "the attention grasp." As described in horrifying detail in the Justice Department memo, the "attention grasp" consisted of:

"(G)rasping the individual with both hands, one hand on each side of the collar opening, in a controlled and quick motion. In the same motion as the grasp, the individual is drawn toward the interrogator."

The end.

There are rumors that Dick "Darth Vader" Cheney wanted to take away the interrogators' Altoids before they administered "the grasp," but Department of Justice lawyers deemed this too cruel.

And that's not all! As the torments were gradually increased, next up the interrogation ladder came "walling." This involves pushing the terrorist against a flexible wall, during which his "head and neck are supported with a rolled hood or towel that provides a C-collar effect to prevent whiplash."

People pay to have a lot rougher stuff done to them at Six Flags Great Adventure. Indeed, with plastic walls and soft neck collars, "walling" may be the world's first method of "torture" in which all the implements were made by Fisher-Price.

As the memo darkly notes, walling doesn't cause any pain, but is supposed to induce terror by making a "loud noise": "(T)he false wall is in part constructed to create a loud sound when the individual hits it, which will further shock and surprise." (!!!)

If you need a few minutes to compose yourself after being subjected to that horror, feel free to take a break from reading now. Sometimes a cold compress on the forehead is helpful, but don't let it drip or you might end up waterboarding yourself.

The CIA's interrogation techniques couldn't be more ridiculous if they were out of Monty Python's Spanish Inquisition sketch:

Cardinal! Poke her with the soft cushions! ...
Hmm! She is made of harder stuff! Cardinal Fang! Fetch ... THE COMFY CHAIR!

So you think you are strong because you can survive the soft cushions. Well, we shall see. Biggles! Put her in the Comfy Chair! ...

Now -- you will stay in the Comfy Chair until lunchtime, with only a cup of coffee at 11.

Further up the torture ladder -- from Guantanamo, not Monty Python -- comes the "insult slap," which is designed to be virtually painless, but involves the interrogator invading "the individual's personal space."

If that doesn't work, the interrogator shows up the next day wearing the same outfit as the terrorist. (Awkward.)

I will spare you the gruesome details of the CIA's other comical interrogation techniques and leap directly to the penultimate "torture" in their arsenal: the caterpillar.

In this unspeakable brutality, a harmless caterpillar is placed in the terrorist's cell. Justice Department lawyers expressly denied the interrogators' request to trick the terrorist into believing the caterpillar was a "stinging insect."

Human rights groups have variously described being trapped in a cell with a live caterpillar as "brutal," "soul-wrenching" and, of course, "adorable."

If the terrorist manages to survive the non-stinging caterpillar maneuver -- the most fiendish method of torture ever devised by the human mind that didn't involve being forced to watch "The View" -- CIA interrogators had another sadistic trick up their sleeves.

I am not at liberty to divulge the details, except to mention the procedure's terror-inducing name: "the ladybug."

Finally, the most savage interrogation technique at Guantanamo was "waterboarding," which is only slightly rougher than the Comfy Chair.

Tens of thousands of our troops were waterboarded over the past three decades as part of their training, but not until it was done to Khalid Sheikh Mohammed -- mastermind of the 9/11 attack on America -- were liberal consciences shocked.

I think they were mostly shocked because they couldn't figure out how Joey Buttafuoco ended up in Guantanamo.

As non-uniformed combatants, all of the detainees at Guantanamo could have been summarily shot on the battlefield under the Laws of War.

Instead, we gave them comfy chairs, free lawyers, better food than is served in Afghani caves, prayer rugs, recreational activities and top-flight medical care -- including one terrorist who was released, whereupon he rejoined the jihad against America, after being fitted for an expensive artificial leg at Guantanamo, courtesy of the U.S. taxpayer.

Only three terrorists -- who could have been shot -- were waterboarded. This is not nearly as bad as "snowboarding," which is known to cause massive buttocks pain and results in approximately 10 deaths per year.

Normal human beings -- especially those who grew up with my older brother, Jimmy -- can't read the interrogation memos without laughing.

At Al-Jazeera, they don't believe these interrogation memos are for real. Muslims look at them and say: THIS IS ALL THEY'RE DOING? We do that for practice. We do that to our friends.

But The New York Times is populated with people who can't believe they live in a country where people would put a caterpillar in a terrorist's cell.

[Herne]

For my money, this is all about perception. I think also that its not just about "torture."

The whole thing was badly thought out form the beginning, post Afghanistan.Suddenly the US had a bunch of semi suspects, possible activists etc, and it didn't know quite what to do with them. Instead of holding them in Afghanistan, and interrogating them there decently and out of sight (because most were probably guilty as hell and deserved, not to be waterboarded but simply lined up against a wall and shot/hanged) all of a sudden they were on Us territory subject to US law, not constitutionally treated etc etc etc. The whole thing was a balls up from start to finish that was bound to attract all sorts of attention. And oh boy, did it, and predictably none of it good.

That is the problem. You people are not ruthless enough. Nor devious enough. They should have been handed over to the Afghans, (who would have been "advised" by "whoever",) and then when finished with, handed over completely. And the whole problem would have gone away, nothing at the door of the US, no costs, and no one to talk, and not on US sovereign territory.

Instead, you imported the problem home, and from there it was a rod for your own backs in almost every sense, and you couldn't even get rid of it either.

[dave-t.]

I agree 100% Herne. Them being held by another country, with our agents advising is a totally different situation, and could lead to the US having it play out in a much better light for us. Plausible deniability. "Yes we know what is happening, no we don't like it, but we got good intel nontheless. Those dirty Turks/Afgans/Paki's are rough on prisoners and we're trying to sway them for better prisoner treatment in the future."

There, now we look like a concerned party who has to be involved in the intel, but not leading or condoning the rough treatment or execution of the terrorists.

They never should have been brought even to this hemesphere. And we could have gotten away with a lot more "foul play"if they were never technically under our watch to begin with.

[Altjaeger]

For my money, this is all about perception. I think also that its not just about "torture."

The whole thing was badly thought out form the beginning, post Afghanistan.Suddenly the US had a bunch of semi suspects, possible activists etc, and it didn't know quite what to do with them. Instead of holding them in Afghanistan, and interrogating them there decently and out of sight (because most were probably guilty as hell and deserved, not to be waterboarded but simply lined up against a wall and shot/hanged)...

That is the problem. You people are not ruthless enough. Nor devious enough.

:D

[venado]

Meyrick, your last post is right on in every way.:cool: