How about the fact-based psychological assessment that it doesn't work? Or the critiques from people inside the program that said that all the useful information was gleaned *before* torture was used, and not a single useful bit of intel was actually gleaned by torture.

In fact, the entire point of the torture was to try to manufacture "evidence" that the invasion of Iraq was justified; something they still failed to do.

How about the fact that torture is still something against the Geneva Convention, and something that civilized nations don't do. How about the fact that the US's reputation is in the toilet, and no one is any safer due to that torture?

And how about the fact that n2sooner...

How about the fact-based psychological assessment that it doesn't work? Or the critiques from people inside the program that said that all the useful information was gleaned *before* torture was used, and not a single useful bit of intel was actually gleaned by torture.

In fact, the entire point of the torture was to try to manufacture "evidence" that the invasion of Iraq was justified; something they still failed to do.

How about the fact that torture is still something against the Geneva Convention, and something that civilized nations don't do. How about the fact that the US's reputation is in the toilet, and no one is any safer due to that torture?

And how about the fact that n2sooners is going to deny this until he's blue in the face, with nothing to show for it but memos from lawyers (not agents) written after the fact to cover Bush's and Cheney's asses?

How about the fact-based psychological assessment that it doesn't work?

Countered by the facts that it did work.

Or the critiques from people inside the program that said that all the useful information was gleaned *before* torture was used, and not a single useful bit of intel was actually gleaned by torture.

First, making someone uncomfortable isn't torture. Second, those people named above say it turned up lots of high value information.

How about the fact that torture is still something against the Geneva Convention

Again, making someone uncomfortable isn't torture, and enemy combatants don't fall under the Geneva Convention. We would hav...

How about the fact-based psychological assessment that it doesn't work?

Countered by the facts that it did work.

Or the critiques from people inside the program that said that all the useful information was gleaned *before* torture was used, and not a single useful bit of intel was actually gleaned by torture.

First, making someone uncomfortable isn't torture. Second, those people named above say it turned up lots of high value information.

How about the fact that torture is still something against the Geneva Convention

Again, making someone uncomfortable isn't torture, and enemy combatants don't fall under the Geneva Convention. We would have been justified just lining them up and shooting them in the field.

Countered by the facts that it did work.

So, you call legal statement, released by lawyers that had absolutely no access to the prisoners "proof"? That's pretty weak. Oh, and that "proof" has been debunked.

The people named above said that lots of informations was gleaned. What they didn't specify was when it was gained, nor how useful said information was. The straight poop, from the people who did the torture, is that all valuable intel was gained before they started torture.

The US knows waterboarding is torture. It executed Japanese soldiers after WWII for waterboarding American POWs. It admitted that waterboarding is torture. So does that mean that they executed...

Countered by the facts that it did work.

So, you call legal statement, released by lawyers that had absolutely no access to the prisoners "proof"? That's pretty weak. Oh, and that "proof" has been debunked.

The people named above said that lots of informations was gleaned. What they didn't specify was when it was gained, nor how useful said information was. The straight poop, from the people who did the torture, is that all valuable intel was gained before they started torture.

The US knows waterboarding is torture. It executed Japanese soldiers after WWII for waterboarding American POWs. It admitted that waterboarding is torture. So does that mean that they executed those Japanese soldiers for "making Americans uncomfortable"?

Enough of the bullshit! It's Torture! It doesn't work! And even if it did work, there is NO National Security provision in the US LAW that makes it illegal for Americans to torture!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

They broke the US Law. They broke international law. No one was saved by someone being tortured.

In summation; the Bush Administration was an evil, calculating, torturing, war-profiteering gang that broke law left, right and centre, and brainless sheep like you are letting them pull the wool over your eyes, so they can just do it again when the Republicans manage to get into power again.

This evil is YOUR fault. By denying the crime, you are complicit in it. Suck that up, "Patriot".

Again, making someone uncomfortable isn't torture,

Drowning people is making someone uncomfortable? IT IS TORTURE. Let someone do it to you in dark, dank cell with no contact with the outside world and no hope of seeing daylight and then will see if it is torture or not.

and enemy combatants don't fall under the Geneva Convention. We would
have been justified just lining them up and shooting them in the field.

Only because the Bush administration went out of their way to define them as such. Many prisoners were literally kidnapped from the streets, miles away from any battlefield. Which btw does not negate their human rights in anyway. So summary executions ...

Again, making someone uncomfortable isn't torture,

Drowning people is making someone uncomfortable? IT IS TORTURE. Let someone do it to you in dark, dank cell with no contact with the outside world and no hope of seeing daylight and then will see if it is torture or not.

and enemy combatants don't fall under the Geneva Convention. We would
have been justified just lining them up and shooting them in the field.

Only because the Bush administration went out of their way to define them as such. Many prisoners were literally kidnapped from the streets, miles away from any battlefield. Which btw does not negate their human rights in anyway. So summary executions is a good idea? Where have I seen that? Oh yeah, the SS was big on that one as well.

Waaaaaaahhhhhhhhh.....cry me a river. Someone willing to strap a bomb onto their damn self thought waterboarding was his bath. They were asking for a bar of soap.

The lawyers who wrote memos interpreting Congress's broad prohibition of "torture" won't be criminally prosecuted. (Nor will the Congressional Democrats who knew all about the interrogation techniques and endorsed them.)

In three months, Barack Obama and Eric Holder have succeeded in politicizing DOJ and bending it to their partisan ends, to the point of threatening their predecessors with baseless criminal prosecution as a form of political harassment.

Most Americans, fortunately, are having none of it. CNN finds that by a...

Waaaaaaahhhhhhhhh.....cry me a river. Someone willing to strap a bomb onto their damn self thought waterboarding was his bath. They were asking for a bar of soap.

The lawyers who wrote memos interpreting Congress's broad prohibition of "torture" won't be criminally prosecuted. (Nor will the Congressional Democrats who knew all about the interrogation techniques and endorsed them.)

In three months, Barack Obama and Eric Holder have succeeded in politicizing DOJ and bending it to their partisan ends, to the point of threatening their predecessors with baseless criminal prosecution as a form of political harassment.

Most Americans, fortunately, are having none of it. CNN finds that by a 50 percent to 46 percent margin, Americans approve of the use of waterboarding in interrogating terrorists.

Waaaaaaahhhhhhhhh.....cry me a river. Someone willing to strap a bomb onto their damn self thought waterboarding was his bath. They were asking for a bar of soap.

Where you there?

Did you film it?

Spoken like a true bully. Hey, what happens if the bomber is an American (i.e. WASP right-wing radical), should he be given a bath too?

The lawyers who wrote memos interpreting Congress's broad prohibition of "torture" won't be criminally prosecuted.


In three months, Barack Obama and Eric Holder have succeeded in politicizing DOJ and bending it to their partisan ends,

Wow, under what rock have you being living under. You mean the re-interpreted the law in the n...

Waaaaaaahhhhhhhhh.....cry me a river. Someone willing to strap a bomb onto their damn self thought waterboarding was his bath. They were asking for a bar of soap.

Where you there?

Did you film it?

Spoken like a true bully. Hey, what happens if the bomber is an American (i.e. WASP right-wing radical), should he be given a bath too?

The lawyers who wrote memos interpreting Congress's broad prohibition of "torture" won't be criminally prosecuted.


In three months, Barack Obama and Eric Holder have succeeded in politicizing DOJ and bending it to their partisan ends,

Wow, under what rock have you being living under. You mean the re-interpreted the law in the narrowest sense possible, pulling reasoning from other statutes that had nothing to do with the torture laws so they could rubber stamp these atrocities.

with baseless criminal prosecution as a form of political harassment.

You got to wonder why then did the WH and the CIA ask for those CYA memos if breaking the law is now leads to "baseless criminal prosecution"? Or why the CIA destroyed nearly 100 tapes of interrogations.

The Herald Sun article quoting a Charles Krautheimer article quoting a [url=http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123993446103128041.html said:

Wall Street Journal op-ed[/url] by Michael Hayden and Michael Mukasey]as late as 2006 ... fully half of the government’s knowledge about the structure and activities of al-Qaeda came from those interrogations.

Hayden and Mukasey cite the interrogations of Abu Zubaydah:

Michael Hayden and Michael Mukasey said:

The terrorist Abu Zubaydah...disclosed some information voluntarily. But he was coerced into disclosing information that led to the capture of Ramzi bin al Shibh, another of the planners of Sept. 11, who in turn disclosed information whic...

read more»

The Herald Sun article quoting a Charles Krautheimer article quoting a [url=http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123993446103128041.html said:

Wall Street Journal op-ed[/url] by Michael Hayden and Michael Mukasey]as late as 2006 ... fully half of the government’s knowledge about the structure and activities of al-Qaeda came from those interrogations.

Hayden and Mukasey cite the interrogations of Abu Zubaydah:

Michael Hayden and Michael Mukasey said:

The terrorist Abu Zubaydah...disclosed some information voluntarily. But he was coerced into disclosing information that led to the capture of Ramzi bin al Shibh, another of the planners of Sept. 11, who in turn disclosed information which -- when combined with what was learned from Abu Zubaydah -- helped lead to the capture of KSM and other senior terrorists, and the disruption of follow-on plots aimed at both Europe and the U.S.

But Hayden and Mukasey's argument is disputed by Ali Soufan, the FBI agent in charge of interrogating Abu Zubaydah before the torture techniques were applied:

Ali Soufan said:

Under traditional interrogation methods, he provided us with important actionable intelligence.

We discovered, for example, that Khalid Shaikh Mohammed was the mastermind of the 9/11 attacks. Abu Zubaydah also told us about Jose Padilla, the so-called dirty bomber. This experience fit what I had found throughout my counterterrorism career: traditional interrogation techniques are successful in identifying operatives, uncovering plots and saving lives.

There was no actionable intelligence gained from using enhanced interrogation techniques on Abu Zubaydah that wasn’t, or couldn’t have been, gained from regular tactics.

Actually, n2sooners Ali Soufan did dispute Hayden's and Mukasey's assertions:

In addition, I saw that using these alternative methods on other terrorists backfired on more than a few occasions — all of which are still classified. The short sightedness behind the use of these techniques ignored the unreliability of the methods, the nature of the threat, the mentality and modus operandi of the terrorists, and due process.

Defenders of these techniques have claimed that they got Abu Zubaydah to give up information leading to the capture of Ramzi bin al-Shibh, a top aide to Khalid Shaikh Mohammed...This is false. The information that led to Mr. Shibh’s capture came ...

Actually, n2sooners Ali Soufan did dispute Hayden's and Mukasey's assertions:

In addition, I saw that using these alternative methods on other terrorists backfired on more than a few occasions — all of which are still classified. The short sightedness behind the use of these techniques ignored the unreliability of the methods, the nature of the threat, the mentality and modus operandi of the terrorists, and due process.

Defenders of these techniques have claimed that they got Abu Zubaydah to give up information leading to the capture of Ramzi bin al-Shibh, a top aide to Khalid Shaikh Mohammed...This is false. The information that led to Mr. Shibh’s capture came primarily from a different terrorist operative who was interviewed using traditional methods.

my point, which is that at a minimum, a convincing case for waterboarding is that it works better than conventional techniques.

Oh, so your argument hinges on information you do not have. How many enemy combatants did we capture? How many times was water-boarding used? I think it is fair to say that conventional techniques were used maybe 98% of the time, and if they would have worked 100% of the time, then we would not be discussing this issue. So, if that is your point, it is an empty and stupid point because it is obvious. It does not discount the times conventional methods do not work. What then?
If conventional methods worked 98% of the time, then that is a won...

my point, which is that at a minimum, a convincing case for waterboarding is that it works better than conventional techniques.

Oh, so your argument hinges on information you do not have. How many enemy combatants did we capture? How many times was water-boarding used? I think it is fair to say that conventional techniques were used maybe 98% of the time, and if they would have worked 100% of the time, then we would not be discussing this issue. So, if that is your point, it is an empty and stupid point because it is obvious. It does not discount the times conventional methods do not work. What then?
If conventional methods worked 98% of the time, then that is a wonderful thing. And, yes, by a percentage you can say conventional techniques work better. However 2% of the time enhanced techniques are needed, and they work too. Maybe 99% of the time.

Read the Ali Soufan op-ed. Conventional interrogation techniques worked with Abu Zubaydah, but still people in the Bush administration wanted to go with waterboarding.

Ali Soudan said:

One of the most striking parts of the memos is the false premises on which they are based. The first, dated August 2002, grants authorization to use harsh interrogation techniques on a high-ranking terrorist, Abu Zubaydah, on the grounds that previous methods hadn’t been working. The next three memos cite the successes of those methods as a justification for their continued use.

It is inaccurate, however, to say that Abu Zubaydah had been uncooperative. Along with another F.B.I. agent, and wi...

Read the Ali Soufan op-ed. Conventional interrogation techniques worked with Abu Zubaydah, but still people in the Bush administration wanted to go with waterboarding.

Ali Soudan said:

One of the most striking parts of the memos is the false premises on which they are based. The first, dated August 2002, grants authorization to use harsh interrogation techniques on a high-ranking terrorist, Abu Zubaydah, on the grounds that previous methods hadn’t been working. The next three memos cite the successes of those methods as a justification for their continued use.

It is inaccurate, however, to say that Abu Zubaydah had been uncooperative. Along with another F.B.I. agent, and with several C.I.A. officers present, I questioned him from March to June 2002, before the harsh techniques were introduced later in August. [b/]Under traditional interrogation methods, he provided us with important actionable intelligence.[/b]

We have not seen anyone give waterboarding a "whirl". We have seen stupid people submit themselves to just a few fleeting seconds of it, before they called for mercy. That is hardly a true waterboarding session.

I don't care if some morons on FauxNoise are willing to pretend they can take it, it's torture. It doesn't work, and it's horribly immoral. The US knows damned well that Waterboarding is torture, because it executed Japanese soldiers that did it to Americans in WWII, so enough of the shit. I don't care if in some bizarre alternate reality it actually worked; it's still torture. Nothing grey about it at all. It is torture, period, full stop, no allowance for rebuttal. If America is t...

We have not seen anyone give waterboarding a "whirl". We have seen stupid people submit themselves to just a few fleeting seconds of it, before they called for mercy. That is hardly a true waterboarding session.

I don't care if some morons on FauxNoise are willing to pretend they can take it, it's torture. It doesn't work, and it's horribly immoral. The US knows damned well that Waterboarding is torture, because it executed Japanese soldiers that did it to Americans in WWII, so enough of the shit. I don't care if in some bizarre alternate reality it actually worked; it's still torture. Nothing grey about it at all. It is torture, period, full stop, no allowance for rebuttal. If America is trying to say that it isn't now, then they are invalidating every American Government since WWII, because that means that they executed prisoners of war without warrant.

So which do you prefer? The US is evil and tortures its prisoners, or the US is a rogue state that's been operating without a valid government since Eisenhower, likely prompting all of the US's lenders to call their loans due, utterly bankrupting the US beyond all possible recovery?

Okay, you are spouting BS again. Try reading up on stuff before you comment. They do NOT pour water into someone's mouth and nose when they water board (the US version). There were two approved methods. Both involved covering the mouth and nose while the water was being poured. The one I have seen used a wet wadded up rag which was held over the nose and mouth while water was poured over the face. That way might allow small amounts of water to enter the mouth or nose, but not much since most of the water will simply flow around the rag and over the face. The other method was to place plastic over the mouth and nose as water was poured. With that method, no moisture at all could enter the mou...

Okay, you are spouting BS again. Try reading up on stuff before you comment. They do NOT pour water into someone's mouth and nose when they water board (the US version). There were two approved methods. Both involved covering the mouth and nose while the water was being poured. The one I have seen used a wet wadded up rag which was held over the nose and mouth while water was poured over the face. That way might allow small amounts of water to enter the mouth or nose, but not much since most of the water will simply flow around the rag and over the face. The other method was to place plastic over the mouth and nose as water was poured. With that method, no moisture at all could enter the mouth and nose.

With either method, there was NO flooding of the sinuses because the nose and mouth was blocked off while the water was being poured. If you are going to argue against something, at least know what you are arguing about.

I volunteer to spend time visiting prisoners. But jailing someone isn't torture. In fact, jailing people in America is coddling. Time to bring back hard labour in prisons.

But no, you are ignorant. The waterboarding that the US did is EXACTLY the same as that done on Americans by the Japanese...

... and on Allied Soldiers by Nazis

... and by innocent people by the Spanish Inquisition

America tortures, period. You can try to deny it, but you don't have a leg to stand on. I don't give a flying damn whether it works or not (it doesn't, BTW), it's still [color=red]TORTURE[/color]. That makes the Bush Administration war criminals, by their own definition, and it ma...

I volunteer to spend time visiting prisoners. But jailing someone isn't torture. In fact, jailing people in America is coddling. Time to bring back hard labour in prisons.

But no, you are ignorant. The waterboarding that the US did is EXACTLY the same as that done on Americans by the Japanese...

... and on Allied Soldiers by Nazis

... and by innocent people by the Spanish Inquisition

America tortures, period. You can try to deny it, but you don't have a leg to stand on. I don't give a flying damn whether it works or not (it doesn't, BTW), it's still [color=red]TORTURE[/color]. That makes the Bush Administration war criminals, by their own definition, and it makes Obama's administration rogue if it doesn't prosecute those torturers.

don't let facts get in the way of your talking points

Right back at you, the fact is, it's torture. No amount of your bullshit talking points will change that.

Your belief does not prevent it from being torture. Your belief is misfounded. America defines it as torture; even though there are a lot of people trying to cloud that issue at the moment.

But since you do, why aren't you as outspoken against using it on our own troops as you are against using it on the masterminds behind 9/11?

Here is where you implied that it was okay to use it on other nationalities when you pulled this quote out of your arse, somehow trying to accuse me of approving of the torture of Americans.

You've got a very twisted mind, and you're trying very hard to justify torture without actually calling it what it is. I submit again; are you one of said tort...

Your belief does not prevent it from being torture. Your belief is misfounded. America defines it as torture; even though there are a lot of people trying to cloud that issue at the moment.

But since you do, why aren't you as outspoken against using it on our own troops as you are against using it on the masterminds behind 9/11?

Here is where you implied that it was okay to use it on other nationalities when you pulled this quote out of your arse, somehow trying to accuse me of approving of the torture of Americans.

You've got a very twisted mind, and you're trying very hard to justify torture without actually calling it what it is. I submit again; are you one of said torturers, trying to justify the horrible things you did to the gullible American public?