U.S. Senate says Rice OK'd CIA waterboarding

[tinybear]

No confession obtained by torture will be admissible in any court of law, but I think the object of the torture is not to obtain confessions, but information. But, as one poster said, ' Drown me 183 times and I'll tell you anything'. So torture as a means of obtaining either confessions or info simply isn't very effective, not to mention morally reprehensible and hence subject to international condemnation. Rice should never have given the 'go ahead', tempting though it may have been in the immediate aftermath of 9/11.

[Praxius]

Quote by: Disinformant Oh, of course. These people are psychopaths, and I think the torture probably sexually stimulated her. Power trips will do that to people, look in the Breaking News section for my newest post about the UAE leader getting off to torturing someone on video. Its sick. Bush and Cheney sitting around the white house watching marines sodomize Iraqi teenagers, making jokes, eating pop-corn.

That wouldn't suprise me in the slightest.... it'd explain why Bush also took so long to send decent help after Katrina hit..... they enjoy watching minorities suffer.

Makes sense afterall.... send your own minorities and ignorant youth off to a couple of deserts and kill a bunch of their ignorant people, get them to caputre a few muslims, or people who look muslim for your little play chambers of torture around the world.... so that on world meetings, if they ever needed to feed their kink, they were just a short stop away from one of their secret torture camps to get their rocks off and pelt beer cans at them during the show.

... was I being too harsh?

[Disinformant]

haha, no I like it. I think people need to stop respecting politicians who don't respect human rights. They want to torture us? Might as well ascribe to their sexual fantasies. All I know is I'm not the pervert who tortures people!

[Mr.Majestic]

Quote by: asteroid777 because we, the United States, are constantly ragging on China about THEIR alleged "human rights violations" against their own Chinese people, so in so doing this affirmation of the waterboarding technique of torture upon a United States citizen, Condoleeza Rice has cast her die as a person devoid of conscience regarding human life a fellow American. an accused American. This portrayal of indifference shown by Ms. Rice is without excuse. We, the United States citizens of America ARE NOT A COUNTRY OF DISDAIN TOWARDS THE GENEVA CONVENTION in regards to human life being treated like exactly what it is : HUMAN LIFE. Rice is an inexcusable politician.

when you scratch the surface all these politicians have things they wouldn't want everyone to know.
To go against the standards they expect every other country to abide by is unbelievable. Very well put Asteroid777

[rmnunez]

torture as a means of obtaining either confessions or info simply isn't very effective

This is something I've read repeatedly, but would wonder how those claiming it are so certain. Reasonably one would expect a tortured person to admit anything to avoid the pain. However, if the torturing was to obtain information rather than confessions this would make a lot of difference. A person tortured for information would have to provide verifiable answers and couldn't just answer what they thought the torturer wanted to hear. Its easier to imagine someone under torture falsely admiting they were involved in 911 just to get the torture to stop, not so simple to imagine that person naming members of a terrorist cell the'd had contact with. It could just depend on how they were questioned; "didn't you meet with Ahmed?" (as the thumb screw is tightened) might yield a "yes I did", "who did you meet with?" (in the same situation) doesn't suggest to the suspect what answer would provide relief.

In any case, we will be reviewing reports of the information extracted from terrorists tortured in Guantanamo and apparently there was a lot of valuable information that led to subsequent captures and help prevent other attacks. So I wouldn't jump to the conclusion torturing someone for information is useless.

[Disinformant]

Yet, they would just say some random name, and next week a new guy by the name would be picked up. Some times they would say things like "we have a tip a red honda is going to suicide bomb today" and soldiers would arrest anyone with a red honda who's paper work wasn't in perfect order.

[grandpa]

Quote by: Disinformant Yet, they would just say some random name, and next week a new guy by the name would be picked up. Some times they would say things like "we have a tip a red honda is going to suicide bomb today" and soldiers would arrest anyone with a red honda who's paper work wasn't in perfect order.

And, because people are getting arrested, the interrogators can say, "See, we're getting results!"

Grandpa h.

[Yarn]

rmnunez:

So I wouldn't jump to the conclusion torturing someone for information is useless.

The memo:

"The information gained from these techniques was valuable in some instances, but there is no way of knowing whether the same information could have been obtained through other means,” Admiral Blair said in a written statement issued last night. “The bottom line is these techniques have hurt our image around the world, the damage they have done to our interests far outweighed whatever benefit they gave us and they are not essential to our national security."

Mr. Obama’s team has cast doubt on the effectiveness of the harsh interrogations, but in a visit to the C.I.A. this week, the president did not directly question that. Instead, he said, that any sacrifice from banning those tactics was worth it to uphold the nation’s belief in rule of law.

Obama at the CIA's headquarters:

“I’m sure that sometimes it seems as if that means we’re operating with one hand tied behind our back or that those who would argue for a higher standard are naïve,” he said. “I understand that. You know, I watch the cable shows once in a while.” But he added: “What makes the United States special, and what makes you special, is precisely the fact that we are willing to uphold our values and our ideals even when it’s hard, not just when it’s easy.”

IOW, it seems as though there was some valuable information garnered through torture, but that doesn't mean the torture was worth its moral and practical cost. That seems to be the stance that the Obama administration has jumped to now that it has learned that torturing was effective.

The idea that torture couldn't be effective is, though convienent for many of the scrupulous to accept, at its heart irrational. For instance, the interrogator could ask mostly questions he knows the answers to, and then just seemlessly interject ones that he doesn't know the answers to. Wrong answers equal intense pain. It's not implausible at all that torture could be effective. And indeed it has been. But as Obama points out, the debate doesn't end there.

Torture may cost more lives than it saves, and even if it doesn't, it is always horrible to have to do horrible things in order to prevent horrible things from occuring. It fades out the distance between you and your opponent. War is a neccessary but ugly affair, all the more ugly when in it we sacrifice ideals for practical purposes. War almost always corrodes the souls of all who are involved in it. We can place the line in front of torture, or, in yet another way, we can allow our enemies turn us into beasts. Where exactly you place the line is arbitrary. To some extent we must be horrible in order to win. But the practical arguement that torture has greatly fueled violent resistance to the ideals of freedom and a just peace remains. And it is still plausible and morally convenient to assume we don't have to torture in order to win.

[rmnunez]

Okay, I'll endorse the view that the US armed forces and intelligence agencies ought not resort to torture because they are guided by higher standards. What should be done about those who tortured? Should commissions and inquests be held to make public every possible detail relating to each interrogation, identifying the suspect and his interrogator(s), what information was sought, what was obtained, whether there was supervision, oversight or any monitoring, what guidelines were applied, how they changed, who participated in the process of formulating torture policy, how suspects to be tortured were selected.... Or should we just establish the new policy is not to torture any more and move on?

[rmnunez]

No choice, the US must prosecute:

The US is obligated by a UN convention to prosecute Bush administration lawyers who allegedly drafted policies that approved the use of harsh interrogation tactics against terrorism suspects, the UN's top anti-torture envoy said Friday. UN torture envoy: US must prosecute Bush lawyers

[Yarn]

rmnunez:

I think that we should prosecute the top level officials who were behind the torture authorization and that we should leave anyone lower in the totem pole alone. The purpose of the top level prosecutions would be to dissuade potential future relapses and to show the world that we sincere in rejecting torture. Leaving the lower level personnel alone would partially ease the diviseness of the crack down, would prevent us from losing key personnel (most of the executive guilty are no longer in office), and would pardon people who shouldn't be expected to make legal decisions about such gray issues at such innervating times.

The cost of all of this would be political division and distraction, and the time and effort of key personnel. Therefore it might make sense to wait awhile until we have less on our plate before we put this on it. Additionally, at a later time these trials would probably be less provacative and thereby less distracting owing to a greater distance from the events in question. Albeit, the global PR effect would be greatest now.

Sooner or later, my conviction is that high level prosecutions should take place.

No choice, the US must prosecute

Since Obama has the power of presidential pardon, he can choose to pardon all the potential torturers.

The Justice Department recommends anyone requesting a pardon must wait five years after conviction or release prior to receiving a pardon. A presidential pardon may be granted at any time, however, and as when Ford pardoned Nixon, the pardoned person need not yet have been convicted or even formally charged with a crime. Clemency may also be granted without the filing of a formal request and even if the intended recipient has no desire to be pardoned. In the overwhelming majority of cases, however, the Pardon Attorney will consider only petitions from persons who have completed their sentences and, in addition, have demonstrated their ability to lead a responsible and productive life for a significant period after conviction or release from confinement.[8]

- Pardon - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Albeit, my lets do it later idea is not within Obama's power to legally enact. The president can't legally delay trials.

[rmnunez]

By "top level officials" do you mean Bush and Cheney?

[mariana-pl]

Quote by: rmnunez Lefties contend torture is useless and information thus obtained unreliable, more experienced and knowledgeable sources differ: :

I am going to respond with somebody else's quote:

Quote by: asteroid777 We, the United States citizens of America ARE NOT A COUNTRY OF DISDAIN TOWARDS THE GENEVA CONVENTION in regards to human life being treated like exactly what it is : HUMAN LIFE. .

Are you saying that torture is justified because it works?

[Yarn]

Likely, as well as perhaps some secretaries and top level legal advisors who advised that torture was legal. Basically, the people who were behind the memos should be prosecuted, and the people who merely obeyed the memos shouldn't be. It wouldn't be a pretty process, and it looks like it won't happen, but I think it should.

Since it seems as though Eric Holder has to give the go ahead before prosecutions could take place, the Obama administration could do them later. However, there isn't a certain indication that it will. Obama is keen to say "no one is above the law" but then to follow up that statement with "we should be looking forward not backward". AKA, he is indicating he understands both points of view, but he is being rhetorically ambigious. He hasn't reconciled the two notions, and while he previously clearly said there would be no prosecutions, now he has said there will be no prosecutions of middle to low level employees and that Holder will make the decision regarding the top level ones.

.

[rmnunez]

Obama has a problem, if he goes with the vengeful lefty tack he will consume political capital trying to publicly humiliate Bush and Cheney. Obama knows he needs bipartisan support to get things like his universal health care and the energy sector revamp, plus the whole economic recovery done. He won't get any Republican support if he's seen endorsing a vindictive prosecution second-guessing the previous administration after the fact.

[Yarn]

Yeah, thats why it might make sense to wait.

[Sonart]

.

Quote by: rmnunez Lefties contend torture is useless and information thus obtained unreliable, more experienced and knowledgeable sources differ:

Like what "experienced and knowledgeable sources"? The Iraqis and Iranians?

Apparently these experienced and knowledgeable sources disagree with you.

A new CIA report seems to indicate that torture has little value in preventing terrorist attacks: - Mar. 2009

.

[Yarn]

Sonart:

The article I quoted from earlier quotes a high level anti-torture public official admitting that some valuable information was gained through torture. Your article mentions a particular case in which the use of torture was detrimental to us.

Cheney has asked the Obama administration to release classified information that details how useful torture was to us. This request implies that the facts are that torturing got us valuable information. So does what the aforementioned anti-torture official said.

Both of those sources of information are more wholistic than your article's single anecdote, and so they are stronger evidence.

[rmnunez]

That new CIA report refered by Sonart is actually a blog ("Below the Beltway") by a critical lefty "Libertarian" lawyer named Doug Mataconis, who is basically cut-pasting a Washington Post article by Peter Finn and Joby Warrick on Abu Zubaida in which they cite "former senior government officials" to conclude "not a single significant plot was foiled as a result of Abu Zubaida's tortured confessions".

[mariana-pl]

Quote by: rmnunez That new CIA report refered by Sonart is actually a blog ("Below the Beltway") by a critical lefty "Libertarian" lawyer named Doug Mataconis, who is basically cut-pasting a Washington Post article by Peter Finn and Joby Warrick on Abu Zubaida in which they cite "former senior government officials" to conclude "not a single significant plot was foiled as a result of Abu Zubaida's tortured confessions".

And your point is?