Discussion in 'Politics' started by Memphis Slim, Nov 1, 2007.
What's a historey?
what would jack bauer do
Find out on next week's episode of 24.
You people are funny.........
ALL RESEARCH????? ALL??? You do realize you just said "ALL"...right??
That's just a flat out lie. There are many instances where it's saved lived. So what would you do to get info about an imminent attack???
Ask them to reflect upon their own humanity? Or would you simply do nothing and let millions die?
As hillary would say..... I'm not going to debate; nor, answer such hypotheticals. It serves no purpose, and quite frankly, I trust the American people know my position on such hypotheticals.
this is all too common on these boards
That's a loaded question if I ever saw one.
This ain't comic book land. That's like Batman never killing the Joker...thus letting the Joker kill again and again and again.
You are not reduced to being your enemy if indeed you match or exceed his ferocity. Your reason for doing so is different. Your reason is to END the conflict quickly and not protract it.
Heck....water boarding isn't nearly as bad as what they already do to us?? He's not really being drowned. He feels like it. They really do dunk us in water.
yeah thats fine and all but people will go further than they should and wind up abusive.
This is an article from the New Yorker in 2005 regarding rendition and torture, as well as the practice of waterboarding.
The various problems with any kind of torture in these cases, according to the article are that the process often leads to false confessions. There have been people who haven't done anything who have been beaten and humiliated to the point where they confess to anything just to get the torture to stop.
A psychiatrist interviewed in the article talks about a patient who was detained as a terror suspect, waterboarded, but eventually cleared of any charges and released. Today the man is so traumatized he's not only afraid to go out into the rain, he's afraid to stand in his own shower. This was an innocent man, not a terrorist.
Then there are also those who lie and give false information. There's a problem with information gotten from these interrogation practices that can't be used in court. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is mentioned in the article, and the information he gave that wound up being inadmissible in court because he'd been waterboarded to get it.
The problem is that not everyone detained is guilty. We've got people detained who've been tortured who have never been charged with a crime, or who haven't even been told what they're charged with. They haven't been given any kind of legal due process, and we can't let them go because we've had them tortured.
It's just not that simple as believing they're all terrorist who are going to stop the next 9/11. It's a whole lot more complicated than that.
of course. who wouldnt confess , id tell them i killed kennedy.
Does Torture Work?Seymour Hersh evades the question.
By Fred Kaplan
Posted Tuesday, Sept. 14, 2004, at 5:01 PM ET
Seymour Hersh's new book, Chain of Command: The Road From 9/11 to Abu Ghraib, reveals our most intrepid investigative reporter working near the top of his game. Basically a compilation of the pieces that Hersh wrote for The New Yorker over the past few yearsexpanded, updated, and re-edited, in some cases significantly sothe book holds up as a cohesive tale and a searing indictment of the Bush administration: its chicanery with intelligence in the months leading up to the Iraq war, its inadequate planning for the war's aftermath, and its muffing of all the warsin Iraq, Afghanistan, and the broader war against terrorismever since.
There is, however, one gnawing equivocation in Hersh's otherwise forthright account. It comes in the first section, called "Torture at Abu Ghraib," which takes up over 70 pages of this 370-page book. Hersh blew the lid off the Abu Ghraib scandal last springthe photographs, the Taguba report, the cover-ups, the links up the chain of command (which, in his book, he extends all the way up to the Oval Office). But he has always skirted a vital question: Does torture work?
Hersh is not alone in his evasiveness. Liberals have a tendency to accept, all too eagerly, the argument that torture is ineffective, that it doesn't yield useful information, that a tortured detainee will tell his inquisitors whatever they want to hear. This is an appealing argument. If it's true, we don't have to wrestle with any moral or legal dilemmas. If torture simply doesn't work, all those difficult questions are moot.
But it is, in fact, very likely that, under some circumstances, with some detainees, torture does produce, in the parlance of the trade, "actionable intelligence." Torture to produce a confession ("Yes, I am a terrorist") almost certainly is useless; at some point of pain, many people would confess to anything. But torture to elicit specific information (Who told you to do this? Where did the meeting take place? Who else is in your cell? What are they planning to blow up tomorrow?) sometimes will doclearly, has donethe job. If it hasn't, many times over the centuries, then why do so many regimes engage in it? Some no doubt do it for the kicks, but they're not all purely sadists.
I do not mean to advocate torture. I mean only to suggest that it's time to start wrestling with those moral and legal dilemmas, to face them straightforwardly. If al-Qaida strikes the United States again, our leaderswhoever they arewill be tempted to resort to torture as a method of getting vital intelligence quickly, and we or they or someone should have mapped out crucial distinctions ahead of time: What is acceptable, what isn't; who should engage in it, who shouldn't; for what purposes is it legitimate, for what purposes isn't it; or whether we should decide, after an honest appraisal of its costs and benefits, that the whole business of torturehowever you define itis irredeemably beyond the pale.
It should be noted that the torture at Abu Ghraib appears to be utterly unjustified by any standards. Hersh clearly showsand the Schlesinger report has confirmedthat the vast majority of the inmates at Abu Ghraib were common criminals or total innocents rounded up in random sweeps who were subjected to no screening before their horrendous ordeals began.
But what about the inmates elsewhere, many of whom really were, and are, al-Qaida operatives? Hersh refers to a highly classified "special-access program"approved by President Bush and carried out by Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeldthat involved, as he puts it, "snatching or strong-arming suspected terrorists and questioning them in secret prison facilities in Singapore, Thailand, and Pakistan, among other sites." What about the torturepresumably there's torture of one sort or anotherthat went on there? For the moment, forget about whether such techniques are proper. That's a separate though no less important matter, to be dealt with after this question is answered: Did they produce useful intelligence?
At one point, Hersh suggests that they did. He writes that, early on in the Iraqi insurgency, detainees weren't giving their American interrogators any substantive information. Hersh quotes a "former intelligence official" on what Stephen Cambone, the assistant secretary of defense in charge of the operation, did in response in mid-2003:
Cambone says, I've got to crack this thing and I'm tired of working through the normal chain of command. I've got this apparatus set upthe black special-access programand I'm going in hot. So he pulls the switch, and the electricity begins flowing last summer. And it's working. We're getting a picture of the insurgency in Iraq and the intelligence is flowing into the white world. We're getting good stuff.
^I bet they're being paid off by big oil
This isn't GI Joe or Captain America chasing down the big bad terrorists, either. It's a hell of a lot more complicated than that.
If this "matching their ferocity" was really the way to end the war on terrorism, wouldn't it be over by now?
And waterboarding is more than being "dunked" in water. Feeling like you're being drowned is terrifying. You try having someone hold your head under a running faucet and not let you breathe until you confess to something you may or may not have done, or give information you may or may not have.
But that's my point!! WE HAVEN'T UNLEASHED OUR FULL MIGHT! The rules of engagement has our soldiers so tied up its ridiculous! As a result, it's not over! And this type of enemy sees that as a weakness to exploit!
If Al-Qaeda does strike the US again, then obviously all that waterboarding was ineffective in stopping that next attack.
Btw, if he can't spell Al-Qaeda, he shouldn't talk about what to do with the ones we catch.
Celldog, you're a religious man, right?
If you believed you were fighting for God and America was invaded by an outside source...would torture or the number of troops really stop you? We can be as ferocious as we want...it won't matter. These people are fighting for their god. They have been raised their entire lives to believe this. A military isn't going to divert them.
The point is not to shut down the whole thing by boarding, it's about imminent attacks.
Damn those pesky rules of war and human rights
Actually, it can be spelled either way.
Rules of engagement got this soldiers squad killed. We are handicapping our soldiers.
This is an interview he did on the Glen Beck show...he was also on The Today Show with Matt Lauer.
Well, I'm about to introduce you to a guy who has a new book out, it's called Lone Survivor. He was a Navy SEAL. He has a story that he's going to tell you here in the next few minutes that should shock, horrify,
and quite honestly just -- it should anger you. I have a very good friend who is in the middle of reading Lone Survivor, he called me up last night it was about 11 o'clock. And I've never heard him like this. He was angry. And he said, "Glenn, I can't believe these weasels in Washington." I'm going to let Marcus Luttrell tell you the story. He's on with us now. Marcus, how are you, sir?
LUTTRELL: Yes, sir, how are you?
GLENN: Very good. You -- take us back to Afghanistan. You are a Navy SEAL. How long have you been a Navy SEAL before 9/11?
LUTTRELL: Almost ten years, sir.
GLENN: Ten years. And so you go over to Afghanistan, and what is your mission?
Lone Survivor: The Eyewitness Account of Operation Redwing and the Lost Heroes of SEAL Team 10
by Marcus Luttrell
LUTTRELL: This particular mission we were a four man sniper watch team sitting on a capture kill task to locate, monitor the activity of a high-ranking Taliban official with known ties to Osama bin Laden.
And we were also to pick up further on intelligence about him, coordinating and executing complex tasks against coalition forces in this particular area. It was a -- a remote area near the Paki border that didn't see much play from the US military, and that was our job, sir.
GLENN: Okay. And you go in, Marcus, and this is a very dangerous situation. How many -- how many are around you?
LUTTRELL: Intel were forwarded up to 200.
GLENN: So you're living in the midst of 200 Taliban that are looking to kill you, and there's only four of you, and you're pretty much alone?
LUTTRELL: Yes, sir. Yes, sir.
GLENN: Okay. What happens?
LUTTRELL: We were monitoring our target, didn't have a good visual on -- on -- on the initial site, so we relocated, got a better visual. Couple hours after that we -- came across a (unintelligible) compromise which means we were walked on by some civilians, some Afghani goat herders.
GLENN: Hang on. That means that they just happened upon you. They say you and you're like, oh, crap, now what do we do?
LUTTRELL: Yes, sir. They were out walking the herd. They had about 75 or a hundred goats, when I say they walked on us, I was underneath a tree that had been cut down was burned out I was hiding underneath that with my rifle watching the target and he walked over the tree I was on. So when I heard him above me, when I turned my -- just kind of turned a little bit to look, he looked right down at me, and that's when the compromise took place.
GLENN: Okay. And this was a -- this is not a guy carrying a gun, this was not a member of the Taliban, or was it, or what did you think originally?
LUTTRELL: No, sir. He -- he had a -- an axe with him, a wood chopping axe. That's all he had with him. No firearm or anything like that. About three to five minutes later another man walked up the hill, one of my teammates, Matt Axelson, called over to me and said that there was two more coming up, another adult male and a -- about a 13 -- 13-year-old boy. So we took 'em off to the side, set him down on a tree, you know, started interrogating them, tried to give him some food, some water, they didn't want to have anything to do with that. They weren't answering any of our questions, either.
GLENN: You guys -- you speak the language?
LUTTRELL: Yes, sir. And we also have equipment that allows us to communicate with them.
LUTTRELL: My lieutenant, the officer in charge, he came down from his position and did the best he could also to interrogate them, and -- and they just weren't -- they weren't having it. So --
GLENN: And what were you trying to get -- what kind of information were you trying to get?
LUTTRELL: Basically we were telling them that we were Americans and that they were in danger and asking if they had any -- any -- or knew of anywhere about his of any Taliban sites or cache sites or just basically what their general business was up there, and they weren't answering anything.
GLENN: Now, did you get the feeling at the time it was because they were a part of the Taliban, or friendly, or they were just afraid of you, or why --
LUTTRELL: My -- my feeling after dealing with a lot -- most of -- every operation we had been on, just you can tell when someone doesn't really care for you. And when you look at someone's eyes, whether they -- you know, they like you or they don't. And on top of which they weren't answering any of our questions. And even though the dialect might be a little different in certain areas, still -- you could still understand what we were saying, they weren't having anything to do with us. They were talking among themselves, obviously. We couldn't under -- we couldn't pick it up totally. So the decision was they weren't brandishing firearms, they were, you know, no immediate threat to us except for the fact that if we turned them loose, that, you know, they could obviously go get reinforcements to come back on top of us. We talked about, you know, tying them up and leaving them there, but again that would be just like killing them as well. They had all the goats with them and stuff like that. It's just -- that would have brought more people into our position, and like I said, our job, we were set in for 72 hours to overwatch this target, and with a compromise like that, we were just in a difficult situation. Also dealing with the terrain, there wasn't too many places that we could relocate and evaluate our target so the decision was made to turn 'em loose.
GLENN: Okay, so --
LUTTRELL: I mean we couldn't -- we couldn't --
GLENN: How far --
LUTTRELL: Because of the ROEs, rules of engagement, we have to -- placed upon us and stuff like that, you know, if we would have executed them, you know, we'd have wound up in prison. And it wasn't -- I'd rather -- you know, we'd rather take our -- the decision was to take our chances with -- in a gunfight than take our chances in the court system.
GLENN: And the reason why -- I mean the Taliban, they are actually now carrying mule packhorses and mules loaded with explosives, but our guys cannot stop them or can't shoot them because if they're not carrying a weapon, you can't shoot them, right?
LUTTRELL: Well, you can't even shoot them -- rules of engagement for conventional forces you're not even allowed to shoot 'em if they have a weapon on them. They have to be actively engaging you.
GLENN: Okay. So you guys talked about it and you decided we gotta let 'em go. And was it mainly because of the rules of engagement?
LUTTRELL: Yes, sir.
LUTTRELL: And, you know, exactly. They -- like I said, they weren't carrying any firearms, and we couldn't keep 'em, you know?
GLENN: Right. And so you guys knew you'd go to prison, why? Because the bodies would be found and then --
LUTTRELL: Eventually the bodies would be found and their IO campaign is a lot better than ours. They support --
GLENN: The IO campaign, what is --
LUTTRELL: Their media campaign.
LUTTRELL: You know, so eventually it would have been traced back to us. Some -- you'd think it would be impossible but I've seen it happen.
GLENN: So, in other words, what you're saying is they would find the bodies, then they would contact the media, al-Jazeera, al-Jazeera would run how you executed a 13-year-old boy and two -- two other guys, and then it would be tracked back to you, and you would be tried in the media, you'd end up in prison?
LUTTRELL: Yes, sir. That was -- that was the thing about it.
GLENN: Was this just a -- was this just a conversation you guys had? You actually took a vote, right?
LUTTRELL: We got together -- I mean that's one of the unique things about the SEAL team, obviously the officer is overall command and control, I was the team leader and we had Danny and Matt, we were in a unique situation, we got together, and obviously two heads are better than one, three are better than two, so we talked about it and came to the decision that, you know, we aren't murderers, anything about the SEAL team that we don't know about we're not a defensive force, we're an offensive force. When we go in to -- you take the bad guys out to take the fighter -- or to, you know -- to engage, but in this certain situation, it was just unique, that's all I could say. You know, I racked my brain a hundred million times, you know, if we made the right call or not, but we made the call --
LUTTRELL: -- depending on the rules that we implemented on them.
GLENN: Okay. So now you let them go. How far away are you from your Taliban target?
LUTTRELL: Maybe a little under a click.
GLENN: I don't --
LUTTRELL: Maybe under a mile. A mile.
GLENN: Okay. So you're -- you're a mile away from your target, you let them go. What do you tell them when they let you go, and what is their expression on your face when you say, see you guys later?
LUTTRELL: We turned 'em loose, and they -- they took out. They -- I mean they didn't stick around. And those -- you know, they ask any people, they can move through those mountains quick. It took them about five minutes to walk up a cliff that it took our team to walk up, it took us about 30 to 45 minutes. You know. Because once we turned them loose after about ten minutes I sit there and watched them walk away, and they never looked back. The kid did a couple times and then they were gone. They just disappeared, and then we relocated.
GLENN: Okay. Then what happened?
LUTTRELL: About 45 minutes later, about a hundred-plus Taliban militia showed up over the top of our ridge. And my ROT, Michael Murphy, was the first one to -- to spot the -- the combatants. I was on the initial -- we were set up like a triangle on the side of this cliff, so much so we had to dig out the ground below us. We were just basically standing up leaning backwards against a cliff. That's how steep it was, kind of give you an idea. And we actually had an advantage on our target. I had just passed the -- the monitoring equipment down to Matt and pulled my hat down over my eyes. And then I get a whisper from Mikey to -- when I pull my hat up, I look down and, you know, his eyes were as big as sand dollars and he was just like, you know, it's time to get it on. So I rolled over and the first person I saw was a -- was a guy with two RPGs on his back and an AK, and there was a huge pine -- or a huge tree about 20 meters in front of me, and that's what I focused my rifle on, my radical, you know, my snipe -- my scope, and I see a head pop out and the muzzle of an AK. I turned around and looked at Mikey and I was like, it's time to get it on. And then all of the you can just see them flooding the top part of the -- the ridge, and then they were coming down our side.
Turned back around, the guy had moved back around the tree. You could hear them yelling. We didn't have an idea of how many there were but just looking at what we were dealing with on top of the ridge was -- was -- I mean it was a multitude of them, sir. Took the first shot at the guy behind the tree. I dumped him, and then that's what, you know, they opened up on us. We were in a -- a tree bed, which provided some cover. Axelson, Matt flanked to the left, Danny was on the radio calling in for reinforcements and also covering our right side and then Mikey, our OIC, he was hanging out in between everybody running back -- because you couldn't hear anything, there was so much gunfire, trying to figure out what was going on, getting information from Mikey. He was like locating up -- talking up my position, telling me to, you know, basically to get it on, because we were getting overrun. And then Axe was flanked out so far that he was covering our left side that Mikey had a long stretch to get -- to get to. Once we started getting overrun, I mean every time we'd -- we'd take somebody down, sir, somebody would fill their position. And they had every one of our -- you know, every angle covered that it was -- it was impossible to take everybody out.
GLENN: All right. We're going to -- I'm going to stop you here for just a second because I have to take a break.
^I bet they were paid off by big oil.