Waterboarding , Do You Think It Is Torture?

**Sparky** · 11-12-2007, 11:21 PM

^ He's busy having a wank over a Photo of Hitler .

**raycarey** · 11-12-2007, 11:25 PM

^ i thought that was MM.

**raycarey** · 11-12-2007, 11:29 PM

and if it's not torture, why did the CIA destroy the tapes?

oh yeah, that's right...they didn't want the guys doing the waterboarding to be identifiable .....and of course create the possibility that they (and their families!) could be subject to terrorist reprisals.

**chitown** · 11-12-2007, 11:40 PM

^Who cares why the destoyed the tapes.

Maybe, just maybe they thought that some marshmallow spined whiners like yourself would cry and complain about it.

You know the kind, the layers that would have no shame and represent the murders and scum Mussies. NAACP types like Al Sharleton and Jesse Jackoff. The tree huggers, and the PETA types that make me puke.....

**Texpat** · 11-12-2007, 11:52 PM

I have an idea.

We pay the Philippine government to "torture" the scumbags for us.

Ever heard of the Bojinka Plot?

This was 1995 ! -- just 4 years after Iraq was kicked out of Kuwait. (was that by the US? -- it went quickly and smoothly, I think coalition nations claimed credit for that one) ok...

From Wiki:

"The plan was to set the bombs on 11 United States-bound airliners that had stopovers all around East Asia and Southeast Asia. All of the flights had two legs. The bombs would be planted inside life jackets under seats on the first leg, when each bomber would disembark. He would then board one or two more flights and repeat. After all of the bombers planted bombs on all of the flights, each man would then catch flights to Lahore Pakistan. (fearless!) The men never needed U.S. visas, as they only would have stayed on the planes on their first legs in Asia.

United States airlines had been chosen instead of Asian airlines so as to maximize the shock toward Americans. The flights targeted were listed under operatives with codenames: "Zyed", "Majbos", "Markoa", "Mirqas" and "Obaid". Obaid, who was really Abdul Hakim Murad, was to hit United flight 80, and then he was to go back to Singapore under another United flight which he would bomb.

Cut to my point.

"Sometime after [Manila] police arrested Saeed, he had called Ramzi Yousef's cellular phone. Saeed turned out to be Abdul Hakim Murad, who was sent to the apartment to retrieve the computer after the fire. Murad was sent to Camp Crame, a military installation on the outskirts of Manila. Murad at first taunted investigators. For sixty-seven days, he endured a torture process that Filipino investigators call "tactical interrogation."

According to journalists Marites Vitug and Glenda Gloria, authors of the book Under the Crescent Moon, agents hit him with a chair and long piece of wood when Murad didn't talk. They forced water into his mouth, and crushed out lit cigarettes on his genitals. Murad's ribs were completely cracked. Agents were surprised that he survived. According to an investigator, he finally confessed out of fear of Jews after an agent masquerading as the Mossad told him that he was being sent to Israel.

Murad admitted in his interrogations, "This is my — the best thing. I enjoy it", and "because the United States is the first country in this world making trouble for our, for Muslims and for our people."

He talked about the bombs. "Nobody can think that it's… explosive", he said, referring to the watches Ramzi Yousef planned to put on the airliners. He said that the nitroglycerin "which even you'll put in the X-ray, you will never, nobody can" detect it.

Murad confessed that he was on a quest to be a martyr. He confessed to being the hijacker as part of Phase II of his plan. Murad was extradited to the United States on April 12, 1995. His testimony helped convict Yousef."

***

Do you think the PNP (phil natnl police) fucked around with conventions and protocol? I've spent far too many months in the Phils to think for a moment they weren't after blood. If they provided cable TV and pillows and left these scumbags go, the 9/11 might have been in 95 instead of six years later.

Read the whole fascinating story here.

The Bojinka Plot - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This shit can't be simply brushed under the rug. This is all before Taliban, before Bin Laden was a major nuisance (only bombing African embassies then).

How the whole game got skewed to make the US government look solely liable is beyond me.

Perhaps the govts of (then) Hong Kong, Tokyo, Taipei, Singapore, Seoul and Bangkok, just don't give a shit if their citizens are blown to smithereens.

**Tchiowa** · 12-12-2007, 01:59 AM

Originally Posted by Texpat

Airman Magazine
February 2000

Jason Cunningham’s

This guy who was so well trained and did what very very few could ever muster up the ballz to do - died for GWB and his war machine.

Fallen Heroes Memorial: Air Force Senior Airman Jason D. Cunningham

And we debate if it is wrong to slaughter a few along the way or pour a little war on their faces.

Gheez,,,,,,

**Hootad Binky** · 12-12-2007, 02:05 AM

Admin Prevents Former Gitmo
Prosecutor from Testifying before Congress

December 11, 2007, 11:12AM

When Col. Morris Davis stepped down as the Pentagon's chief war crimes prosecutor in October, the reason given seemed to be a somewhat bureaucratic one. He stepped down, it was reported, "in a dispute over whether Air Force Brig. Gen. Thomas Hartmann, legal advisor to the administrator overseeing the trials, has the power to supervise aspects of the prosecution."

But in an op-ed in today's Los Angeles Times, Davis is crystal clear. "I felt that the system had become deeply politicized and that I could no longer do my job effectively or responsibly," he writes.

It's a taste of what he would have said had he been allowed to testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee this morning, during its hearing on the rights of Guantanamo Bay detainees. But Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) announced at the beginning of the hearing that the committee had invited Davis to testify, but that "the Defense Department has ordered him not to appear."

Update: Here's video of Feinstein's comments:

"We assured the administration that Colonel Davis would not be asked about open and pending cases," Feinstein said. "But we were told simply that Colonel Davis was active duty military, and because he was active duty military, they could issue an order he had to follow." Calling it a shame, she added, "I wish the administration would allow him to appear. Unfortunately, I have to conclude that by prohibiting Col. Davis from testifying, the administration is trying to stop a fair and open discussion about the legal rights of detainees at Guantanamo."

In Davis' op-ed, he gives three reasons for his resignation, all deriving from a complaint that control of the military commissions at Gitmo had been taken from the military and given to political appointees. He targets Susan Crawford, who oversees the commissions, and William Haynes, the Pentagon's general counsel, in particular. The system was rigged, he complains, in order for the appointees to micro-manage the trials which they insisted take place behind closed doors, another decision he disagreed with.

And then there's the issue of torture:

Finally, I resigned because of two memos signed by Deputy Secretary of Defense Gordon England that placed the chief prosecutor -- that was me -- in a chain of command under Defense Department General Counsel William J. Haynes. Haynes was a controversial nominee for a lifetime appointment to the U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals, but his nomination died in January 2007, in part because of his role in authorizing the use of the aggressive interrogation techniques some call torture. I had instructed the prosecutors in September 2005 that we would not offer any evidence derived by waterboarding, one of the aggressive interrogation techniques the administration has sanctioned. Haynes and I have different perspectives and support different agendas, and the decision to give him command over the chief prosecutor's office, in my view, cast a shadow over the integrity of military commissions. I resigned a few hours after I was informed of Haynes' place in my chain of command.

TPMmuckraker | Talking Points Memo | Admin Prevents Former Gitmo Prosecutor from Testifying before Congress

**Texpat** · 12-12-2007, 03:09 AM

did you actually read that?

Because one soldier quits, doesn't indicate a problem.

Just ask Ray. I retired, but I was a coward. This guy resigned in the middle of a war. What a pathetic loser.

None of us know the real details. Folks retire/resign for a lot of reasons. A colonel is insignificant in the big picture.

**Boon Mee** · 12-12-2007, 05:42 AM

Zubaydah’s “Come To Allah Moment:”

If it leads to the disruption of more terror attacks, don't believe any y'all bleeding-hearts can not defend the use thereof...

washingtonpost.com - nation, world, technology and Washington area news and headlines

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/10/AR2007121002091.html?hpid=topnews

**Lily** · 12-12-2007, 10:05 AM

Originally Posted by chitown

Ted Kenedy is against water boarding. He just can't get over the fact that the CIA ops are not drunk like he when Mary Jo Kopechne drown in Chapaquitic Lake. He thinks the terrorist will all drown and the CIA will try to cover it up......just like he did! Ted is on the side of the terrorists. He knows that you have to be careful what you wish for because he knows it could come back to haunt you. Now if it was liquor boarding he'd be first in line to advocate that. Forget the fact that the "religion of peace" can't drink. He's not a member of that religion he's just on their side. More accurately he's not on our side and if that means we may have to liquor board him bring it on. After all he's a man of principal and if that means he has to withstand a little "torture" so be it.

So, if a man has made a mistake in his life, he is disqualified from commenting on any matter of principle for the rest of his life?

Originally Posted by chitown

Or Europe maybe? Will the Americans have to bail you out again?????

Wrong again on both counts.

He is one of your own.

**raycarey** · 12-12-2007, 10:23 AM

CIA director hayden testified before congress yesterday, and considering that he left the torture taping at tenet's door, and the destruction at goss'.....we can expect them to be brought before congress, right?

the CIA, the white house, and both parties are up to their necks in this embarrassment, so it seems clear that a special prosecutor is needed.

btw, why was he wearing his military costume? it's certainly not required....what was the purpose?

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/12/wa...n/12intel.html

**Whiteshiva** · 12-12-2007, 12:17 PM

To BM & Texpat:

Surely you are not blind to the potential danger in giving the government too wide powers, accepting some torture by redefining the meaning of it, denying some people their basic human rights (as given in the Geneva convention and in the UN declaration of Human Rights), by simply redefining the crime they are charged with.

Imagine this scenario (far-fetched, but bear with me) - in a few years time, you have tried to evade paying tax on some of your income, lets say you helped a neighbour paint his house, and he gave you some $$ for it.

One day four men arrive at the door, blindfold you and take you away. Your family is given no other information than that you are considered a threat to national security. You are kept in solitary confinement, beaten and tortured. Since you refuse (or rather are unable) to give the interrogators the information they want, this goes on for a while. When you demand to see a lawyer, you are told that you are a terrorist suspect, and thus are considered a enemy combatant (fifth column, if you'd like). When waterboarding and "mild" torture doesn't work on you (because you are basically innocent), the people detaining you decide to send you to North Korea (recently turned pro-western, but with plenty of handy "expertise in torture") for further processing. "He's a tough nut - make sure you break him", is the last you hear before you are bundled into a plane and flown out of the US. Your family will probably never see you again. You have no rights. You disappear into some hellhole, never to be seen again.

These things happened under Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Saddam, hell, it was close to going that way in the US during the McCarthy period, only that time the bogyman was communism rather than terrorism. It happens today in totalitarian regimes all around the world.

In modern democracies, we have built up a defence against this blatant abuse of power, in order to protect the individual, and thus our freedom. This defence consists of elements such as free speech, the right to a trial, the right to elect our leaders, etc. Basically what we call human rights, much of which is included in most constitutions, including the US. It has taken a lot of time, blood and suffering to get to where we are today, and yet some leaders want to eliminate these rights with a pen stroke and leave it up to themselves to decide who are afforded these rights and who are to be denied them. The potential for abuse is huge, and if history is a yardstick these kind of privileges inevitably get abused. A good present day example would be Putin's Russia.

Your crime in my example above - well, you cheated on your tax, tax payers money go to pay the war on terror, so consequently you were against, even sabotaging, the war on terror.

Since you refuse to tell the interrogators what they want to hear, you are obviously not cooperating. They even have a witness saying that you have been talking about killing the president. That witness is the husband of the woman you have been shagging on the side for the last year, but since this case will never go to court, there will be nobody around to discredit the witness, who, besides have been given full anonymity.

Bye, bye!

**chitown** · 12-12-2007, 12:30 PM

Far fetched - taxes and terrorism are 2 different things!

**Lily** · 12-12-2007, 12:36 PM

^^I am sorry that I cant green you!

**raycarey** · 12-12-2007, 12:41 PM

can ANYONE provide documented evidence that the US has received actionable intelligence from water boarding and the like?

yeah, i know bush claims quite a bit about kalid sheik mohammed, but considering his difficulties with both the facts and the truth, you'll have to excuse my skepticism.

proof or evidence.....post it here.

**Whiteshiva** · 12-12-2007, 12:43 PM

Originally Posted by chitown

Far fetched - taxes and terrorism are 2 different things!

Farfetched? Perhaps, but it wouldn't have been the first time the US have gotten a suspected terrorist locked up on tax evation charges.....

**Norton** · 12-12-2007, 12:46 PM

Originally Posted by Whiteshiva

Farfetched? Perhaps, but it wouldn't have been the first time the US have gotten a suspected terrorist locked up on tax evation charges.....

That was all they could manage with old Scarface, Al Capone.

**Whiteshiva** · 12-12-2007, 12:54 PM

Originally Posted by Norton

Originally Posted by Whiteshiva

Farfetched? Perhaps, but it wouldn't have been the first time the US have gotten a suspected terrorist locked up on tax evation charges.....

That was all they could manage with old Scarface, Al Capone.

Glad to see that someone paid attention in class!

**Texpat** · 12-12-2007, 01:06 PM

Originally Posted by raycarey

why was he wearing his military costume? it's certainly not required....what was the purpose?

doesn't that just piss you off?

**raycarey** · 12-12-2007, 01:57 PM

that type of militarist theater/propaganda should 'piss off' any american.

**Norton** · 12-12-2007, 02:03 PM

Originally Posted by raycarey

that type of militarist theater/propaganda should 'piss off' any american.

If I'm not mistaken he is still on active duty and it is customary for active duty military to wear their uniforms in "formal" situations.

**Texpat** · 12-12-2007, 02:12 PM

Yes, Norty, but Raybaby has his knickers in a twist every time he sees a military man in uniform.

He can't even stand the thought of it. Deep psychological scars, probably.

**raycarey** · 12-12-2007, 03:13 PM

Originally Posted by Texpat

his knickers in a twist every time he sees a military man in uniform.

hardly. in most cases it's simply amusing. in fact, i'm still waiting for the video or photo of you prancing around the issan countryside in your costume to the bemusement of your neighbors last veteran's day. PLEASE post it.

the CIA is supposed to be a civilian (and independent) organization. and as hayden is not required to wear the costume, one has to wonder why he does.

but let's get back on topic.
a quick recap of unanswered questions....

what about the false positives that torture produces?
what about the fact that no evidence has been made available to indicate that US govt's application of torture has been effective?
what about the hundred of death row prisoners that were released because of DNA evidence? and all those people released from guantanamo?
what about the geneva conventions that the US govt signed?
what about the loss of the moral high ground which the US had some claim to?
what about the fact that the army has outlawed waterboarding?

**Texpat** · 12-12-2007, 04:31 PM

Just saw some ex-CIA poofty on CNN yammering away about his waterboarding days. Said it yielded very good, accurate intel.

I agree Hayden has no business being CIA chief. Should be a civilian -- but it's not like he lobbied for the job.

**raycarey** · 12-12-2007, 04:38 PM

Originally Posted by Texpat

Just some some ex-CIA poofty on CNN yammering away about his waterboarding days. Said it yielded very good, accurate intel.

Kiriakou?

Thread: Waterboarding , Do You Think It Is Torture?

Thread Tools

Display

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

Posting Permissions