Hill Briefed on Waterboarding in 2002

[jclark]

MattP:

 

I totally agree with you. And I am not defending oversight issues with the President. He is another discussion altogether and we would probably be more in agreement than not on that subject.

 

Yes waterboarding and sleep deprivation were used to get the info in the UK plot. I actually agree they need to disclose some of the successes that we have had. Everything is so classified right now to protect the boys over there and to not tip off the enemy.

 

If all the successes we have had were public knowledge it would be so good for the country. People like you who are actually open to debate and are actually open to changing your opinions based on facts would really feel better about our country.

[jclark]

No, the whole chain of command there was responsible. The commanding General was actually relieved I think. Should have been thrown in jail with the rest of the morons. Asolutely the largest defeat we have faced in regards to the war on terror. That particular National Guard unit was the most poorly run, unproffessinal conglomeration of train wrecks ever. I am sure there were good individuals in the unit, but on the whole they were an embarrasment to the uniform. I have dealt with the ramifications of they're acts personally overseas.

[tvashtarkatena]

Quote from MATTP

 

Apart from the questions of morality or whether you want our guys to face the same kind of interrogation techniques, has anyone here seen where there is a convincing case being made that torture can be expected to extract good intelligence?

 

I haven't heard even the war hawks argue that it is "necessary" or a "good idea" so much as to argue that we have to be unconstrained in our war against terror because the bad guys want to kill us.

 

As someone with over 2.5 yrs of deployed experience in the current conflict at the special operations level I can tell you a couple of things.

 

1. waterboarding and making someone very uncomfortable through sleep depravation, subjection to uncomfortable temps (mid 50's) and constant pressure have astounding results. The idea that we will get the same information from asking nicely is absurd. These people that are having said procedures done to them hate us and sometimes don't even break after all that.

 

2. I can also tell you many future plots have been discovered and averted due to the intelligence gained by these techniques. Does that make the techniques savory or good table conversation? No it doesn't. Does it make it a very necessary tool to be able to use if you have to? Yes. Do we use it indiscriminately? No we don't. It is only used when it is known the indiviadual has very important information that is specific in nature.

 

3. These practices are already having diminishing returns due to the fact that it is widely published. The combatants now know that it may be uncomfortable, but we will not hurt them or leave any marks. Yes they read the news as well.

 

We have no idea what your role has been in your 'special operations' capacity, but experts in the area of interrogation, including many higher ups in both the CIA and FBI, disagree with your assertion that torture produces reliable results. Yes, you'll get an answer. No, the quality of the information isn't very good. It is good for getting confessions, however. That I find very interesting. Informants are what really get the big results.

 

It's against our laws, period. Its also against military regulations, which have been normalized with the Geneva conventions, but you knew that, of course. You are apparently suggesting that the rule of law should be thrown out the window. I should also mention this; how do you 'know' if a person is a high value suspect before you torture that information out of him? I'm calling bullshit on your bullshit: All of the detainnees at Guantanamo have been tortured (we have many, many released prisoners who've testified to this in great detail), and yet over 400 of those detainees have been released without charges. Only 10 of the remaining 400+ have been charged at all. What were you saying again about 'only high value' suspects being tortured. What a fucking tired line that one is at this point, my friend.

 

So, what, exactly, are the 'freedoms' we're supposedly fighting to protect/bestow/other bullshit justification-of-the-week-for-this-failed-adventure?

 

Yes, the rest of the world does read the papers; a primary reason why it now thinks, correctly so, that America doesn't give a shit about human rights. It's one of the number one recruiting tools 'our enemies' have got. Hey, just wanna say thanks for 'improving' the national security situation.

 

As for your 'foiled plots' line, yeah, we've all heard that one before, from Bush on down...but the details never seem to be forthcoming, somehow.

 

 

Edited December 10, 2007 by tvashtarkatena

[Hugh Conway]

I thought only 3 people had been waterboarded by the CIA?

 

http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2007/11/exclusive-only-.html

 

"For all the debate over waterboarding, it has been used on only three al Qaeda figures, according to current and former U.S. intelligence officials"

 

So it's

"we don't torture"

"we waterboard, it's vital, but it's not torture"

"we destroy the evidence of what we don't do"

mmmm I smell bullshit

 

[mattp]

Clark, I'll be a pretty hard customer to sell the idea that we should abandon the Geneva Conventions and 500 years of condemnation of torture including waterboarding, but I would certainly consider the information and think it quite relevant to the questions at hand if someone were to present the "upsides" for weighing along side the "downsides" of such practices.

[kevbone]

You guys are right. We should just ask the islamo-fascists pretty please and they will spill their guts. It would be nice to be as blissfully ignorant as you guys. Unfortunately the world is a dangerous place with dangerous people who need to be dealt with. I think if you look at it closely, the fact that Democrats and Republicans were working together on the issue lends some validity to the techniques. Maybe just maybe they have more information than you people on the situation. Probably not though CC.com sprayers are the most informed least biased bunch I have ever met. And by the way, I actually have real experience with this subject and the war, I am not basing my opinion on Tv or internet articles.

 

 

Are you for real? Am I reading this correct…..are even slightly implying that water boarding/torture is ok? Didn’t anyone teach you the basics of life? Treat others how you would want them to treat you. Not only that but it is a proven fact that torture does not work. Put anyone under enough stress and they will tell you want you want to hear so you will stop cutting there balls off……

 

If you act like the terrorists……you must be a terrorist.

 

[JayB]

An alternative viewpoint would be that by 2005 it was becoming more and more apparent how widespread the torture was. In your well-focused narrative, you've got the observers back in 2002 being informed about the interrogation of the guy who was apparently well known to have been the mastermind behind 9/11.

 

Do you see any difference between harsh interrogation of someone known to have plotted 9/11 on American soil and a general system of terror where technicians with the impressive credentials of West Virginia National Guard Reserve are instructed to terrorize people picked up near the battlefield in Iraq and Afghanistan, some by bounty hunters because they have a name that matches three or more syllables to someone on the list?

 

Certainly more information came out. Certainly the Democrats got a little more power to influence decision making. I think these are plausible reasons for changing one's stance and strategy, respectively.

 

That said, I do think making too much of the CIA destroying interrogation tapes is unseemly. The tape destruction certainly appears to imply that people are hiding stuff, and I think they should follow that trail where it may lead. But to get all high and mighty about the act in itself of destroying the tapes, does seem like grandstanding.

 

"Abu Zubaida, the first of the "high-value" detainees in CIA custody, was subjected to harsh interrogation methods beginning in spring 2002 after he refused to cooperate with questioners, the officials said. CIA briefers gave the four intelligence committee members limited information about Abu Zubaida's detention in spring 2002, but offered a more detailed account of its interrogation practices in September of that year, said officials with direct knowledge of the briefings.

 

The CIA provided another briefing the following month, and then about 28 additional briefings over five years, said three U.S. officials with firsthand knowledge of the meetings. During these sessions, the agency provided information about the techniques it was using as well as the information it collected."

 

The article suggests that these briefings were specifically addressing interrogation techniques used by the CIA, not the Army. It's certainly not as though up to this point the discussions concerning the moral defensibility of waterboarding have been framed as though one can defend subjecting detainees to it provided that:

 

-The people being subjected to it are sufficiently evil.

-The people conducting the waterboarding are sufficiently well-trained.

 

I certainly haven't heard either a Democratic congressman or voter come out and say "Waterboarding people who have engaged in or plotted attacks on American soil is regretable but necessary in some cases, while interrogating detainees who engage in the same acts in Iraq and Afghanistan is much more problematic and shouldn't be permissible under any circumstances."

 

What I have heard is a mutli-year narrative in which democratic politicians have been excused from any responsibility whatsoever for the very same actions that their base has been excoriating both republicans and the administration for. The has all been predicated on the notion that somehow democrats were hapless naifs who had been led astray by malevolent figures in the administration. Here's a clear case when they had the same access to the same information, approved of the same measures, then disavowed all knowledge of and responsibility for their actions and judgments when it became politically expedient to do so.

 

Certainly more information came out. Certainly the Democrats got a little more power to influence decision making. I think these are plausible reasons for changing one's stance and strategy, respectively.

 

Political reasons - yes. Moral reasons - no.

 

 

[Hugh Conway]

Political reasons - yes. Moral reasons - no.

 

"The secret authorization of brutal interrogations is an outrageous betrayal of our core values, and a grave danger to our security. We must do whatever it takes to track down and capture or kill terrorists, but torture is not a part of the answer - it is a fundamental part of the problem with this administration's approach. Torture is how you create enemies, not how you defeat them. Torture is how you get bad information, not good intelligence. Torture is how you set back America's standing in the world, not how you strengthen it. It's time to tell the world that America rejects torture without exception or equivocation. It's time to stop telling the American people one thing in public while doing something else in the shadows. No more secret authorization of methods like simulated drowning. When I am president America will once again be the country that stands up to these deplorable tactics. When I am president we won't work in secret to avoid honoring our laws and Constitution, we will be straight with the American people and true to our values

-B. Obama

 

does betrayal of core values count as "moral" in your book?

[chucK]

If you tweaked your characterization a bit to say:

"Waterboarding people who have engaged in or plotted attacks on American soil is regretable but necessary in some cases, while harshly interrogating detainees with little regard to culpability is much more problematic and shouldn't be permissible under any circumstances." ,

 

then you'd be able to find a relatively recent post of mine that stated such a position.

 

Certainly more information came out. Certainly the Democrats got a little more power to influence decision making. I think these are plausible reasons for changing one's stance and strategy, respectively.

 

Political reasons - yes. Moral reasons - no.

 

This is ludicrous. You don't think a perception can change morally when you learn more information?

 

You don't think it's moral to bite your tongue until such point as you have the means to effect a change? But isn't that what you were espousing of the Olympia protesters?

 

[chucK]

H.C. I don't think JayB has made the point that the torture was not evil. Just making the argument that the democrats are the ones at fault.

 

I think JayB is trying to have it both ways. Though he is not willing to condemn the torture, he is condemning those who have not condemned the torture.

[jclark]

to TVASH...F*#! off. That is all the response your dumbass deserves. You talk so much shit on this site and almost immediately after you enter a conversation it goes down hill. What do you do for a living since you seem to have so much real world knowledge of warfare and interrogation. Have you ever interrogated anyone? Have you ever interrogated anyone who just killed someone you were very close to? How about have you ever interrogated anyone who just killed on of your friends without laying a hand on them? I have. I didn't torture anyone. I have been a part of many interrogations. I never saw any torture. You probably don't want to hear any of that since you are so smart and experienced.

[astrov]

Sorry jclark, I think you'd be more credible if you'd been tortured.

[jclark]

By RICHARD ESPOSITO & BRIAN ROSS

Dec. 10, 2007

Font Size

 

E-mail

Print

Share

A leader of the CIA team that captured and interrogated the first major al Qaeda figure, Abu Zubaydah, says subjecting him to waterboarding was torture but necessary.

 

 

In the first public comment by any CIA officer involved in handling high-value al Qaeda targets, John Kiriakou, now retired, said the technique broke Zubaydah in less than 35 seconds.

 

"The next day, he told his interrogator that Allah had visited him in his cell during the night and told him to cooperate," said Kiriakou in an interview to be broadcast tonight on ABC News' "World News With Charles Gibson" and "Nightline."

 

"From that day on, he answered every question," Kiriakou said. "The threat information he provided disrupted a number of attacks, maybe dozens of attacks."

 

Kiriakou says he did not know that the interrogation of Zubaydah was being secretly recorded by the CIA and had no idea the tapes had been destroyed.

 

[jclark]

Here is an example where torture backfired. Nothing is absolute. This is what happens when the interrogators go too far.

 

http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2007/11/cia-rendition-t.html

[JayB]

If you tweaked your characterization a bit to say:

"Waterboarding people who have engaged in or plotted attacks on American soil is regretable but necessary in some cases, while harshly interrogating detainees with little regard to culpability is much more problematic and shouldn't be permissible under any circumstances." ,

 

then you'd be able to find a relatively recent post of mine that stated such a position.

 

Certainly more information came out. Certainly the Democrats got a little more power to influence decision making. I think these are plausible reasons for changing one's stance and strategy, respectively.

 

Political reasons - yes. Moral reasons - no.

 

This is ludicrous. You don't think a perception can change morally when you learn more information?

 

You don't think it's moral to bite your tongue until such point as you have the means to effect a change? But isn't that what you were espousing of the Olympia protesters?

 

Once the democrats have a hand in things, all is subtlety and nuance.

 

We're talking about the morality of waterboarding here, not whether or not someone with a brain-dead spouse can be excused for seeking affection outside of marriage. The notion that there are nuances that would make waterboarding a categorical evil that's fatally undermined our system of government and moral standing in the world in 2005, but a regrettable necessity rife with tradeoffs and nuance in 2002 just doesn't fly. The only material aspect of the situation that changed is the extent to which it can be manipulated for political advantage.

 

Is it moral to bite your tongue until you are in a position to effect change? Craven and opportunistic - yes. Moral - are you kidding? They were in a setting where they were at complete liberty to candidly put forth their misgivings, reservations, etc - in complete confidence, in an environment where the potential for adverse practical or political consequences was nonexistent - and they didn't. One can safely conclude that they had none, until such time as the practice became public, at which time they chose to feign shock and dismay instead of explaining why it was that they - at a minimum - voiced no objections to the policy when they given detailed briefings on the practices at 2002.

 

With regards to the Olympia protesters, to steal a quote from elsewhere, "That's not right. It's not even wrong...."

[prole]

The only material aspect of the situation that changed is the extent to which it can be manipulated for political advantage.

 

Six years of Bush's Reverse King Midas Syndrome, where everything he touches turns to shit, has been enough to change even hardcore Republicans' minds about Administration policies and their motivation.

 

 

[chucK]

I notice that you have not made a categorical statement on the morality of waterboarding.

 

What has changed between 2002 and 2005 was that (as far as these insiders knew) in the 2002 briefing torture was used judiciously against very specific individuals. By 2005 it was becoming more and more evident that torture was not being used judiciously at all.

 

I have laid out in a few posts now that I think there is a difference between those two. What do you think?

 

 

[JayB]

Political reasons - yes. Moral reasons - no.

 

"The secret authorization of brutal interrogations is an outrageous betrayal of our core values, and a grave danger to our security. We must do whatever it takes to track down and capture or kill terrorists, but torture is not a part of the answer - it is a fundamental part of the problem with this administration's approach. Torture is how you create enemies, not how you defeat them. Torture is how you get bad information, not good intelligence. Torture is how you set back America's standing in the world, not how you strengthen it. It's time to tell the world that America rejects torture without exception or equivocation. It's time to stop telling the American people one thing in public while doing something else in the shadows. No more secret authorization of methods like simulated drowning. When I am president America will once again be the country that stands up to these deplorable tactics. When I am president we won't work in secret to avoid honoring our laws and Constitution, we will be straight with the American people and true to our values

-B. Obama

 

does betrayal of core values count as "moral" in your book?

 

I've actually said before, that I think that the strategic damage done by Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib, Waterboarding - etc outweighs any tactical benefits that we could expect to obtain from the intelligence gained therein.

 

Had the democrats involved in these hearings said the same thing at these hearings when they had the chance, there'd be no story.

[chucK]

Hee hee, good old JayB. "If only the democrats had put a stop to this."

 

If only.

 

If only.

 

 

Edited December 10, 2007 by chucK

[sexual_chocolate]

i think the hypocrisy of the democratic position on a number of issues is self-evident, as it is with the republicans.

 

remember that is it wasn't for the democrats' compliance, we would probably not be in iraq right now (as an occupying force).

[JayB]

I notice that you have not made a categorical statement on the morality of waterboarding.

 

What has changed between 2002 and 2005 was that (as far as these insiders knew) in the 2002 briefing torture was used judiciously against very specific individuals. By 2005 it was becoming more and more evident that torture was not being used judiciously at all.

 

I have laid out in a few posts now that I think there is a difference between those two. What do you think?

 

 

I think that waterboarding or using comparable methods that involve pain, suffering, or fear on people who are known to be involved in terrorist networks that are intent on slaughtering as many civilians as the means available to them will allow them to is far less morally troubling than - say - ordering an airstrike on a building containing known terrorists who may have killed hundreds of people, which also contains people who are completely innocent of any such offense.

 

I think that there are cases where you can make a moral argument for both in certain circumstances. I also think that you can make moral argument for executing people who have been proven guilty of certain offenses beyond any doubt whatsoever. However, I can't approve of the death penalty in practice for a number of practical reasons. I think that the practical reasons to outlaw torture/harsh interrogation as a matter of national policy are sufficient to outweigh any practical benefit that such practices may have, even in cases where I think it would be morally justifiable.

 

I would like to get all of the various nations that have a stake in fighting terrorism to specify precisely which techniques are permissible for interrogating terrorists - and put a mechanism in place that insures that they have to live with the limitations that they espouse under all circumstances.

 

In summary. Waterboarding - categorically immoral? No. Would the national interest be better served by outlawing it? Yes. Does it make any difference whether were talking about a few CIA operatives and a few individuals or hundreds of untrained national guardsmen and thousands of individuals? Not to me.

 

 

 

[Hugh Conway]

Had the democrats involved in these hearings said the same thing at these hearings when they had the chance, there'd be no story.

 

Uh, they weren't allowed to have the Prisoners lawyers speak, the Republicans blocked it. Oh, and the only member giving praise to Gitmo was the respected and influential representative FROM GUAM

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2005/06/30/at_hearing_guantanamo_wins_praise_and_criticism/

 

This is farce. You standby and cheer as the Democrats were systematically pushed out of the legislative process in the house, then blame them because they weren't a strong opposition party

[chucK]

I think we are in agreement on this.

 

Ooops no wait. I don't agree with your last paragraph (was it changed via editing? anyways...). Or perhaps I am in agreement though your wording is quite torturous.

 

Not always immoral, but a good thing to outlaw the practice, in all cases, for practical reasons. I agree.

 

But you were calling the democrats immoral? Why? Because they didn't outlaw something they had no power to outlaw, something they weren't even allowed to speak with anyone about?

 

Note that one democrat did object at the time. You seem to be continually discounting this.

Edited December 10, 2007 by chucK

[JayB]

Had the democrats involved in these hearings said the same thing at these hearings when they had the chance, there'd be no story.

 

Uh, they weren't allowed to have the Prisoners lawyers speak, the Republicans blocked it. Oh, and the only member giving praise to Gitmo was the respected and influential representative FROM GUAM

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2005/06/30/at_hearing_guantanamo_wins_praise_and_criticism/

 

This is farce. You standby and cheer as the Democrats were systematically pushed out of the legislative process in the house, then blame them because they weren't a strong opposition party

 

What the hell does this have to do with a Congressman evaluating the use of waterboarding by CIA operatives?

 

Per your second point - it's not as though they had to have a quorum before speaking their mind. This wasn't a spending bill where they had to pick their battles and count their votes. They were in a closed hearing, where all they had to do was open their mouths. They didn't - so those present, which include Pelosi - are in absolutely in no position to claim the moral high ground after the fact.

[JayB]

I think we are in agreement on this.

 

Ooops no wait. I don't agree with your last paragraph (was it changed via editing? anyways...).

 

Yes. Final version:

 

"In summary. Waterboarding - categorically immoral? No. Would the national interest be better served by outlawing it? Yes. Does it make any difference whether were talking about a few CIA operatives and a few individuals or hundreds of untrained national guardsmen and thousands of individuals? Not to me."