waterboarding
 

waterboarding
 

On Mon, 31 Dec 2007 06:39:03 -0800 (PST), rb608
wrote:

On Dec 31, 1:52*am, wrote:
snip



Three direct questions for you:

Well, you might consider them "direct," but only 1 of them is actually
so. IAC, here are the answers I choose to give:

Do you consider waterboarding (as typically described here and in the
MSM) as torture?

With that specific phrasing, I have no answer. However, if asked if I
thought waterboarding could, under any description and/or circumstances,
be considered "torture," (and unequivocally un-(US)Constitutional and/or
illegal) my answer would be yes. However, if asked if I thought that
under specific circumstances, its name was not material, that it was not
illegal, and that the US Constitution had nothing whatsoever to do with
it even if US citizens were using it, my answer would also be yes.

Do you believe it is effective in eliciting truthful and useful
information?

Yes. That isn't debatable and who believes what about its use or
whether it's "torture" isn't material - it has elicited truthful and
useful information, so it is "effective" in doing so. But that isn't
the same thing as saying that I think all information it might elicit
can be, by mere virtue of the technique, considered automatically as
truthful and useful.

Do you believe it is a practice the United States of America should be
utilizing?

Again, the phrasing is overly broad. If you mean to ask if I think it
should allowed in specific, limited cases by trained personnel of US
citizenship or citizens of allied countries after authorization by at
least two responsible persons of sufficient "rank" (not military rank),
also of US citizenship, the answer is yes (with the caveat that the
authorization for US citizens to use it come from US citizens - IOW, no
non-US personnel giving US citizens orders to waterboard).

If you mean to ask if I think it ought to be allowed by anyone with a
board and some water on anyone who, in that person's sole discretion,
"deserves" or "needs" it, the answer is an absolute no.

Or, if you mean to ask if I think Andy and Barney should be allowed to
use it on Otis to find out where the still is, the answer is no way, no
how, and if they do it, they go straight to jail. IOW, no, I don't
think it is some half-assed police interrogation technique or that it be
used as such _under any circumstances whatsoever_.

And I'm undecided but leaning against allowing _military_ personnel to
utilize or authorize any such techniques, but can see that under
extraordinary, limited and extreme circumstances, the affiliation of the
administerer or authorizer of the technique could be a tertiary
consideration in its authorization and use.

Happy Holidays,
R

waterboarding
 

On Dec 31, 3:55 pm, Scott Seidman wrote:
wrote in news:t68fn3lev2rqn8gtb2e18kpi0b77gp1icr@
4ax.com:

Take, for example, the
recent coverage of the ex-CIA agent's information - he states plainly
that it is effective, but he considers it "torture" and is opposed to it
being done. But many or most of those (but importantly, not all)
opposed to "torture" claim that "torture" isn't effective or reliable as
a method of gaining information.

Fine-- if an agent believes that a "24"-like scenario is occurring, where
thousands could be saved if nastiness is performed, let him proceed knowing
that he could go to jail for a long time. Let him know he needs to look
his citizens in the eye and say "I tortured someone to save you," and
wonder if they'll understand. Let him wonder if he'll be pardoned or not.
Let him wonder if he'll be tried in an international court.

Perhaps with all this in mind, that agent (or possibly "contractor", which
is even more disgusting) would be in the proper frame of mind to make the
decision about whether to torture a fellow human being.

It shouldn't be made legal, and it certainly shouldn't rise to a position
of policy.

--
Scott
Reverse name to reply

There are a lot of such cases, and they happen quite frequently. It
would appear that results in some cases, ( as in the scenarios you
mentioned were a criminal has planted a bomb, kidnapped a child, etc,
and may be coerced/tortured into revealing information leading to
rescue and the prevention of death and suffering to others) justify
the results, However, in the majority of cases, ( except in movies)
there are no results. So the actions taken are pointless and cruel.

Here is a well documented case for instance;

https://www.wsws.org/articles/2004/d...tort-d13.shtml

That a civilised country should condone and use such methods to the
extent they are being used by America at this time, is not
reconcilable with any ethical or moral standards, is illegal, and
contravenes a number of international statutes and treaties.

This alone has caused America a great loss of respect, even from its
allies. It also serves to make terrorists and their supporters even
more fanatical, as they are convinced that they are fighting a holy
war against suppression and oppression.

These things have all occurred because America has taken illegal, ill-
considered, and quite foolish steps to fight a "war" which it can not
win, from the very start.

The perpetrators are the people who orchestrated all this. Not the
players on the field.

This level of action is only possible if it has been ordered, and is
condoned by those responsible. Although some soldiers, agents ets etc
might act independently in such matters, the majority are acting under
illegal orders.

For many years, various secret services have used such methods, and as
long as the general public does not hear about too many cases, or
things don´t get so far out of hand that torturing prisoners becomes
the norm, most people don´t care much, because it does not affect them
directly.

Here, the foundations of your constitution are being undermined, ( and
various human rights treaties) and this is affecting very large
numbers of people.

MC

waterboarding
 

On Dec 31, 10:37*am, wrote:
On Mon, 31 Dec 2007 06:39:03 -0800 (PST), rb608
Do you consider waterboarding (as typically described here and in the
MSM) as torture?

With that specific phrasing, I have no answer. *

Thank you for your time, Mr. Mukasey.


Do you believe it is effective in eliciting truthful and useful
information?

Yes. *That isn't debatable and who believes what about its use or
whether it's "torture" isn't material - it has elicited truthful and
useful information, so it is "effective" in doing so. *But that isn't
the same thing as saying that I think all information it might elicit
can be, by mere virtue of the technique, considered automatically as
truthful and useful.

I'll assume for the moment the gist of the question was unclear. I
did not intend the question to be if a tortured prisoner ever provides
truthful answers, for obviously one does. The operative word in the
question was "effective". That is, do you personally believe the
amount and usefulness of information obtained justifies the use of the
technique?


Do you believe it is a practice the United States of America should be
utilizing?

Again, the phrasing is overly broad. *

It was intended as broad. Do you believe waterboarding is a technique
that should ever, under any circumstances, be sanctioned for
interrogation of human beings in US custody?

waterboarding
 

On Dec 31, 9:37*am, wrote:
On Mon, 31 Dec 2007 06:39:03 -0800 (PST), rb608

wrote:
On Dec 31, 1:52*am, wrote:
snip

Three direct questions for you:

Well, you might consider them "direct," but only 1 of them is actually
so. *IAC, here are the answers I choose to give:



Do you consider waterboarding (as typically described here and in the
MSM) as torture?

With that specific phrasing, I have no answer. *However, if asked if I
thought waterboarding could, under any description and/or circumstances,
be considered "torture," (and unequivocally un-(US)Constitutional and/or
illegal) my answer would be yes. *However, if asked if I thought that
under specific circumstances, its name was not material, that it was not
illegal, and that the US Constitution had nothing whatsoever to do with
it even if US citizens were using it, my answer would also be yes.

Do you believe it is effective in eliciting truthful and useful
information?

Yes. *That isn't debatable and who believes what about its use or
whether it's "torture" isn't material - it has elicited truthful and
useful information, so it is "effective" in doing so. *But that isn't
the same thing as saying that I think all information it might elicit
can be, by mere virtue of the technique, considered automatically as
truthful and useful.

Do you believe it is a practice the United States of America should be
utilizing?

Again, the phrasing is overly broad. *If you mean to ask if I think it
should allowed in specific, limited cases by trained personnel of US
citizenship or citizens of allied countries after authorization by at
least two responsible persons of sufficient "rank" (not military rank),
also of US citizenship, the answer is yes (with the caveat that the
authorization for US citizens to use it come from US citizens - IOW, no
non-US personnel giving US citizens orders to waterboard). *

If you mean to ask if I think it ought to be allowed by anyone with a
board and some water on anyone who, in that person's sole discretion,
"deserves" or "needs" it, the answer is an absolute no. *

Or, if you mean to ask if I think Andy and Barney should be allowed to
use it on Otis to find out where the still is, the answer is no way, no
how, and if they do it, they go straight to jail. *IOW, no, I don't
think it is some half-assed police interrogation technique or that it be
used as such _under any circumstances whatsoever_.

And I'm undecided but leaning against allowing _military_ personnel to
utilize or authorize any such techniques, but can see that under
extraordinary, limited and extreme circumstances, the affiliation of the
administerer or authorizer of the technique could be a tertiary
consideration in its authorization and use.

Happy Holidays,
R

If leaglly ordered to disclose the subject of Chenys 2001 energy task
force meeting would you agree with waterboarding Cheney and or any one
else who attended the meeting.

waterboarding
 

On 31-Dec-2007, Mike wrote:

These things have all occurred because America has taken illegal, ill-
considered, and quite foolish steps to fight a "war" which it can not
win, from the very start.

The perpetrators are the people who orchestrated all this. Not the
players on the field.

I could not agree more
I would hope that they are duly punished for their redresses i.e, war
progireering and crimes against humanity.
A pubklic hanging of Bush and Cheney in Yankee Staium would be nice someday

I have no problem w the American troops. They are just duped into thinking
that they are defending their country again terrorism - But alas it is all
for money?
The almighty $

Fred

Fred

waterboarding
 

On Mon, 31 Dec 2007 08:00:46 -0800 (PST), rb608
wrote:

On Dec 31, 10:37*am, wrote:

Again, the phrasing is overly broad. *

It was intended as broad.

OK, here's a broad answer: yes or no or maybe or maybe not...

If one wants specific answers, one needs to ask specific questions.

Do you believe waterboarding is a technique
that should ever, under any circumstances, be sanctioned for
interrogation of human beings in US custody?

Based upon my reading of the phrasing and with "sanctioned" to mean
"allowed, but in VERY limited circumstances and under very strict
guidelines/protocols/controls/etc.," yes.

R

waterboarding
 

On 31 Dec 2007 14:55:17 GMT, Scott Seidman
wrote:

wrote in news:t68fn3lev2rqn8gtb2e18kpi0b77gp1icr@
4ax.com:

Take, for example, the
recent coverage of the ex-CIA agent's information - he states plainly
that it is effective, but he considers it "torture" and is opposed to it
being done. But many or most of those (but importantly, not all)
opposed to "torture" claim that "torture" isn't effective or reliable as
a method of gaining information.


Fine-- if an agent believes that a "24"-like scenario is occurring, where
thousands could be saved if nastiness is performed, let him proceed knowing
that he could go to jail for a long time.

He or she would be doing just that if they are proceeding under their
own authority.

Let him know he needs to look
his citizens in the eye and say "I tortured someone to save you,"

Er...no...

and wonder if they'll understand.

What they might or might not "understand" is not an issue.

Let him wonder if he'll be pardoned or not.

No.

Let him wonder if he'll be tried in an international court.

Absolutely, positively no way, no how.

Perhaps with all this in mind, that agent (or possibly "contractor", which
is even more disgusting) would be in the proper frame of mind to make the
decision about whether to torture a fellow human being.

No, if anyone faced with using extreme methods of interrogation isn't
personally and internally conflicted about doing it, regardless of
external repercussions or lack thereof, they aren't suited to be using
such methods because they are not capable of fully understanding the
gravity of what they are doing. If I were put in the position of being
a "sign-off" to give authorization to waterboard someone, I would not
allow anyone who I wasn't personally convinced was uneasy with even the
request and who would proceed with internal conflict and extreme
trepidation to so much as be in the room while the technique was used.
This isn't something for amateurs to be ****ing around with, a subject
for cavalier attitudes or certainty of position (for or against), and it
damned sure is not something for sadists to use to get their jollies.

Happy Holidays,
R

waterboarding
 

On Dec 31, 1:39*pm, wrote:
yes.

Fine. I'll infer that this also lends an affirmative to the second
question for the proper guidelines/protocols/controls; but what about
waterboarding = torture?

waterboarding
 

wrote in news:6tdin3lcg0mtp82eu20lg5djhs6qikk85u@
4ax.com:

This isn't something for amateurs to be ****ing around with, a subject
for cavalier attitudes or certainty of position (for or against), and
it
damned sure is not something for sadists to use to get their jollies.


No, just mercenary contractors. Keep in mind that we've been talking
about what US forces and employess are allowed to do. Nobody's been
asking what the contractors are allowed to do, and they seem exempt from
most laws.

FWIW, I knew a guy about 15 years ago in Cleveland, and I have zero ways
to confirm his story, but he claimed he was an interrogator in Vietnam.
He was trained specifically in this business, and there was something
much like an apprenticeship program in place. This guy was kept on some
pretty heavy duty medications, and was at the time semi functional in an
allied health position in the VA.

Once, he described some of the things (hey says) he's done. He said he
was flown from place to place to question prisoners, and that before he
ever got to a site, the prisoners were often placed out in public, seated
and bound, with a bucket over their heads and a wrench hanging around
their necks. Everyone who passed by would hit the bucket with the
wrench-- and this could have gone on for days. The stuff he said would
go on after he got there was absolutely bone chilling.

I have no way of knowing if he was telling the truth or not, but after a
bit of googling around, I just found an account that was eerily like what
he said 15 years ago. http://homepage.ntlworld.com/jksonc/docs/vietnam-
nviuswcv-19701201.html, and look for "They used one as a scare
mechanism...". It's so close, it could have been him testifying. He was
certainly screwed up enough for this to be true



--
Scott
Reverse name to reply