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

[BridgeTroll]

And comparing John McCain to Khalid Sheikh Mohammed isn't moral equivalency??  Don't tell me about research either... I have done it... and experienced it.

As a naval Aircrewman I was required to attend S.E.R.E.  It is my understanding that the instructors of that very school were the ones who helped perform the interrogations.

I have been waterboarded... I have been "walled"... I have been placed in a small box and had it slowly filled with smoke... I have been forced to stand in "stress positions" for hours...

Do some research yourself...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survival,_Evasion,_Resistance_and_Escape

A short synopsis of the course I attended...

Level C is held at Naval Air Station Brunswick, Maine at the Navy Remote Training Site, Rangeley, and at Naval Air Station North Island, California at the Navy Remote Training Site, Warner Springs. This installation provides 'Code of Conduct' that is necessary for MAGTF Recon and Navy SEALs. As the "eyes" and "ears" of the commander, they carry knowledge of sensitive battlefield information.

The training encompasses those basic skills necessary for worldwide survival, facilitating search and rescue efforts, evading capture by hostile forces, resistance to interrogation, exploitation and indoctrination, and escape from detention by enemy forces. It is based on and reinforces the values expressed in the Code of Conduct while maintaining an appropriate balance of sound educational methodology and realistic/stressful training scenarios.

Additional survival training in Level C Code of Conduct may include the five-day Peacetime Detention and Hostage Survival (PDAHS) course. This training provides the skills to survive captivity by a hostile government or terrorist cell during peacetime.

Here Stephen... take some time and check this out... look at the pics... I was Pig number 21... I remember it well.

http://www.training.sfahq.com/survival_training.htm

But to sit here and listen to this nonsense is just pathetic.

I agree Stephen... I agree.

[Sigma]

BT did you have coffee on Sunday morning in an overrated coffee house?  According to Stephen, that's real torture. And the coffee house owners, who were in business when George Bush was President, should be imprisoned.

Thank you for your service.  While I did not go through the S.E.R.E. training, I am aware of the training programs that all of our branches conduct.  You understand the realities.

[NotNow]

As much as I hate to enter this useless back and forth, as my experience with Stephen is that he will always twist a debate, try to dictate all definitions, and simply refuse to admit it when he is proven wrong.  It is somewhat amusing to be lectured on "morality" and scolded to do my research on this subject by a man who (IMHO) lacks credentials in either area.  And to be defined as a "coward" by the same man is insulting, but as an American fighting man and a Police Officer, I am used to the abuse by those that feel free to criticize those that actually risk their a$$es.  But, that said, I will offer this:

1.  I did not compare war and torture, I compared the morality of war and torture.  Specifically, if you are against forcefully gaining information in order to save the lives of your compatriots, how can you not be against killing those that seek to kill your compatriots?

2.  Your comparison of surrender and courts for those that break our laws has absolutely nothing to do with what I posted earlier.  I said that in rare instances, in the case of immediate threat to the lives of my allies, if I am willing to kill that person who will carry out that action then I should be willing to use force to prevent the same action.  This has nothing to do with "inflicting pain on a powerless captive".  Once again, Stephen is attempting to redefine the arguement.  

3.  Stephen's "research" consist of scouring liberal websites and posting the writings of many who hate America, Bush, or both.  Stephen has no experience in warfare or the military and his bias on this subject affects his judgement IMHO.

4.  Stephen has no idea what intelligence was obtained in the sessions being discussed, he has no experience in this field, and his statement that the information gained is not reliable is based on what he wants to believe and the writings that he chooses to read.

5.  Stephen has every right to his opinion, and it counts just as much as mine does.  But his use of the term "boy" and "boys" in reference to myself and those that fought alongside me is insulting and as I understand it, against the rules of this board.

6.  I must remind Stephen that my warmongering has not always been from an armchair, and I would also remind him that I have carried a gun for over thirty years now, and while I am not all that brave or a hero, I have certainly had the priviledge of serving with some who were.  As BT is an example, many who post here have "walked the walk".

7.  I am very uncomfortable with the thought that Stephen is thinking about the size of my dick.

[civil42806]

As much as I hate to enter this useless back and forth, as my experience with Stephen is that he will always twist a debate, try to dictate all definitions, and simply refuse to admit it when he is proven wrong.  It is somewhat amusing to be lectured on "morality" and scolded to do my research on this subject by a man who (IMHO) lacks credentials in either area.  And to be defined as a "coward" by the same man is insulting, but as an American fighting man and a Police Officer, I am used to the abuse by those that feel free to criticize those that actually risk their a$$es.  But, that said, I will offer this:

1.  I did not compare war and torture, I compared the morality of war and torture.  Specifically, if you are against forcefully gaining information in order to save the lives of your compatriots, how can you not be against killing those that seek to kill your compatriots?

2.  Your comparison of surrender and courts for those that break our laws has absolutely nothing to do with what I posted earlier.  I said that in rare instances, in the case of immediate threat to the lives of my allies, if I am willing to kill that person who will carry out that action then I should be willing to use force to prevent the same action.  This has nothing to do with "inflicting pain on a powerless captive".  Once again, Stephen is attempting to redefine the arguement.  

3.  Stephen's "research" consist of scouring liberal websites and posting the writings of many who hate America, Bush, or both.  Stephen has no experience in warfare or the military and his bias on this subject affects his judgement IMHO.

4.  Stephen has no idea what intelligence was obtained in the sessions being discussed, he has no experience in this field, and his statement that the information gained is not reliable is based on what he wants to believe and the writings that he chooses to read.

5.  Stephen has every right to his opinion, and it counts just as much as mine does.  But his use of the term "boy" and "boys" in reference to myself and those that fought alongside me is insulting and as I understand it, against the rules of this board.

6.  I must remind Stephen that my warmongering has not always been from an armchair, and I would also remind him that I have carried a gun for over thirty years now, and while I am not all that brave or a hero, I have certainly had the priviledge of serving with some who were.  As BT is an example, many who post here have "walked the walk".

7.  I am very uncomfortable with the thought that Stephen is thinking about the size of my dick.

Come on, my personal best insult was quite imaginative.  I was a Right wing, anti-intellectual, rush limbaugh listing wing nut.  You have to really try to beat that!

[BridgeTroll]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30335592/

NYT: Harsh techniques worked, intel chief says
Private memo says interrogation methods helped nation in terrorism fight
By Peter Baker
The New York Times
updated 10:21 p.m. ET, Tues., April 21, 2009

WASHINGTON - President Obama’s national intelligence director told colleagues in a private memo last week that the harsh interrogation techniques banned by the White House did produce significant information that helped the nation in its struggle with terrorists.

“High value information came from interrogations in which those methods were used and provided a deeper understanding of the al Qa’ida organization that was attacking this country,” Adm. Dennis C. Blair, the intelligence director, wrote in a memo to his staff last Thursday.

Admiral Blair sent his memo on the same day the administration publicly released secret Bush administration legal memos authorizing the use of interrogation methods that the Obama White House has deemed to be illegal torture. Among other things, the Bush administration memos revealed that two captured Qaeda operatives were subjected to a form of near-drowning known as waterboarding a total of 266 times.

Some parts of memo deleted
Admiral Blair’s assessment that the interrogation methods did produce important information was deleted from a condensed version of his memo released to the media last Thursday. Also deleted was a line in which he empathized with his predecessors who originally approved some of the harsh tactics after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

“I like to think I would not have approved those methods in the past,” he wrote, “but I do not fault those who made the decisions at that time, and I will absolutely defend those who carried out the interrogations within the orders they were given.”

A spokeswoman for Admiral Blair said the lines were cut in the normal editing process of shortening an internal memo into a media statement emphasizing his concern that the public understand the context of the decisions made in the past and the fact that they followed legal orders.

"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."


Admiral Blair’s private memo was provided by a critic of Mr. Obama’s policy. His assessment could bolster Bush administration veterans who argue that the interrogations were an important tool in the battle against al Qaeda.

Techniques 'made us safer'
Gen. Michael V. Hayden, the director of the Central Intelligence Agency under Mr. Bush, said on Fox News Sunday last weekend that “the use of these techniques against these terrorists made us safer. It really did work.” Former Vice President Dick Cheney, in a separate interview with Fox, endorsed that conclusion and said he has asked the C.I.A. to declassify memos detailing the gains from the harsh interrogations.

Several news accounts, including one in the New York Times last week, have quoted former intelligence officials saying the harsh interrogation of Abu Zubaydah, a Qaeda operative who was waterboarded 83 times, did not produce information that foiled terror plots. The Bush administration has long argued that harsh questioning of Qaeda operatives like Zubaydah helped prevent a planned attack on Los Angeles and cited passages in the memos released last week to bolster that conclusion.

The White House would not address the question of whether the tactics have been effective on Tuesday but fired back at Mr. Cheney. “We’ve had an at least two-year policy disagreement with the vice president of the United States,” Robert Gibbs, the White House press secretary. “That policy disagreement is whether or not you can uphold the values in which this country was founded at the same time that you protect the citizens that live in that country.”

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.

“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.”

'Torture is not moral'
The assessment by Admiral Blair represents a shift for him since he took office. When he was nominated for the position and appeared before the Senate intelligence committee on Jan. 22, he said: “I believe strongly that torture is not moral, legal or effective.” But he declined to assess whether the interrogation program under Mr. Bush had worked.

“Do you believe the C.I.A.’s interrogation detention program has been effective?” Senator Christopher Bond, a Missouri Republican, asked him.

“I’ll have to look into that more closely before I can give you a good answer on that one,” Admiral Blair answered.

This article, "Banned Techniques Yielded 'High Value Information'," first appeared in The New York Times.


Copyright © 2009 The New York Times
URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30335592/

[Sigma]

Wow, MSNBC - I'm impressed.

[BridgeTroll]

Once again Stephen... is loud music really torture?  How about standing?  Slapping?  Cold water?... "Why yes BT it is"... Great we just tortured a mosh pit...

What we are saying is... Leave it alone.  It was an extraordinary time... and an extraordinary threat.  This is all about you "boys" "Getting" Bush and Cheney... You can see the gleam in the eye of the accusers.  Go ahead... open the can of worms where the next administration prosecutes those from the former...

Looks to me like Obama gets it... to bad the rest of the you dont.

[gmpalmer]

re: "on the side of torture," Don't forget pretty much everyone on earth who lived before the 19th century. . .

[BridgeTroll]

Ah... a typical Stephen argument tactic.  BT is pro rape and pro torture...

Thanks Stephen... I love your personal touch to these types of discussions.  Two sides cannot disagree honorably.  You must attempt to demonize and marginalize.

Again... thank you for the discourse.

[gmpalmer]

Naw.  Consensual sex doesn't get nearly as many replies on 4chan.

[BridgeTroll]

Neither is true... You most definately DID accuse me of a pro rape position.  Your accusation is despicable.

[NotNow]

So basically, the arguments you boys are employing boil down to:
BridgeTroll:  "It might be useful, and i went through torture sample sessions when I was in the military."

Notnow.  "Im a cop, dammit and Dare is a woosy liberal who doesnt understand all this 'man' stuff."

Sigma:  "Yeah!  what they said!".....'Oh!  and overpriced coffeehouse!"

Well since the point is about morality, ethics and the rule of Law, im not sure that the opposition has been very convincing so far.

On the side of God and Decency, I look around and see an Attorney General, august senators and most of the worlds ethical and faithbased community all getting ready to send the people who authorized this crap right into prosecution.

On the side of 'torture might be ok",  All I see is Dick Cheney, Adolf Hitler, a few Viet Cong, the Chinese, and muslim extremists......oh...  and you guys.

hmmm.

Once again Stephen, you make my point by attempting to frame the arguments of your debating opposition in derogatory terms in a weak effort to spin what was said.  Our arguments are stated in our posts.  If it is possible for you, try to answer with your own arguments of fact, not name calling or "dick measuring", then do it.  There is no excuse for these childish tactics and it weakens your credibility even more.  That is how true debate works. 

Are you really cloaking yourself in the robes of "God and decency"?  Faith based community?  Really?  This is the same God and faith based community that you speak so disparagingly of in previous posts?  I guess that as long as you get to decide which morals we are talking about, you are happy in invoking morals, huh?  There are AG's, Senators, ethical and faith based community on our side of this debate as well. 

The whole of the argument to you, Stephen, is that our experiences make us who we are.  BT, Sigma, and I are simply pointing out the differences in yours and our experiences that result in a different viewpoint.  I have repeatedly acknowledged your right to your own opinion in the face of your personal insults towards me (boy, dick stuff, "I'm a cop, dammit).  Your claim to absolute truth in this matter leaves much to be desired IMHO.  I don't want to enter into swapping insults.  I also don't want you to mischaracterize my arguments or who I am.  We have been through this before many times.  Make your arguments and stick to what you know. 

Your guy won the election.  The US Government will not use the techniques that are being discussed.  History will tell how this works out for us, the American people. 

[BridgeTroll]

I will no longer debate this with someone who accuses me of endorsing rape.  Enjoy your witch hunt.

[NotNow]

This thread has been about morality, and personal experience is what develops our personal values and morality.  There is no question as to whether the incidents that are being discussed were "legal".  They were.  This is the United States of America, not the United States of the World.  The supreme law here is the Constitution.  Once again, I am not an attorney, but I don't believe that it is possible to prosecute those that participated in these interrogations successfully.  I believe that the idea of prosecuting those that rendered these decisions is a political vendetta.  

Below is an example of you redefining the arguments of others:

"So basically, the arguments you boys are employing boil down to:
BridgeTroll:  "It might be useful, and i went through torture sample sessions when I was in the military."

Notnow.  "Im a cop, dammit and Dare is a woosy liberal who doesnt understand all this 'man' stuff."

Sigma:  "Yeah!  what they said!".....'Oh!  and overpriced coffeehouse!"  "

This is the kind of thing that "delegitimizes" you.  I am not trying to insult you, I am simply pointing out your use of insults, redefinition, and snarky insinuations.  I think that I have stated my arguments quite clearly, and that your attempts to belittle opposing arguments and "muddy the water" does not and can not change that.  

[NotNow]

See my private post.  I am through.