Shepherd Smith on Torture and Being an American

[oldiebutgoodie]

I would hasten to point out the human garbage referred to as "illegal combatants" are NOT covered under the Geneva Conventions nor are they entitled to the protection of the U.S. Constitution.  They are, literally, OUTLAWS, in the sense that they are completely beyond the protection of any law.  Their disposition, then, is completely at the discretion of those whose custody they find themselves in, in this case the U.S. Government in the person of the President and his assigns.  The President may order their immediate release.  He may order their detention in perpetuity.  He may order their summary execution.  He is at liberty, also, to order that they be tortured in accordance with whatever protocol he deems fitting and expedient.  This has been the legal standard for over 200 years -- until now. 

Affording these terrorists any legal protections whatsoever puts the U.S. at a grave disadvantage.  Consider; for their part, they exercise absolutely no restraint whatsoever in their depredations.  They represent no state.  They wear no uniforms.  They target non-combatants -- including women and children -- as a matter of first recourse.  They cheerfully torture, mutilate, and kill those unfortunates who fall into their clutches.  What does it benefit this country to afford them any legal status superior to that of a cockroach?  It benefits us NOTHING.  It only impedes the defense of U.S. interests, encourages more terrorism, and costs American lives.  Obama and the Democrats, by expending their energy in defense of the enemy, have demonstrated to the whole world their foolishness and complete unfitness to govern. 

I completely understand your sentiment however, the United States is a nation of laws. Our Supreme Court declared that treatment of the Guantanamo prisoners is to be governed by the Geneva Conventions.

I don't really care about the fate of the terrorists held there (which does not include 100% of the prison population) but I very much do care about the "fate" of the law and how we, as a nation of laws, uphold our own laws and are guided by our own Constitution which states tha tthe Supreme Court has the final say in the matter and they did speak.

If any Senate or House or military commission finds that our laws have been broken, then we shall see how the law dictates what happens next. I don't know why any American would be against enforcing the law.

We can show the world just how strong a nation we are by following our own laws.

I would be interested in knowing what fate awaits any terrorist found guilty of acts of terrorism against the USA. Guantanamo is being closed. Where will they be shipped? Where will they serve out their prison sentences?

[oldiebutgoodie]

torture by the US is the best recruitment tool
any Gulf region fanatic could ask for

Not only that, it retroactively "justifies" in the minds of terrorists and their sympathizers all past and future acts of terrorism against the innocent such as the beheading of Daniel Perl or the massacre of schoolchildren at a spelling bee or the gunning down of tourists at a Greek airline counter or the homicide bombing of a teenage disco hangout or the slaughter of Israeli athletes... past, present, future acts of terror all now officially justified because America did it, too (so they say). And that is what they will say.

[SteveDinMD]

the geopolitics of the region
(lack of a stable central government)
dictate that illegal combatants are the enemy

warlords/tribal factions are the norm
and we are engaged in a war w/ those who follow
an ancient/uncivilized mindset

I have no sympathy/empathy
for how they conduct their lives

they bastardize religious teachings
to justify the rejection of enlightenment,
while they enjoy/ensure their stranglehold
over the powerless in their societies

but having said that,
I cling to the notion that torture harms us
in ways that aren't readily apparent

there is a philosophy
which teaches that hostile/violent acts
harm the perpretrator
more than the victims of the acts

the harm/damage is done to the soul

I believe that our nation is a living being
and that it possesses a soul

torture by the US is the best recruitment tool
any Gulf region fanatic could ask for

sleep deprivation/noise bombardment/etc
are well w/in acceptable limits IMO

I specifically have waterboarding
and the other more extreme acts in mind
when I classify something as torture,
which can/will also be used to justify heinous acts
against our personnel anywhere on the planet

the parameters of conflict have evolved,
(or they have reverse-evolved to a primitive level)
and our conduct must evolve as well,
re our treatment of those who wage war against us,
whether or not they are issued a uniform

finngirl: 

I understand perfectly your aversion to torture and other harsh methods, but no one is compelling you to participate.  No one, either, is demanding that you participate in killings on the battlefield, which I suspect you also understandably find repulsive.  Though these things be repulsive, they're absolutely essential to the protection and survival of the American people. 

I ask you; if there were a nuclear device hidden in a U.S. city and you had in your custody an enemy combatant who might know the whereabouts of that device, what would you not do in order to prevent the ensuing holocaust, to prevent the horrific murder of hundreds of thousands of your fellow citizens?  Personally, there is absolutely nothing I wouldn't do in seeking to obtain information crucial to foiling such an attack.  Waterboarding, actually, could well be among the least abusive techniques in my toolkit under those circumstances.  Effectiveness would be my only criterion in evaluating any approach to interrogating the subject.  Frankly, I'd run the terrorists live through woodchippers -- feet first -- if I thought it were the fastest, best way to the information. 

My advice to those, such as yourself, who are too squeamish to confront the brutal realities of the world is to simply put it all out of your mind.  Avoid thinking about it, much the same way as most people avoid thinking about slaughterhouses while enjoying a steak dinner.  Leave the defense of the nation to the professionals who've volunteered for the task and thank God you're privileged to enjoy the protection and safety they provide. 

[oldiebutgoodie]

My advice to those, such as yourself, who are too squeamish to confront the brutal realities of the world is to simply put it all out of your mind.  Avoid thinking about it...

Like good German citizens during the Holocaust.

  Leave the defense of the nation to the professionals who've volunteered for the task and thank God you're privileged to enjoy the protection and safety they provide. 

The "professionals" are still not entitled to commit torture. That is against our laws. Torture is un-American. You don't defend America by violating the essence of America. America is not a country that tortures. Except we did. And now the American people are entitled to answers about what crimes were done in their name. We are a nation of laws. We do not torture.

[SteveDinMD]

I would hasten to point out the human garbage referred to as "illegal combatants" are NOT covered under the Geneva Conventions nor are they entitled to the protection of the U.S. Constitution.  They are, literally, OUTLAWS, in the sense that they are completely beyond the protection of any law.  Their disposition, then, is completely at the discretion of those whose custody they find themselves in, in this case the U.S. Government in the person of the President and his assigns.  The President may order their immediate release.  He may order their detention in perpetuity.  He may order their summary execution.  He is at liberty, also, to order that they be tortured in accordance with whatever protocol he deems fitting and expedient.  This has been the legal standard for over 200 years -- until now. 

Affording these terrorists any legal protections whatsoever puts the U.S. at a grave disadvantage.  Consider; for their part, they exercise absolutely no restraint whatsoever in their depredations.  They represent no state.  They wear no uniforms.  They target non-combatants -- including women and children -- as a matter of first recourse.  They cheerfully torture, mutilate, and kill those unfortunates who fall into their clutches.  What does it benefit this country to afford them any legal status superior to that of a cockroach?  It benefits us NOTHING.  It only impedes the defense of U.S. interests, encourages more terrorism, and costs American lives.  Obama and the Democrats, by expending their energy in defense of the enemy, have demonstrated to the whole world their foolishness and complete unfitness to govern. 

I completely understand your sentiment however, the United States is a nation of laws. Our Supreme Court declared that treatment of the Guantanamo prisoners is to be governed by the Geneva Conventions.

I don't really care about the fate of the terrorists held there (which does not include 100% of the prison population) but I very much do care about the "fate" of the law and how we, as a nation of laws, uphold our own laws and are guided by our own Constitution which states tha tthe Supreme Court has the final say in the matter and they did speak.

If any Senate or House or military commission finds that our laws have been broken, then we shall see how the law dictates what happens next. I don't know why any American would be against enforcing the law.

We can show the world just how strong a nation we are by following our own laws.

I would be interested in knowing what fate awaits any terrorist found guilty of acts of terrorism against the USA. Guantanamo is being closed. Where will they be shipped? Where will they serve out their prison sentences?

It is not simply some flip sentiment I express, but, rather, my well considered professional opinion.  Given my nearly 25 years' experience as a U.S. intelligence officer, that opinion is infinitely more valuable and worthy of heed than anything Barack Obama could offer.  As President, his opinion may form the basis of Government policy, but that doesn't alter the simple fact that he's wrong. 

As for ours being a nation of laws, this is true.  It is also true that the terrorists enjoy the protection of none of them, and, contrary to your assertion, under the Constitution the Supreme Court absolutely does not have the final say.  If you had bothered to actually read the U.S. Constitution, you would have learned that the judiciary is but one of three co-equal branches of government and, moreover, it was specifically intended by the framers to be the least influential.  Go ahead; read Article III.  It establishes but one court, the Supreme Court, and defines its jurisdiction, which is tightly circumscribed since all courts in the U.S. are courts of limited jurisdiction.  All other courts in the land -- as well as their jurisdictions -- are established by acts of Congress.  Now, I defy you to name the law under which any court in the United States has jurisdiction over the treatment and disposition of international outlaws, in particular those apprehended and detained overseas, in time of war, no less. 

Indeed, I agree we can demonstrate our strength by following our laws, not however by allowing 5 political hacks to make them up as they going along.  In the words of former Supreme Court Justice Robert H. Jackson, "The Constitution is not a Suicide Pact."  Keep this in mind as members of the judiciary -- the un-elected, un-accountable branch of government -- seek to manufacture enemy rights designed to confer political advantage on leftist politicians at the expense of the public safety.  These vile usurpers already have American blood on their hands, and they will have more, much more, I fear. 

[SteveDinMD]

torture by the US is the best recruitment tool
any Gulf region fanatic could ask for

Not only that, it retroactively "justifies" in the minds of terrorists and their sympathizers all past and future acts of terrorism against the innocent such as the beheading of Daniel Perl or the massacre of schoolchildren at a spelling bee or the gunning down of tourists at a Greek airline counter or the homicide bombing of a teenage disco hangout or the slaughter of Israeli athletes... past, present, future acts of terror all now officially justified because America did it, too (so they say). And that is what they will say.

Excuse me, but the massacres and beheadings -- not to mention the 9/11 attacks -- all began long, long before any detainees were subjected to waterboarding.  The terrorists therefore obviously thought that they already had all the justification they needed.  It is their unprovoked and utterly inhuman depredations that justify the application of whatever means might be necessary to stop them. 

[SteveDinMD]

My advice to those, such as yourself, who are too squeamish to confront the brutal realities of the world is to simply put it all out of your mind.  Avoid thinking about it...

Like good German citizens during the Holocaust.

  Leave the defense of the nation to the professionals who've volunteered for the task and thank God you're privileged to enjoy the protection and safety they provide. 

The "professionals" are still not entitled to commit torture. That is against our laws. Torture is un-American. You don't defend America by violating the essence of America. America is not a country that tortures. Except we did. And now the American people are entitled to answers about what crimes were done in their name. We are a nation of laws. We do not torture.

Specifically, what law forbids it?  The answer is NONE.  Illegal combatants are beyond the protection of any law.  Moreover, the enemy routinely tortures, mutilates, and murders.  As they have sewn, so should they reap.  By the way, what is torture.  One man's torture is another's day at the beach, after all.  I hear some people actually pay good money to be whipped.    

If you're so committed to the righteous cause of ending torture in the world, why haven't you pursued your agenda where it would do the most good?  Why haven't you travelled to, say, Teheran to protest against the Iranian government?  Perhaps a protest in Sudan would be more to your liking?  No?  Why not?  Don't bother to answer.  The reason is because taking a real stand against real evil entails real risks, the kind that those fighting the Global War On Terrorism run every single day.  It is they who are the genuine heroes of American righteousness -- not those who opportunistically criticize them from luxurious safety their heroism has provided. 

[oldiebutgoodie]

America does not torture. There is no justification for torture. We may simply agree to disagree.

[oldiebutgoodie]

It is not simply some flip sentiment I express, but, rather, my well considered professional opinion.  Given my nearly 25 years' experience as a U.S. intelligence officer, that opinion is infinitely more valuable and worthy of heed than anything Barack Obama could offer.  

Do you know more than these guys, too?

FBI Weren't the Only Ones Objecting to Torture in 2002 -- So Did the Army, Marines & Air Force

There were already serious objections to the use of torture when the Bush administration made it legal in 2002 -- FBI chief Robert Mueller refused to let his agents participate in the CIA's "coercive interrogations" in June of that year, well before the Bybee memo made them legal on August 1.

But it's not like the FBI was alone in expressing those concerns. On October 1, the commander in charge of detainee interrogation at Guantanamo Bay wrote a memo requesting authority to use "aggressive interrogations techniques" that were similar to those outlined in the Bybee memo. It reached the desk of Richard Myers, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the Joint Staff solicited opinions before making a decision. Here's what came back to them in November 2002 (PDF):

Air Force: Had "serious concerns regarding the legality of many of the proposed techniques...Some of these techniques could be construed as 'torture' as that crime is defined by 18 U.S.C 2340." Further, they were concerned that "implementation of these techniques could preclude the ability to prosecute the individuals interrogated," because "Level III techniques will almost certainly result in any statements obtained being declared as coerced and involuntary, and therefore inadmissible....Additionally, the techniques described may be subject to challenge as failing to meet the requirements outlined in military order to treat detainees humanely and to provide them with adequate food, water, shelter and medical treatment." They called for an in-depth legal review.

Criminal Investigative Task Force (CITM): Chief Legal Advisor to the CITF at Gitmo, Maj Sam W. McCahon, writes "Both the utility and the legality of applying certain techniques identified in the memorandum listed above are, in my opinion, questionable. Any policy decision to use the Tier III techniques, or any techniques inconsistent with the analysis herein, will be contrary to my recommendation. The aggressive techniques should not occur at GTMO where both CITF and the intelligence community are conducting interviews and interrogations." He calls for further review and concludes by saying "I cannot advocate any action, interrogation or otherwise, that is predicated upon the principal that all is well if the ends justify the means and others are not aware of how we conduct our business."

Army: The Assistant Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations and Plans writes: "As set forth in the enclosed memoranda, the Army interposes significant legal, policy and practical concerns regarding most of the Category II and all of the Category III techniques proposed." They recommend "a comprehensive legal review of this proposal in its entirety by the Department of Defense and the Department of Justice."

Navy: recommends that "more detailed interagency legal and political review be conducted on proposed techniques."

Marine Corp: expressed strong reservations, since "several of the Category II and III techniques arguably violate federal law, and would expose our service members to possible prosecution." Called for further review.

Legal adviser to the Joint Chiefs, Jane Dalton, commenced the review that was requested by the military services. But before it was concluded, Myers put a stop to it -- at the request of Jim Haynes, the Department of Defense General Counsel, who was told by Rumsfeld that things were "taking too long." Over the objections of the Army, the Navy, the Marines, the Air Force and the Criminal Investigation Task Force, Haynes recommended that the "aggressive technique" be approved without further investigation. He testified that Wolfowitz, Feith and Myers concurred.

On December 2, 2002 Rumsfeld approved Haynes' recommendation with the famous comment "I stand for 8-10 hours a day. Why is standing limited to 4 hours?"

One of the conclusions of the Senate Armed Services Committee report is that Myers screwed up:

Conclusion 11: Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Richard Myers's decision to cut short the legal and policy review of the October 11,2002 GTMO request initiated by his Legal Counsel, then-Captain Jane Dalton, undermined the military's review process. Subsequent conclusions reached by Chairman Myers and Captain Dalton regarding the legality of interrogation techniques in the request followed a grossly deficient review and were at odds with conclusions previously reached by the Anny, Air Force, Marine Corps, and Criminal Investigative Task Force.

They also conclude that "Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld's authorization of aggressive interrogation techniques for use at Guantanamo Bay was a direct cause of detainee abuse there. Secretary Rumsfeld's December 2,2002 approval of Mr. Haynes's recommendation that most of the techniques contained in GTMO's October 11, 2002 request be authorized, influenced and contributed to the use of abusive techniques, including military working dogs, forced nudity, and stress positions, in Afghanistan and Iraq."

Objections to torture aren't the exclusive terrain, as Bill Kristol likes to pretend, of "President Obama" and his "leftist lawyers" looking back on a "bright, sunny safe day in April" with "preening self-righteousness" and forgetting how "dark and painful" that chapter in our history was.

When Donald Rumsfeld approved "enhanced interrogation techniques" for Guantanamo Bay in 2002, he did so in defiance of the recommendations of the Army, the Navy, the Marines, the Air Force and the Criminal Investigation Task Force.

LINK

[oldiebutgoodie]

‘Abu Ghraib US prison guards were scapegoats for Bush’ lawyers claim

Prison guards jailed for abusing inmates at the Abu Ghraib jail in Iraq are planning to appeal against their convictions on the ground that recently released CIA torture memos prove that they were scapegoats for the Bush Administration.

The photographs of prisoner abuse at the Baghdad jail in 2004 sparked worldwide outrage but the previous administration, from President Bush down, blamed the incident on a few low-ranking “bad apples” who were acting on their own.

The decision by President Obama to release the memos showed that the harsh interrogation tactics were approved and authorised at the highest levels of the White House.

Some of the guards who were convicted of abuse want to return to court and argue that the previous administration sanctioned the abuse but withheld its role from their trials.

The latest reaction to the released memos came as it emerged that the two psychologists hired by the CIA to craft the techniques that were used on terror suspects were paid $1,000 (£673) a day. Neither had carried out nor overseen an interrogation.

Twelve guards at Abu Ghraib were convicted on charges related to the abuse, which included attaching leads to naked prisoners, terrifying them with dogs, beatings and slamming them into walls. The wall-slamming was a technique authorised by Justice Department officials at the time, who also said that the simulated drowning technique known as waterboarding was not considered to be torture.

Charles Gittins, a lawyer who represents Charles Graner, the ringleader of the guards who is serving a ten-year sentence, said that the memos proved his long-held contention that Graner and the other defendants, including his former lover Lynndie England, could never have invented tactics such as stress positions and the use of dogs on their own.

“Once the pictures came out, the senior officials involved in the decision-making, they knew. They knew they had to have a cover story. It was the ‘bad apples’ led by Charles Graner,” Mr Gittins told The Washington Post.

Ms England, a poorly educated Army reservist, was pictured holding a dog leash attached to a naked detainee, and also pointing at another being forced to masturbate. She was convicted in September 2005 of abusing prisoners and one count of an indecent act. She was sentenced to three years in a military prison and was paroled after 521 days. Shortly after leaving Iraq she gave birth to a son fathered by Graner. She lives in her home state of West Virginia.

Mr Gittins said the refusal by the Bush Administration to acknowledge that it had authorised such techniques during the trials of the prison guards — and the judges’ refusal to call senior administration officials to testify — undermined their defences.

Mr Gittins wants to take the case of Graner, who is halfway through his sentence, to the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces to argue that top Bush Administration officials kept their complicity from the defence.

Gary Myers, a lawyer who represented Ivan L “Chip” Frederick on the abuse charges, said that he was going to try to use the memos to have his client’s dishonourable discharge removed from his record.

“What we know is that we had at the time a rogue government that created an environment where this sort of conduct was condoned, if not encouraged,” he said.

He added, however, that relying on illegal opinions or orders would probably not be a defence.

LINK

When the Nazis were put on trial after the Holocaust, many of them offered the defense, "We were just following orders." That defense didn't do them much good. That's because the orders the Nazis were given were illegal in the first place. Following an illegal order is not a defense.

Whatever was the appropriate military justice to be meted out to the American soldiers who participated in prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib, and let's assume (for the moment here) the judgements and procedures were correct and fair, then if they were found guilty and sentenced, they should do their time.

But, if that's only the tip of the iceberg as in there are higher-ups in the chain of command even unto the White House that are responsible for authorizing, financing, training and administering a program of abuse, then those individuals responsible also ought to be put on trial. Don't just send the rank and file off to jail. If it's a jail-worthy offense - and obviously it is because people are sitting in jail right now because of it - then the persons who were actually in control need to face up to their own deeds.

President Obama seems to want to have the facts be known to the American people but he seems reluctant to pursue the matter as far as holding Bush administration officials accountable. Congress (Senate and House) are also getting into the mix. So we shall see what we shall see.

[SteveDinMD]

It is not simply some flip sentiment I express, but, rather, my well considered professional opinion.  Given my nearly 25 years' experience as a U.S. intelligence officer, that opinion is infinitely more valuable and worthy of heed than anything Barack Obama could offer.  

Do you know more than these guys, too?

FBI Weren't the Only Ones Objecting to Torture in 2002 -- So Did the Army, Marines & Air Force

There were already serious objections to the use of torture when the Bush administration made it legal in 2002 -- FBI chief Robert Mueller refused to let his agents participate in the CIA's "coercive interrogations" in June of that year, well before the Bybee memo made them legal on August 1.

But it's not like the FBI was alone in expressing those concerns. On October 1, the commander in charge of detainee interrogation at Guantanamo Bay wrote a memo requesting authority to use "aggressive interrogations techniques" that were similar to those outlined in the Bybee memo. It reached the desk of Richard Myers, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the Joint Staff solicited opinions before making a decision. Here's what came back to them in November 2002 (PDF):

Air Force: Had "serious concerns regarding the legality of many of the proposed techniques...Some of these techniques could be construed as 'torture' as that crime is defined by 18 U.S.C 2340." Further, they were concerned that "implementation of these techniques could preclude the ability to prosecute the individuals interrogated," because "Level III techniques will almost certainly result in any statements obtained being declared as coerced and involuntary, and therefore inadmissible....Additionally, the techniques described may be subject to challenge as failing to meet the requirements outlined in military order to treat detainees humanely and to provide them with adequate food, water, shelter and medical treatment." They called for an in-depth legal review.

Criminal Investigative Task Force (CITM): Chief Legal Advisor to the CITF at Gitmo, Maj Sam W. McCahon, writes "Both the utility and the legality of applying certain techniques identified in the memorandum listed above are, in my opinion, questionable. Any policy decision to use the Tier III techniques, or any techniques inconsistent with the analysis herein, will be contrary to my recommendation. The aggressive techniques should not occur at GTMO where both CITF and the intelligence community are conducting interviews and interrogations." He calls for further review and concludes by saying "I cannot advocate any action, interrogation or otherwise, that is predicated upon the principal that all is well if the ends justify the means and others are not aware of how we conduct our business."

Army: The Assistant Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations and Plans writes: "As set forth in the enclosed memoranda, the Army interposes significant legal, policy and practical concerns regarding most of the Category II and all of the Category III techniques proposed." They recommend "a comprehensive legal review of this proposal in its entirety by the Department of Defense and the Department of Justice."

Navy: recommends that "more detailed interagency legal and political review be conducted on proposed techniques."

Marine Corp: expressed strong reservations, since "several of the Category II and III techniques arguably violate federal law, and would expose our service members to possible prosecution." Called for further review.

Legal adviser to the Joint Chiefs, Jane Dalton, commenced the review that was requested by the military services. But before it was concluded, Myers put a stop to it -- at the request of Jim Haynes, the Department of Defense General Counsel, who was told by Rumsfeld that things were "taking too long." Over the objections of the Army, the Navy, the Marines, the Air Force and the Criminal Investigation Task Force, Haynes recommended that the "aggressive technique" be approved without further investigation. He testified that Wolfowitz, Feith and Myers concurred.

On December 2, 2002 Rumsfeld approved Haynes' recommendation with the famous comment "I stand for 8-10 hours a day. Why is standing limited to 4 hours?"

One of the conclusions of the Senate Armed Services Committee report is that Myers screwed up:

Conclusion 11: Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Richard Myers's decision to cut short the legal and policy review of the October 11,2002 GTMO request initiated by his Legal Counsel, then-Captain Jane Dalton, undermined the military's review process. Subsequent conclusions reached by Chairman Myers and Captain Dalton regarding the legality of interrogation techniques in the request followed a grossly deficient review and were at odds with conclusions previously reached by the Anny, Air Force, Marine Corps, and Criminal Investigative Task Force.

They also conclude that "Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld's authorization of aggressive interrogation techniques for use at Guantanamo Bay was a direct cause of detainee abuse there. Secretary Rumsfeld's December 2,2002 approval of Mr. Haynes's recommendation that most of the techniques contained in GTMO's October 11, 2002 request be authorized, influenced and contributed to the use of abusive techniques, including military working dogs, forced nudity, and stress positions, in Afghanistan and Iraq."

Objections to torture aren't the exclusive terrain, as Bill Kristol likes to pretend, of "President Obama" and his "leftist lawyers" looking back on a "bright, sunny safe day in April" with "preening self-righteousness" and forgetting how "dark and painful" that chapter in our history was.

When Donald Rumsfeld approved "enhanced interrogation techniques" for Guantanamo Bay in 2002, he did so in defiance of the recommendations of the Army, the Navy, the Marines, the Air Force and the Criminal Investigation Task Force.

LINK

I personally wouldn't burden those serving in the military or in law enforcement with the task of extracting information from illegal combatants.  It's not within the scope of their duties.  Such matters are the exclusive province of the CIA, and it was precisely for such missions that the Agency was created in the first place. 

[oldiebutgoodie]

I personally wouldn't burden those serving in the military or in law enforcement with the task of extracting information from illegal combatants.  It's not within the scope of their duties.  Such matters are the exclusive province of the CIA, and it was precisely for such missions that the Agency was created in the first place. 

Please don't think that I am disrespectful of your views because I am not. I simply will never agree that torture is acceptable.

The American government post-WWII also was adamant that torture was not acceptable and executed Japanese military personnel for having committed the torture of waterboarding against our American soldiers. The American government called it torture then. They made it a "death penalty offense" then.

And now we are doing the exact same thing that was once considered so heinous by our government that it was a death-penalty offense? Not acceptable. America does not torture.

And yes, terrorists will warp truth and history and all their filthy deeds of the past become pure and justified as "freedom fighting" or standing up for Islam if, at any point, America indulges in the same acts or worse. America doesn't gun down tourists at airline counters or slaughter Olympic athletes or send suicide bombers into discos BUT, the terrorists will say, America DOES torture so all our terrorist murders of the past have become justified. Terrorists don't care about truth or logic. They just want to kill you.

The Bush administration developed and put into action this whole torture program as a "Plan B" in its run-up to the invasion of Iraq. They weren't just picking on terrorists for the sake of being meanyheads to terrorists, they wanted proof of a direct link between Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden. When they could not get that evidence (because it never existed) from all available intelligence resources, they went to this Plan B, a.k.a. torture, in the vain hope they would get what they needed to convince Congress, the American people, and the world that an invasion of Iraq was a military necessity. Even with torture in place, they still were not able to squeeze out that magic Osama-Saddam link.

The Bush administration was quite willing to burn the CIA and its individual agents. Not only did they do dirty to Valerie Plame, they burned every CIA operative and informant and any other individual that could be identified as having worked with Ms. Plame (just because she may have "retired" from active field duty, that does not magically erase her face or any memories of her associations from the minds of unfriendly-to-America agents).

I found this interesting excerpt from this article:

In 2004, CIA Inspector General John L. Helgerson issued a secret report charging major abuses of detainees, including several deaths of prisoners in Afghanistan and Iraq. The report was so stinging, one former official said, that Tenet actually suspended "enhanced interrogations" for a time. And the CIA reportedly commissioned several secret audits of the program, including one by a former Clinton administration official, John J. Hamre -- but shared the results with almost no one outside the agency, perhaps to avoid giving ammunition to potential critics.

There appear to have been two centers of adamant resistance to second thoughts. One, which has been chronicled in several books, was the insistence by Cheney and his chief counsel, David S. Addington, that presidential decisions were beyond challenge, even by his own aides. The other, less examined until now, was the CIA's insistence that violent interrogations were both necessary and useful -- right up until Jan. 22, when Obama outlawed the practice.

The central question today isn't whether some CIA contractors overstepped the blurry lines of their rule book, or whether a few pliable lawyers in the Justice Department produced legal opinions to satisfy their bosses. We know they did. Now we need to ask why the government was unable to correct an erroneous course for seven years, except when the Supreme Court forced it to -- and then only minimally. We don't need criminal prosecutions; we need public accountability at the top. Starting, for example, with public testimony from Dick Cheney.

[Toler]

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=23220

“Train like you Fight, Fight like you Train” is the motto of the world’s most elite pilots, the US Navy’s. Based on lessons learned from survivors of the brutal North Korean and North Vietnam torture of US military prisoners of war, the Department of Defense ordered all branches of the services to implement comprehensive Survival, Evasion, Resistance and Escape (S.E.R.E.) training programs. Every member of Congress should be extremely well versed on the military S.E.R.E. programs since they have had direct oversight and funding of these programs for over 40 years. Viewing the most recent Congressional hearing, one must assume that they are ignorant of or intentionally misrepresent the very programs that they fund and support.

My personal experience with S.E.R.E. training came as a junior pilot flying the F-14A “Tomcat” at NAS Miramar, California. The US Navy S.E.R.E. program requires all Aircrew Members and members of Special Operation Teams (SOF) to undergo both classroom and field experience in these vital techniques. Classroom and field training was accomplished by a cadre of highly trained and disciplined personnel, many of whom had been held as POW’s and tortured by the North Vietnamese.

What actually happens in S.E.R.E. in the field? Classes of 40 or more “students” are put through beach and water (swimming) survival techniques, similar to the TV show “Survivor” but without the rewards challenges. The class is then moved to a remote location to survive and evade prior to entering the US Navy run POW camp. The operation of the evasion complex is based on the trainee being briefed on the enemy position and the location of friendly forces. The object, “to make like a bush”, be patient and deliberate and use all your new taught skills to evade a large contingent of simulated enemy combatants in uniform. They speak like the enemy, act like the enemy, and most importantly train you on how to react to the enemy. While they fire AK-47’s over your head, and search for the ugly “American War Criminals” (thanks Jane), you spend agonizing hours crawling and hiding in an attempt to reach safety. As in real life, few if any make it to safety when behind enemy lines.

When captured you are brought to an initial holding facility. Hands and feet bound and hooded you are thrown into a barbed wire holding cell. As a former football player and wrestler I felt confident that I had that “John Wayne” attitude, Name, Rank and Serial Number….nothing more. Life and the Navy were about to teach this million dollar trained, blond headed, college, Fly Boy a new and most important lesson.

When brought into the first “interrogation”, hooded and hands bound, I was asked the basic questions, no problems...then I was asked a question -- the first among many not permitted under the Geneva Convention. Congress, the media and some of the public have forgotten a very basic and important tenant of the Geneva Convention. Terrorists, insurgents, IED Specialists, Suicide Bombers and all those not wearing a uniform in war are not in any form protected by the Geneva Convention. I did not answer the interrogators’ questions: then the fun and games began.

Carefully using a technique of grabbing your shirt at the pockets and wrapping his fists so that his knuckles pressed into the muscles of my breast plate, the instructor flung me across the room karate style and into a corrugated wall. No more questions; around and around the room I flew, a dance which while blind folded and hooded made me feel like “Raggedy Andy” in a tug of war with two bullying kids. Following the first interrogation we were loaded into trucks, bound and hooded, head to who knows were...for the first time real fear starts to set in and you look for inner strength in your heart, training and comrades.

Arriving at the POW Camp I was kept hooded and placed in a small box, 2 feet wide, 3 feet long and maybe 3 feet high. I was left the fetal position, sitting on my butt, stripped nearly naked (just week old BVD’s) and left sealed with your defecation can inside your box. Heat, cold, isolation, no communications, and constant noise, music, propaganda, coupled with verbal abuse by your captors is the norm, 24/7. Every twenty minutes or so the guards come by your box and rattle it, sneaking up and demanding to hear your War Criminal Number (thanks again, Jane, for the classification). No more name, rank or serial number, they want some real answers to real security questions. You agonize in your isolation as your hear other members of your group being pulled out for more “personal one on one interrogation”. Then it’s your turn. Pulled from your box you are again brought in for questioning. If unhappy with your answers or no answers, the “Raggedy Andy” dance began again with vigor in the cold night air.

Then it was time for the dreaded waterboard. What I didn’t know then, but I do now, is that as in all interrogations, both for real world hostile terrorists (non-uniformed combatants) and in S.E.R.E. a highly trained group of doctors, psychologists, interrogators, and strap-in and strap-out rescue teams are always present. My first experience on the “waterboard” was to be laying on my back, on a board with my body at a 30 degree slope, feet in the air, head down, face-up. The straps are all-confining, with the only movement of your body that of the ability to move your head. Slowly water is poured in your face, up your nose, and some in your mouth. The questions from interrogators and amounts of water increase with each unsuccessful response. Soon they have your complete attention as you begin to believe you are going to drown.

Scared, alone, cold and in total lack of control, you learn to “cooperate” to the best of your ability to protect your life. For each person that level of cooperation or resistance is different. You must be tested and trained to know how to respond in the real combat world. Escape was the key to freedom and reward.

Those students escaping would be rewarded with a meal (apple, and PB&J sandwich) was what we had been told by our instructors. On my next journey to interrogation I saw an opportunity to escape. I fled into the woods, naked and cold, and hid. My captors came searching with AK-47’s blazing, and calls to “kill the American War Criminal” in broken English. After an hour of successfully evading, the voices called out in perfect English. “O.K., problem’s over…you escaped, come in for your sandwich.” When I stood up and revealed my position I was met by a crowd of angry enemy guards, “stupid American Criminal”! Back to the Waterboard I went.

This time we went right to the water hose in the face, and a wet towel held tightly on my forehead so that I could not move my head. I had embarrassed my captors and they would now show me that they had total control. The most agonizing and frightful moments are when the wet towel is placed over your nose and mouth and the water hose is placed directly over your mouth. Holding your breath, bucking at the straps, straining to remain conscious, you believe with all your heart that, that, you are going to die.

S.E.R.E. training is not pleasant, but it is critical to properly prepare our most endangered combat forces for the reality of enemy capture. Was I “tortured” by the US military? No. Was I trained in an effort to protect my life and the lives of other American fighting men? Yes! Freedom is not Free, nor does it come without sacrifice. Every good American understands this basic principle of our country and prays for the young men and women who have sacrificed and are out on the front lines protecting us today.

Now, let’s see Congress: Maybe forty or so students per week, let’s say 100 minimum per month, 1,200 per year for over twenty or thirty years? It could be as many as 40,000 students trained in S.E.R.E. and “tortured” at the direction of, and under the watchful eye of the Congressional Majorities on both sides of the aisle. Be careful that the 40,000 of us who you have “tortured” don’t come after you today with tort claims. I heard it pays about $3 million per claim.

Congress, you need to get the politics out of the war zone and focus on your job. Gaining information in non-lethal interrogations against non-uniformed terrorists is what is protecting our country today. If you had done your job the past twenty years perhaps one of my favorite wingmen in the F-14A would be alive today.

Lt Tom “Stout” McGuinness of the VF-21 “Freelancers” went through S.E.R.E. training during my tenure. But when it came down to the crisis moment, his “interrogators” did not give him the waterboard. They merely went into the cockpit of American Airlines Flight 11, slashed Tom’s throat, and flew the first aircraft into the North Tower of World Trade Center on 9/11.

Congress, let me ask you a very simple question about your leadership and your sworn responsibility. It is a yes or no question, and you have a personal choice to make.

Would you endorse the use of a waterboard interrogation technique against a terrorist like Mohamed Atta al Sayed, the leader of the highjacking of American Airlines Flight 11 or not. The answer for me is simple: “turn on the hose.” If you answer anything else, then God help America because Tom died in vain.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The original Frank "Spig" Wead graduated from the US Naval Academy in 1917 and was a founder of Naval aviation. "Cdr. "Spig" Wead is the pseudonym of a retired naval aviator who served in the post-Vietnam era.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 

[oldiebutgoodie]

McCain Unequivocally Says That Waterboarding is Torture
4/20/2009 02:24:00 PM

Sen. John McCain on Fox News this morning said, in no uncertain terms, that waterboarding is undoubtedly torture. Reacting to the fact that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was waterboarded 183 times, McCain had this to say:

"One is too much. Waterboarding is torture, period. I can assure you that once enough physical pain is inflicted on someone, they will tell that interrogator whatever they think they want to hear. And most importantly, it serves as a great propaganda tool for those who recruit people to fight against us."

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/v/imIMJjhHqQQ&amp;color1=0xb1b1b1&amp;color2=0xcfcfcf&amp;hl=en&amp;feature=player_embedded&amp;fs=1" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/v/imIMJjhHqQQ&amp;color1=0xb1b1b1&amp;color2=0xcfcfcf&amp;hl=en&amp;feature=player_embedded&amp;fs=1</a>

[oldiebutgoodie]

McCain: We Violated the Geneva Conventions and Convention Against Torture
4/26/2009 10:58:00 AM

On Face the Nation this morning, Sen. John McCain just said that the U.S., under Bush, violated the Geneva Conventions and the U.N. Convention Against Torture. He underscored his comments by saying that torture is wrong, counterproductive and doesn't work.

MCCAIN: [Torture memo author Jay Bybee] falls into the same category as everybody else, as far as giving very bad advice and misinterpreting fundamentally what the United States is all about, much less things like the Geneva Conventions. Under President Reagan, we signed [the Convention] Against Torture. We were in violation of that."

[oldiebutgoodie]

America did execute Japanese war criminals for waterboarding

...On November 29, 2007, Sen. John McCain, while campaigning in St. Petersburg, Florida, said, "Following World War II war crime trials were convened. The Japanese were tried and convicted and hung for war crimes committed against American POWs. Among those charges for which they were convicted was waterboarding."

Politifact, the St. Petersburg Times' truth-testing project (which this week was awarded a Pulitzer Prize), scrutinized Sen. McCain's statement and found it to be true. Here's the money quote from Politifact:

"McCain is referencing the Tokyo Trials, officially known as the International Military Tribunal for the Far East. After World War II, an international coalition convened to prosecute Japanese soldiers charged with torture. At the top of the list of techniques was water-based interrogation, known variously then as 'water cure,' 'water torture' and 'waterboarding,' according to the charging documents. It simulates drowning." Politifact went on to report, "A number of the Japanese soldiers convicted by American judges were hanged, while others received lengthy prison sentences or time in labor camps."

The folks at Politifact interviewed R. John Pritchard, the author of The Tokyo War Crimes Trial: The Complete Transcripts of the Proceedings of the International Military Tribunal for the Far East. They also interviewed Yuma Totani, history professor at the University of Nevada-Las Vegas, and consulted the Columbia Journal of Transnational Law, which published a law review article entitled, "Drop by Drop: Forgetting the History of Water Torture in U.S. Courts." Bottom line: Sen. McCain was right in 2007 and National Review Online is wrong today. America did execute Japanese war criminals for waterboarding.

[Toler]

After my recent link to a video of waterboarding, I got an email from a Harvard Law classmate with some thoughts:
Stuart -- Just read your comment on waterboarding. I can't help but mention the fact that waterboarding's presence as an integral part of US military training has been completely ignored (as far as I can tell) in the discussion of this practice. I have many, many friends that were waterboarded as part of the POW resistance training program the USMC used in the mid-nineties. (I was not subjected to it becase as a line infantry officer, I was not thought a likely candidate for being taken prisoner; when things go badly, line infantry officers generally die instead of getting taken prisoner. However, anyone who was expected to operate behind enemy lines, like pilots and reconnaissance types, had to go through the training.)

In fact, our classmate ________ (who you probably know [Yes.]) waterboarded himself when he was working on the Church report on interrogation techniques; he concluded that he would talk immediately, as has everyone I have known who has undergone this treatment. This highlights one of the amazing things about waterboarding: it is basically impossible to resist, yet does no lasting damage (as opposed to, say, pulling out someone's fingernails), assuming it's administered correctly.
I emailed my classmate back with some concerns, and here are his responses:
I would respond by saying that we don't shoot troops in the kneecaps in training, we don't use thumbscrews in training and we don't pull out people's fingernails in training. Why is that? Because those treatments all do lasting damage to the recipient. On the other hand, US military POW resistance training routinely uses sleep deprivation, temperature change, and waterboarding. The reason these get used is because even though they can be highly, highly unpleasant, they don't do any lasting damage to the recipient. They all also seem to have very positive results in getting people to talk. Waterboarding is unique because it works so quickly, so in the "ticking time bomb" scenario, it's especially valuable. But I don't see a meaningful distinction between waterboarding and sleep dep/ temperature change (anyone who has been seriously sleep deprived, e.g. Darkness at Noon, or experienced real cold, knows how unpleasant that treatment can be). I look at it as our military does this in a controlled, highly thought-out manner to our own troops, and doesn't consider it treatment that your average 23-year-old Marine can't handle; why would we see it as treatment that your average insurgent can't handle?

* * *

Also, I should note that I am not 100% sold on the coercive techniques outlined above, but it is striking to me that among all the media horror about waterboarding, it seems to have been totally ignored that we do this to our own troops all the time.

You also asked about an innocent guy who would say anything to make it stop. That's a problem, no question. I think in order to use any of these techniques you would have to meet some threshold for believing that the person had crucial information. That's why it's essential that this all be done in an out-in-the-open, highly thoughtful way, and not in the sub-rosa way that the McCain approach ("we'll make these techniques illegal, but we won't charge people who use them in really important times") would encourage. When people can put their heads together and determine whether someone is of a level that warrants this treatment, it will decrease (but not eliminate) the chances of innocents being waterboarded.

http://stuartbuck.blogspot.com/2006/10/more-on-waterboarding.html

I guess if it's good enough for our guys...................

[Toler]

President Obama has banned the use of the interrogation techniques described in the memos. The White House did not respond to inquiries Monday and Tuesday on whether the president would ban the use of waterboarding during military training as well.
 
A Justice Department memo of May 30, 2005, released by the Obama administration, revealed that the CIA, in waterboarding al Qaeda leader Khalid Sheik Mohammed, was able to gather information that allowed the U.S. government to stop a 9/11-type attack on Los Angeles.

http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=46974

Where's the outrage that our own military is/have been 'tortured'? Thousands and thousands of them! They all lived to tell the tale.

[Toler]

Even John McCain, the most admirable and estimable torture opponent, says openly that in such circumstances, "You do what you have to do." And then take the responsibility

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/30/AR2009043003108_pf.html

[SteveDinMD]

I personally wouldn't burden those serving in the military or in law enforcement with the task of extracting information from illegal combatants.  It's not within the scope of their duties.  Such matters are the exclusive province of the CIA, and it was precisely for such missions that the Agency was created in the first place. 

Please don't think that I am disrespectful of your views because I am not. I simply will never agree that torture is acceptable.

The American government post-WWII also was adamant that torture was not acceptable and executed Japanese military personnel for having committed the torture of waterboarding against our American soldiers. The American government called it torture then. They made it a "death penalty offense" then.

And now we are doing the exact same thing that was once considered so heinous by our government that it was a death-penalty offense? Not acceptable. America does not torture.

And yes, terrorists will warp truth and history and all their filthy deeds of the past become pure and justified as "freedom fighting" or standing up for Islam if, at any point, America indulges in the same acts or worse. America doesn't gun down tourists at airline counters or slaughter Olympic athletes or send suicide bombers into discos BUT, the terrorists will say, America DOES torture so all our terrorist murders of the past have become justified. Terrorists don't care about truth or logic. They just want to kill you.

The Bush administration developed and put into action this whole torture program as a "Plan B" in its run-up to the invasion of Iraq. They weren't just picking on terrorists for the sake of being meanyheads to terrorists, they wanted proof of a direct link between Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden. When they could not get that evidence (because it never existed) from all available intelligence resources, they went to this Plan B, a.k.a. torture, in the vain hope they would get what they needed to convince Congress, the American people, and the world that an invasion of Iraq was a military necessity. Even with torture in place, they still were not able to squeeze out that magic Osama-Saddam link.

The Bush administration was quite willing to burn the CIA and its individual agents. Not only did they do dirty to Valerie Plame, they burned every CIA operative and informant and any other individual that could be identified as having worked with Ms. Plame (just because she may have "retired" from active field duty, that does not magically erase her face or any memories of her associations from the minds of unfriendly-to-America agents).

I found this interesting excerpt from this article:

In 2004, CIA Inspector General John L. Helgerson issued a secret report charging major abuses of detainees, including several deaths of prisoners in Afghanistan and Iraq. The report was so stinging, one former official said, that Tenet actually suspended "enhanced interrogations" for a time. And the CIA reportedly commissioned several secret audits of the program, including one by a former Clinton administration official, John J. Hamre -- but shared the results with almost no one outside the agency, perhaps to avoid giving ammunition to potential critics.

There appear to have been two centers of adamant resistance to second thoughts. One, which has been chronicled in several books, was the insistence by Cheney and his chief counsel, David S. Addington, that presidential decisions were beyond challenge, even by his own aides. The other, less examined until now, was the CIA's insistence that violent interrogations were both necessary and useful -- right up until Jan. 22, when Obama outlawed the practice.

The central question today isn't whether some CIA contractors overstepped the blurry lines of their rule book, or whether a few pliable lawyers in the Justice Department produced legal opinions to satisfy their bosses. We know they did. Now we need to ask why the government was unable to correct an erroneous course for seven years, except when the Supreme Court forced it to -- and then only minimally. We don't need criminal prosecutions; we need public accountability at the top. Starting, for example, with public testimony from Dick Cheney.

As far as inaccuracies are concerned, you're perfection itself!  Where does one begin?  Lets start with Japanese war criminals.  The U.S. and Japan were both signatories to the Geneva Conventions and the uniformed service members of each were entitled to the full protections thereof.  The Japanese, however, treated U.S. POWs with complete barbarity, withholding medicine & medical treatment, and subjecting them to starvation and murder.  Have you never heard of the Bataan Death March???  That was why some Japanese officers were put to death at war's end, not because of some stupid waterboarding incident.  By contrast, the Al Qaeda terrorists, are not signatories to the Geneva Conventions, nor do they represent any state, nor do they make any effort at all to abide by the Geneva Conventions.  In fact, the terrorists strenuously endeavor in all their actions to violate every standard of armed conflict they embody.  No one in his right mind would afford them the protection of conventions they so notoriously flout.  Finally, U.S. law is completely silent regarding their treatment and status.  The Al Qaeda terrorists are therefore entitled to nothing, not even humane treatment.  Some died in captivity, you say?  Cry me a river.  My only possible regret would be if they somehow managed to take valuable secrets with them on their journey straight to Hell.  Other than that, why should anyone care? 

Valerie Plame burned?  Surely you jest.  Valerie Plame was absolutely not a covert operative.  She was a headquarters desk jockey who hadn't served in the field for years.  She was, however, married to a political operative for the John Kerry Campaign -- Joseph C. Wilson -- and she used her position to insinuate him into the foreign policy debate.  Wilson then publicly and deliberately lied about U.S. intelligence in order to undermine public confidence in the Bush Administration and thereby enhance John Kerry's electoral prospects.  Wilson and Plame did grave injury to this country and are deserving of every good citizen's contempt. 

Finally, I would hasten to point out that U.S. servicemen in defense of freedom have routinely been subjected to the most barbaric treatment by practically every enemy this country has faced since the Revolutionary War.  Why don't you devote your energies to investigating those abuses and to holding the perpetrators accountable?  Why not work to help someone who actually deserves your sympathy?  I suspect it's because you're really not at all interested in eliminating torture or promoting humane treatment, per se.  Rather, I suspect you have a political agenda and that you will readily promote the interests of this country's enemies if you consider it advantageous to your cause.  In 1943, if anyone in this country had dared to publicly denounce the government's "unfair" or "brutal" treatment of NAZI spies, he would have been immediately shouted down and kicked to the curb by his fellow citizens.  Since then, our society has lost its way.  We no longer demand fidelity to the Constitution and homefront solidarity in the face of our enemies.  No, we tolerate and even reward those who make common cause with the enemy.  It's a disgrace, and it might very well be our undoing.