Waterboarded 183 Times in One Month. Torture Issue Blows Up.

[BridgeTroll]

Never have justified torture... YOU are the one using the term.  You are the one who forgets we are at war with a ruthless foe who will use suicide to kill thousands of innocents.  You stick to your morals... I will stick to mine.  If a mastermind of 9/11 needs some water poured in his nose, or is deprived of sleep to stop an attack on L.A. similar to 9/11... I can live with that.

You seem quite able to sacrifice them for your ideals.

[Sigma]

Your ideals don't mean much if you are dead.

[Sigma]

I was speaking in terms of a leveled American city. 

[BridgeTroll]

Dude.  What is worth dying for, if not our ideals and civilization.

Sacrifice them and you are no better than your worst nightmare.

I addressed this a few posts ago.  I am sacrificing nothing.

Here is some more in info... It shows that there were discussions and disagreements about aggressive tactics.  This article puts into context those discussions...

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/09/10/MNGB8L2UAV1.DTL&hw=interrogations&sn=006&sc=341

Disputes dogged CIA over interrogation of bin Laden aide
Some say tactics did more harm than good
David Johnston, New York Times

Sunday, September 10, 2006

(09-10) 04:00 PDT Washington -- Abu Zubaydah, the first Osama bin Laden henchman captured by the United States after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, was bloodied and feverish when a CIA security team delivered him to a secret safe house in Thailand for interrogation in the early spring of 2002. Bullet fragments had ripped through his abdomen and groin during a firefight in Pakistan several days earlier when he had been captured.

The events that unfolded at the safe house over the next few weeks proved to be fateful for the Bush administration. Within days, Zubaydah was being subjected to coercive interrogation techniques -- he was stripped, held in an icy room and jarred by earsplittingly loud music -- the genesis of practices later adopted by some within the military, and widely used by the CIA in handling prominent terrorism suspects at a series of secret overseas prisons.

President Bush pointedly cited the capture and interrogation of Zubaydah in his speech Wednesday announcing the transfer of Zubaydah and 13 others to the U.S. detention center in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. And he used it to call for ratification of the tough techniques employed in the questioning.

But rather than the smooth progression depicted by Bush, interviews with nearly a dozen current and former law enforcement and intelligence officials briefed on the process show, the interrogation of Zubaydah was fraught with sharp disputes, debates about the legality and utility of harsh interrogation methods, and a rupture between the FBI and the CIA that has yet to heal.

Some of those interviewed offered sharply contrasting accounts, but all said that the disagreements were intense. More than four years later, these disputes are foreshadowing the debate that Bush's new proposals are meeting in Congress, as lawmakers wrangle over what rules should apply as terrorism suspects are captured, questioned and, possibly, tried before military tribunals.

A reconstruction of Zubaydah's initial days of detention and interrogation, based on accounts by former and current law enforcement and intelligence officials, provides the first detailed account of his treatment and the disputes and uncertainties that surrounded it. The basic chronology of how the capture and interrogation unfolded was described consistently by sources from a number of government agencies, all of whom asked not to be identified.

Last week, Bush said he had not approved and never would approve the use of torture. The CIA declined to discuss the specifics of the case on the record. At FBI headquarters, officials refused to publicly discuss the interrogation of Zubaydah, citing what they said were "operational sensitivities."

Some of the officials who were interviewed were briefed on the events as they occurred. Others were provided with accounts of the interrogation later on.

Before his capture, Zubaydah was regarded as a top bin Laden logistics chief who funneled recruits to training bases in Afghanistan and served as a communications link between al Qaeda's leadership and extremists in other countries.

As interrogators dug into his activities, however, they scaled back their assessment somewhat, viewing him more as the terror network's personnel director and hotelier who ran a string of guest houses in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Zubaydah's whereabouts in Pakistan had been determined in part through intercepted Internet communications, but for days after his capture his identity was in doubt. He had surgically altered his appearance and was using an alias. But when agents used a nickname for Zubaydah, he acknowledged his true identity, which was confirmed through analysis of his voice, facial structure and DNA tests.

By all accounts, Zubaydah's condition was rapidly deteriorating when he arrived in Thailand. Soon after his capture, Zubaydah nearly died of his infected wounds. At one point, he was covertly rushed to a hospital.

According to accounts from five former and current government officials who were briefed on the case, FBI agents -- accompanied by intelligence officers -- initially questioned him using standard interview techniques. They bathed Zubaydah, changed his bandages, gave him water, urged improved medical care and spoke with him in Arabic and English, languages in which he is fluent.

To convince him they knew details of his activities, the agents brought a box of blank audiotapes which they said contained recordings of his phone conversations, but were actually empty. As the FBI worked with CIA officers who were present, Zubaydah soon began to provide intelligence insights into al Qaeda.

For the CIA, Zubaydah was a test case for an evolving new role, conceived after Sept. 11, in which the agency was to act as jailer and interrogator for terrorism suspects.

According to accounts by three former intelligence officials, the CIA understood that the legal foundation for its role had been spelled out in a sweeping classified directive signed by Bush on Sept. 17, 2001, six days after the attacks. The directive, known as a memorandum of notification, authorized the CIA for the first time to capture, detain and interrogate terrorism suspects, providing the foundation for what became its secret prison system.

That 2001 directive did not spell out specific guidelines for interrogations, however, and senior CIA officials began in late 2001 and early 2002 to draw up a list of aggressive interrogation procedures that might be used against terrorism suspects. They consulted agency psychiatrists and foreign governments to identify effective techniques beyond standard interview practices.

After Zubaydah's capture, a CIA interrogation team was dispatched from the agency's Counterterrorism Center to take the lead in his questioning, former law enforcement and intelligence officials said. The group included an agency consultant schooled in the harsher interrogation procedures to which American special forces are subjected in their training. Three former intelligence officials said the techniques had been drawn up on the basis of legal guidance from the Justice Department, but were not yet supported by a formal legal opinion.

In Thailand, the new CIA team concluded that under standard questioning Zubaydah was revealing only a small fraction of what he knew, and decided that more aggressive techniques were warranted.

At times, Zubaydah, still weak from his wounds, was stripped and placed in a cell without a bunk or blankets. He stood or lay on the bare floor, sometimes with air conditioning adjusted so that, one official said, Zubaydah seemed to turn blue. At other times, the interrogators piped in deafening blasts of music by groups like the Red Hot Chili Peppers. Sometimes, the interrogator would use simpler techniques, entering his cell to ask him to confess.

"You know what I want," the interrogator would say to him, according to one official's account, departing without waiting for an answer.

FBI agents on the scene angrily protested the more aggressive approach, arguing that persuasion rather than coercion had succeeded. But leaders of the CIA interrogation team were convinced that tougher tactics were warranted and said the methods had been legally approved and authorized by senior lawyers at the White House.

In his early interviews, Zubaydah had revealed what turned out to be important information, identifying Khalid Shaikh Mohammed -- from a photo on a Palm Pilot -- as the chief planner of the Sept. 11 attacks. Zubaydah also identified Jose Padilla, a U.S. citizen who has been charged with terrorism-related crimes.

But Zubaydah dismissed Padilla as a maladroit extremist whose hope of constructing a dirty bomb, using conventional explosives to disperse radioactive materials, was far-fetched. He told his questioners that Padilla was ignorant on the subject of nuclear physics and believed he could separate plutonium from nuclear material by rapidly swinging over his head a bucket filled with fissionable material.

Crucial aspects of what happened during Zubaydah's interrogation are sharply disputed. Some former and current government officials briefed on the case, who were more closely allied with law enforcement, said Zubaydah cooperated with FBI interviewers until the CIA interrogation team arrived. They said Zubaydah's resistance began after the agency interrogators began using more stringent tactics.

Other officials, more closely tied to intelligence agencies, dismissed that account, saying the CIA had supervised all interviews with Zubaydah, including those in which FBI agents asked questions. These officials said that he proved a wily adversary. "He was lying, and things were going nowhere," one official briefed on the matter said of the early interviews. "It was clear that he had information about an imminent attack, and time was of the essence."

Several officials said the belief that Zubaydah might have possessed critical information about a coming terrorist operation figured significantly in the decision to employ tougher tactics, even though it later became apparent he had no such knowledge.

"As the president has made clear, the fact of the matter is that Abu Zubaydah was defiant and evasive until the approved procedures were used," one government official said. "He soon began to provide information on key al Qaeda operators to help us find and capture those responsible for the 9/11 attacks."

[BridgeTroll]

Please read the above article...

[BridgeTroll]

I have absolutley no idea what you are rambling about.  Tikrit?  Iraqis at gitmo??

[Sigma]

Then, I would dare you....no i triple dog dare you, to go explain to a group of iraqi widows in tikrit about why its ok that their husbands dont walk so good anymore.

They probably used to play soccer for Uday and Qusay.

[Sigma]

you are defending torture.

No, we are just refusing to allow you to define torture for us.

[BridgeTroll]

Tikrit.  Its a city in Iraq.
There are Iraqis at gitmo.
We are presently at war in Iraq.
The torturing of prisoners took place in iraq.
you are defending torture.

Tikrit.  Its a city in Iraq.

I know what and where it is.  I also know where chicago is... neither is pertinent to this convo.

There are Iraqis at gitmo.

Are there?  If so they were captured in Afghanistan.

We are presently at war in Iraq.

And it is Tuesday... again Thank you.

The torturing of prisoners took place in iraq.

Really?  By who?  I was talking about the three al qaida prisoners.

you are defending torture.

No... I am not.

[BridgeTroll]

Absolute silliness.  The torture McCain endured IS torture!  Very good Stephen!  Look up what he endured and the compare the water and loud noises these thugs got to tolerate.  All that AND great medical care... It is freeking laughable that you could even compare the two.  I understand why somebody would consider having to listen to RED HOT CHILI PEPPERS as torture... but it is not.  Why I bet John might even enjoy a few tracks...

[Sigma]

BT said it well - this is absolute silliness. 

[Sigma]

Freedonia?

Looks like my high school coach - and the methods he used if you missed a catch.

[NotNow]

This is an old argument with Stephen and to continue it is an exercise in futility.  I will agree to disagree with him and simply point out once again that morality in war is a difficult subject, and our views are shaped largely by our individual experiences.  In this particular case, I believe that the intent is not really moral outrage but a political agenda.  If the acts described on this board (the actions of our government agents, not the childish crap of Abu Ghraib; everyone here should be able to tell the difference) are immoral to you, then the idea of war itself should be just as immoral since the idea is to kill and destroy.  If there is no possible justification of "aggressive interogation" of the enemy fighters then how can killing the enemy be moral?  My opinion is that we should kill those that directly and immediatly threaten us with death if no other alternative is possible or as sure in guaranteeing the lives of my fellow threatened compatriots.  With that statement, it should be a given that I would support any act short of killing that would also remove that direct and immediate threat to those same lives.  

This is not a blanket approval of torture on my part.  It should be recognized that these types of instances are few and far between.  I believe that the officials that made the decision to use the techniques that many are calling "torture" in the years following the attacks of 9/11 were justified.  This was a difficult time and we were facing an new kind of enemy that hides behind innocents in multiple states, claiming religious righteousness.  These decisions are difficult and I am sure that anyone who has been in the position of taking life understands the personal thoughts that follow such incidents.  

I believe that the idea of judging the morality of previous administrations in a courtroom, whether foreign or US, is a dangerous road that can work both ways.  Morality is a broad subject, encompassing more than just the subject of this thread.  I fear that such prosecutions would result in even more devisivness than already exists in American politics.  Granted, there are acts which are indefensible and should be crimanally prosecuted.  The obvious instances such as Nazi Germany and Pol Pot's Cambodia come to mind.  I agree with BT that the acts that are the focus of this thread do not rise to this level, and as I have stated, I believe they were justifiable.  Of course, this is only my opinion, I am not a lawyer, or a politician.  But I have been in harms way in defense of this country and in defense of citizens and I understand and firmly believe that evil must be met and defeated, using force when necessary. 

My sleep is disturbed more by the evil actions that I have seen some are capable of and my belief that my fellow Americans and citizens are in peril than by my actions in defense of those same Americans and citizens.

[BridgeTroll]

Thank you Notnow... well said.  Stephen I am well aware that the photo was taken in Iraq.  It was also illegal abuse of POWs by guards who knew better.  I am not going to go through the exercise of pointing out the difference.  I am quite sure you do not see one.

Remember Daniel Pearl?  I can post ghastly pictures of that obscenity also... How about a video?  Khalid Sheikh Mohammed confessed to his execution... er... murder in cold blood...

In fact Stephen he said...

"I decapitated with my blessed right hand the head of the American Jew, Daniel Pearl, in the city of Karachi, Pakistan. For those who would like to confirm, there are pictures of me on the Internet holding his head,"

[Sigma]

That pretty much sums up my positions as well.