Sen. Pat Roberts, R-Kan., former chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, was one of a handful of congressional leaders briefed by the CIA in 2002 about the harsh interrogation techniques, including waterboarding, being used on detainees.
Current House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., was another. No one objected at the time, according to the Washington Post’s sources — and two of the lawmakers urged CIA officials to go further to extract information from prisoners.
Roberts’ office has declined comment.
But the revelations suggest a bipartisan failure in Congress to practice oversight to stop or even question practices widely seen as illegal torture.
Posted by Randy Scholfield
66 Comments
What we need to remember. Any technique or resource we use against a POW can be used against our Troops when they become a POW. Look at http://www.wen2k.com/tell.php?Id=1771 It is a video feed showing what waterboarding is and does. It is very grafic. Stop “Water Boarding”. Pelosi should be removed because she “LIES” and doesnt represent the best interest for use, her BOSS!!! Herbert West III, Publisher/Journalist, west.herb@yahoo.com P.S. Check out other wen2k.com articles/posts. LOook under the top 25 there.
Torture techniques were perfected in Facility 1391 in Israel which, has been airbrushed off all maps, even the road leading up to it.
So yes, all members of congress have know about torture being used commonplace in Israel and not surprisingly showing-up { or being exposed } in Iraq, then leading to disclosures about our involvement.
When you lay down with dogs, you wake-up with fleas.
The waterboarding account described in todays Washington Post will add fuel to the fire. As described, the detainee broke after 35 seconds of waterboarding. Those 35 seconds saved lives.Really, who really hangs in there for 3 minutes, or 20 minutes, except for the honest guy who was telling the truth before they put the kabash on him.
Whatever we do to our enemies (who are out to kill us) in order to extract information is fine with me. Pretending that our enemies will show mercy to our troops/citizens is just wishful thinking. Wake up!
“Roberts’ office has declined comment.”————–Well what a shock! He declined to finish the intelligence report he was responsible for completing too. Walked away from that job and hoped the stink wouldn’t follow him.
And Pelosi? Haven;t heard from her. Of course, I could have missed it.
Pelosi..what a joke. Worst. speaker. Ever.
Roberts should be removed or recalled.
“Roberts declined to comment on his participation in the briefings. Rockefeller also declined to talk about the briefings, but the West Virginia Democrat’s public statements show him leading the push in 2005 for expanded congressional oversight and an investigation of CIA interrogation practices. “I proposed without success, both in committee and on the Senate floor, that the committee undertake an investigation of the CIA’s detention and interrogation activities,” Rockefeller said in a statement Friday.”Roberts can run, but he can’t hide (from being bush waterboy, waterboy for water torture). A bigger question to me is, was Roberts advised the cia tapes would be destroyed, and did he agree?There was little Pelosi could do being under secrecy oath, but if she knew the details she should have objected, as Harman did.Sen. Roberts; this isn’t going away, may as well come clean.
I’ve never seen the name Pelosi on my ballot; Roberts’ name is there. Those who cast votes for or against Pelosi should definitely be pushing for answers from her. Americans deserve better than what we’ve got.
True enough, we have to clean up our own back yard.
If Roberts had cooperated, the Eagle could have gotten a ’scoop’.
I think, even if Roberts came clean, he’d still have the support of his base. We have no shortage of ‘the ends justifies the means’ types in Ks.
The reality is that most of this “horror” over “torture” is politically driven. Always was.
She’s for it shortly after 9/11, when there was widespread concern that more attacks were coming, but when opposition to “torture” can be a political tool, she’s against it.
Am I cynical? You bet. Only a fool isn’t.
There was a whole lot of admin. driven hysteria following 9/11.
Most of us have learned more about the specifics of waterboarding than we knew five years ago. For a while it was sugarcoated ass “simulated drowning” and describes as pouring water on a towel covering the victim’s face.
Last spring, however, a journalist subjected himself to the torture and revealed that, even though he knew the people who were waterboarding were his *friends* and colleagues… and there was no rational reason for him to be in fear for his life… the experience was, well, *torture.*
“admin. driven hysteria”
Let’s see, Phantom. Four planes had been hijacked, simultaneously. Two of them were rammed into the Twin Towers, a third struck the Pentagon, and a fourth was headed for another target, probably in Washington, and was prevented from striking its target only by the brave and sacrificial acts of its passengers – those ordinary Americans we are constantly told (on another thread, another subject) are incapable of defending themselves. Over 3000 of our citizens – men, women, and children, non-combatants all (more than Pearl Harbor) were killed in a single day.
There was genuine concern that these attacks were going to be only the first of several. Given the times, it was a legitimate concern. It was driven by reality, not the administration. And it appears that fear was at least in part justified. It further appears that, at least in one case, waterboarding worked, quickly, and provided useful intelligence to prevent further attacks.
http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=3978231&page=1
Now I’ve already written that I oppose any techinque that is designed to cause significant pain or fear of death. Our refusal to torture is part of what makes us different from them, and if that puts us at some tactical disadvantage, so be it. That is the price to being a free society, and a just and moral one.
But let’s not pretend that much of this criticism of “torture” isn’t simply politically driven. When it appeared necessary, Pelosi was for it. Now that it is a political weapon to be used against her opponents, Pelosi is against it.
Like most politicians, she’s not driven by principle, but by political advantage. There are many on this board the same way; if an asteroid dropped out of the sky, causing harm, they’d blame the Bush administration.
It’s reality. In many cases, where one stands depends on the benefit one stands to gain. Those who deny it is so lie only to themselves.
Welcome to the real world.
“Like most politicians, she’s not driven by principle, but by political advantage. There are many on this board the same way; if an asteroid dropped out of the sky, causing harm, they’d blame the Bush administration.
It’s reality. In many cases, where one stands depends on the benefit one stands to gain. Those who deny it is so lie only to themselves. ”
GM good post — one addition : they’d blame Bush….. (add) or the Clintons
I have an idea. Instead of using this staged ‘waterboarding’ we actually look at the atrocities that have happened to our military and our private citizens in Iraz. Danny Pearl – what did he do to deserve beheading. We weren’t beheading people that I knew about. What about the young man who went there as a humanitarian to help Iraqis and lost his head for the trouble. What about the torture our own soldiers have experienced.
Do I need to know everything the CIA does to get information to save the lives of our military? I don’t think so. War is hell and we are there by invitation. I know Iraq didn’t knock down the towers. I know we didn’t find WMDs. I also know that they had them. The thousands of their own people who were killed attest to that.
People use your heads. Your thought process isn’t rational. When will you ever look beyond the blame America first mentality.
Blame it on the administration. Go ahead. Keep your head in the sand. It must be pleasant there. Hope the awakening for you isn’t too rude.
ksgrm,
There does seem to be a derangement syndrome experienced by liberal posters on this blog. If you read the open thread for Dec. 10, you’ll see several people hinting (some almost directly stating) that the people shot in Colorado brought it on themselves. Why? Because they were Christians. I’m not sure that people with than kind of warp can achieve the rational thought you suggest.
“I know we didn’t find WMDs. I also know that they had them. The thousands of their own people who were killed attest to that.”——————–
Someone will need to go a long ways to convince me the sentences above have anything to do with “rational thinking.”
Convoluted. Or worse.
lindainks,
Have you ever heard of empirical evidence? When people are killed by chemical weapons, we know chemical weapons were on hand. It doesn’t matter if we ever find an unused WMD, we know they had them–and USED them–based on empirical evidence. Empiricism is a fundamental concept in science, logic and ……… rational thinking.
ksgrm,
What advantages have we (as a country) realized as a result of invading Iraq? In my opinion, the answer needs to be more than Sadam was breaking his agreements – because if this is all it takes, shouldn’t we be invading Columbia (see that thread) or a whole host of other countries? Specifically, how is your life better as a result of our invasion of Iraq?
No matter who approved of torture techniques, or who had knowledge of them and which agency video taped the techniques and then hides the tapes, this activity by the American government is illegal and should be stopped. The Bush administration is guilty of war crimes, http://www.democracynow.org/2005/7/6/the_gitmo_experiment_how_methods_developed , read further and you to will be ashamed that we let this happen.
Liberal may be my label, however criminal is not the time is now to change this horrible direction. People get out and VOTE!
Waterboarding is NOT illegal under certain circumstances:
Those whom we have used waterboarding against were NOT granted POW status. They were “illegal combatants” not covered, as POW’s, by the Geneva Conventions and therefore, not granted POW status by the Administration.
Also, the waterboarding was NOT done by members of the military. Military rules, therefore, do not apply.
We are dealing here with international criminals, not directly connected to a foreign country.
Therefore, our “treaty obligations” do not apply.
We can treat these people in an manor we chose, as a sovereign nation.
We have chosen a rather humane way to treat them, in comparison to the way most other countries would treat such dangerous enemies.
Iran – people forget that Saddam Hussein had a 14,000 dollar bounty for any Iraqi military or militant to shoot down, capture and kill Coalition forces in the No-Fly zone. They tried to do so several times, but were unsuccessful.
Torture Techniques – I had to go through some simulations of torture for training purposes. The simulations were conducted by Military Intelligence (that’s who they claimed to be.) What was funny is that some people cracked during training exercises. heh
The one technique that everyone hated is where one’s hands were tied behind their back with their feet bound. They were then lashed in a lean position over some boxes with their forehead pressed up to the bark of the tree. I can tell you that tree bark hurt a lot after few minutes. That would pull us up quickly though so we wouldn’t get “bark” heads.
The other one I remember (didn’t happen to me, only volunteers) was being tied down to the ground and small sandbags were placed on the chest and those were lashed with ropes. They would periodically cinch the ropes so that a constricting action would happen. It didn’t take long before the “lashed” yelled uncle. :)
There were some psychological ones too of which I didn’t participate as it was done on pilots only.
I remember the briefing personnel telling us there were techniques they couldn’t show us or tell us about, but said they were very effective. They told us about various Soviet, North Korean, Vietnamese techniques and those definitely were torture!.
The focus was to train us to be prepared, how to prepare and be active in our minds for escape. The Interrogators wore Soviet style camouflage and cravats (bandannas) over their faces to give the appearance of realism.
Walking blindfolded, tied together as a group wasn’t fun either, but we all knew it was part of training.
People that went through it for real I have great empathy for and respected their opinion. I knew one Lt. Col who had been a P.O.W. in Vietnam for seven years. He was a very smart guy, but very robot-like in speech and manner. Not sure if the long captivity and torture made him that way or not.
I respect Senator McCain’s position on the matter and we should not do things classified as torture.
I know from classified OPs briefings we used to get, they would always tell us that certain agencies didn’t always follow rules that military were taught and International Conventions. I never really put much thought into the legality as we were never told and it was never talked about or inferred.
Okay, I’m done, War Stories and all. :)
“We can treat these people in an manor we chose, as a sovereign nation.
We have chosen a rather humane way to treat them, in comparison to the way most other countries would treat such dangerous enemies.”
This is the defining difference between the extream right and the rest of the nation.
We don’t agree with the above rationalization!!!!
“In 1980, Saddam launched a needless and bloody war against majority-Shiite Iran and terrorized Iraq’s own Shiites to ensure their quiescence. As that war wound down, Saddam was freed to turn his attention to the Kurds whose loyalty was, indeed, questionable. In the 1988 “Anfal” campaigns, his henchmen killed 100,000 or more Kurds (including through poison gas) and forcibly resettled thousands more in desolate regions elsewhere in Iraq–events that Human Rights Watch declared “genocide.”
Linda I could have given you more links but haven’t the time this morning. What is convoluted about realizing what this man was capable of. Even if we didn’t find the stash, we know he had them and would use them. That is why this was approved by top libs and cons.
Steven how is my life better. The fact that terrorists were being trained in Iraq, the fact that there have been no new attacks since 9/11…
I don’t live in a make believe world where I think that if we just treat our enemies the ‘right’ way they will play nice. This just isn’t right. Look at the escalation of attacks in the 8 years prior to Bush taking office. A bully will just keep pushing the envelope until you push back. Sad but true.
Gerald you will have a hard time convincing the majority of Americans that these techniques are ‘illegal’ Under whose criteria.
JMOHO and no one has to agree.
Poster Boy
Are you speaking for Nancy Pelosi?What gives YOU the right to speak in the “royal we” form?
Speak for yourself.
YOU can disagree with the law, but I have accurately stated the situation.
Work to change the law, if you wish.
However, nobody has broken the law on this subject, as near as I can tell.
Econ1zero1I’ll speak in as grant a WE as I please.
I believe the majority of Americans believe waterboarding to be torture and believe we as a nation should not do it.
Linda I could have given you more links but haven’t the time this morning.Posted by: ksgrm | December 11, 2007 at 11:23 AM—————————-
One problem, you didn’t provide any links.
That’s OK, I’ve read and studied and am capable of finding links for anything and everything representing anything and everything. Most people are.
And, what you know, ksgrm, is not necessarily what I know or what I accept as fact. As you stated, “no one has to agree.”
We disagree, as usual.
Well not entirely as usual. There are those rare times we have agreed.
I do want what is best for our country and don’t feel the endless investigations into our security measures and techniques are in our best interest. I think that by revealing them to the entire world we are endangering our military.
If I am wrong then time will find me out.
“…No one objected at the time, according to the Washington Post’s sources — and two of the lawmakers urged CIA officials to go further to extract information from prisoners.” (Blog Quote)================================
From what I am reading here today, many have made the assumption that Pelosi was one of the two lawmakers who urged CIA folks to go further than “waterboarding” to extract information…
I dont see that in the Blog lead in story.. I see that it says TWO of the four urged further techniques… I also dont see that Sen. Roberts was one who encouraged further “torture” techniques…
And so far, nobody is saying WHO the two were who urged more torture techniques…
Last nite on the news, it was stated that the four lawmakers who were informed of the waterboarding in 2002, were on an oath of secrecy… So, it’s not a wonder that they didnt object at that time..
How do some of you folks jump to the wild conclusion that either Roberts OR Pelosi were the ones who encouraged further incidents??
We might NEVER know who those two lawmakers were.. What I DO think matters, is that we do something to make sure that such torture doesnt happen again!!
I also dont know if any kind of an investigation will uncover who it was that ordered the tapes to be destroyed.. It almost sounds like an exercise in futility to me..
It’s not an exercise in futility to me. Hearings and investigations are crucial means to establishing institutional and cultural barriers to future crimes. We cannot continue on this same path, no future administration can be so unchecked and unaccountable.
I do understand your feelings of defeat, Chas. I’ve seen too much get swept under carpets, explained away, and evaded. So let’s keep digging and get it all out. America deserves way more than what we’ve got!
So be it then… Keep those shovels working!! :-)
Hill Briefed on Waterboarding in 2002In Meetings, Spy Panels’ Chiefs Did Not Protest, Officials Say
By Joby Warrick and Dan EggenWashington Post Staff WritersSunday, December 9, 2007; A01
In September 2002, four members of Congress met in secret for a first look at a unique CIA program designed to wring vital information from reticent terrorism suspects in U.S. custody. For more than an hour, the bipartisan group, which included current House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), was given a virtual tour of the CIA’s overseas detention sites and the harsh techniques interrogators had devised to try to make their prisoners talk.
Among the techniques described, said two officials present, was waterboarding, a practice that years later would be condemned as torture by Democrats and some Republicans on Capitol Hill. But on that day, no objections were raised. Instead, at least two lawmakers in the room asked the CIA to push harder, two U.S. officials said.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/08/AR2007120801664_pf.html
It wasn’t established who wanted further more intense techniques used. It was established that no one objected to the technique ‘at that time’.
“Individual lawmakers’ recollections of the early briefings varied dramatically, but officials present during the meetings described the reaction as mostly quiet acquiescence, if not outright support. “Among those being briefed, there was a pretty full understanding of what the CIA was doing,” said Goss, who chaired the House intelligence committee from 1997 to 2004 and then served as CIA director from 2004 to 2006. “And the reaction in the room was not just approval, but encouragement.”
Another one of those I was for it before I was against it. What a bunch of wimps. When will they learn they can’t change their minds after the play has been called and the quarterback is back for the pass?
Human relationships and ideas, fortunately, do not depend on the rules of Football… Opinions can, and do change, on many things over the course of time.
“No objections at that time” CAN simply mean that those present were simply holding their opinions until they had more time to think, and gather informatiion.
Regardless of who those four individuals were, it does not appear that this is a flip-flop, but rather, a “wait and see” –
Hey, just my opinion — and it could change with more information!! LOL
“…officials present during the meetings described the reaction as mostly quiet acquiescence, if not outright support…”——————–
If the officials mentioned were part of bushco, I question it. They have zero credibility with me.
“No objections at that time” CAN simply mean that those present were simply holding their opinions until they had more time to think, and gather informatiion.
Regardless of who those four individuals were, it does not appear that this is a flip-flop, but rather, a “wait and see” –
Posted by: Chas. | December 11, 2007 at 01:35 PM
Chas when you are in a room and the CIA is briefing you on interregation techniques and you don’t object then you are agreeing. It doesn’t take the people on this blog long to express opinions and our opinions in the grand scheme of things are not worth much.
Will the left never run out of excuses when it comes to defending the left.
Linda who will you blame when Bushco is gone? Will you then look at the reality and see that libs and cons agreed on this. No one was coerced. Read the article, just the words, don’t give them new meanings. By themselves they speak volumns.
“The reality is that most of this “horror” over “torture” is politically driven. Always was.”
That is indeed cyncical, GMC. And perhaps you’re right: maybe even liberal pols lack that basic human decency.
But I would still support arguments against using torture, and no intelligent arguments have yet been made in favor of it.
Yup, that’s GMC’s standard line, Rage.
“No one has any real principles except what they can use to disadvantage their political rivals.”
He said that the only reason we Libs objected to the Supreme Court choosing Bush as the President was because it didn’t choose Gore as president. The only reason that we objected to the electoral college was because it worked in Bush’s favor and not Gore’s, etc.
However, we have had a test of that theory in the 2004 election. Many people believe, and there’s a lot of evidence to show, that Kerry actually won Ohio but that the Republic machine jiggered the outcome.
I really don’t care if that’s true because Kerry still lost the popular vote even if he won Ohio, which means he should not be president any more than Bush should have been president in 2000.
My principles are perfectly consistent even if they work against the outcome I prefer.
Linda who will you blame when Bushco is gone?——————-
I don’t believe (maybe I should say I strongly hope for the sake of our nation) ANYONE can be as corrupt or as stupid as bushco. If anyone makes decisions that keep us on the catastrophic course they have set us on I will blame whoever that is.
I don’t care who agreed to get this started. It is well past time to change that decision! And don’t even start on stupid football or changing the past or any other useless arguments. The past can’t be changed, we aren’t in a football game, and the future is where I’m hoping we can find changes and improvements to what we have with bushco. I don’t think we can do worse, all my hopes are that we do better.
I agree Linda, the right keeps using references to ‘Monday Night Quarterbacking” not recognizing we’re still in the game, and many of us called the bad plays before the game ever got started.
I agree Linda, the right keeps using references to ‘Monday Night Quarterbacking” not recognizing we’re still in the game, and many of us called the bad plays before the game ever got started.
RAge:
I’ve written my position; it’s not changed. And I’m not saying that Pelosi doesn’t have a principled belief; I’m sure she does. But principles have a way of bending in the face of reality.
The reality then was that it was thought that we were facing imminent attacks; principle bended to get the information needed. Now that the threat doesn’t seem so imminent, the matter is raised again, this time not out of principle, but for political advantage.
Principles have a way of getting selectively exercised, when it is to one’s advantage.
And from Capn: “My principles are perfectly consistent even if they work against the outcome I prefer.”
I don’t believe that – given your consistent writing on this board – for one second. I actually chuckled a bit when I read that.
Cap’n, the theft of Florida notwithstanding, the rule that elected Bush is a quirk of our system that needs to be changed.
Having said that, since 3 other president were “elected” in this fashion, including the current occupant, it would have only been fair, and legal, for Kerry to assume office.
I would have–and still–favor abolishing the Electoral College, at least as currently constituted.
And from Capn: “My principles are perfectly consistent even if they work against the outcome I prefer.”
I don’t believe that – given your consistent writing on this board – for one second. I actually chuckled a bit when I read that.
Posted by: GMC70
Glad you’re so easily amused, GMC.
Given your deep cynicism of human nature, it’s logical you would not be able to see consistency when it’s there–
I gave you one example, which you chose not to refute.
Let me give you another: Paul Morrison. If he sexually harrassed his subordinate and created a “hostile work environment,” he should resign. Would you say the same about Bill O’Reilly and his unwanted phone sex talk to his asst. producer? Or how about Henry Hyde and his “youthful indiscretions” or Rudy G. and his taxpayer funded mistress?
I would have–and still–favor abolishing the Electoral College, at least as currently constituted.
Posted by: Rage | December 11, 2007 at 02:53 PM
Unless Kerry/Gore would have won the electoral college but lost the popular vote, then you wouldn’t have cared so much eh? :)
Just imagine what would have happened if Gore had won the electoral college and Bush had won the popular vote.
They would have shut the country down.
And maybe, just maybe, we’d have true democracy in this country for once.
“Unless Kerry/Gore would have won the electoral college but lost the popular vote, then you wouldn’t have cared so much eh? :)”
I certainly preferred Gore to Bush, but I voted for Nader.
But, to coin a phrase, I DON’T favor “changing the rules after the election has taken place.”
I’m not gonna “refute” anything, Capn. It’s a judgment, based on your own writings here over the lase 2-3 years or so. And I’ll stand by it. You care about the “right” (or “left”) outcome. Period.
BTW – who is “they” in your 3:02 post? As to “true democracy,” no we don’t have it, thank god. “It’s a republic, sir, if you can keep it.” – Franklin.
But, to coin a phrase, I DON’T favor “changing the rules after the election has taken place.”
Posted by: Rage | December 11, 2007 at 03:07 PM
Gore wanted to change the rules in Florida on the ballets and that’s why Gore and his herd of attorneys put up all those legal challenges – he wanted to change the rules after the election had taken place.
Posted by: CapnAmerica | December 11, 2007 at 02:59 PM —-
“you would not be able to see consistency when it’s there”Consistent pragmatism. Yes! I see it!
*********************************Q: I’ll bet I know the reason. I heard Jim Baker say this. The votes can’t be counted because the Florida Supreme Court “changed the rules of the election after it was held.” Right?
A. Wrong. The US Supreme Court made clear that the Florida Supreme Court did not change the rules of the election. But the US Supreme Court found this failure of the Florida Court to change the rules after the election was wrong.
Q: Huh?
A: The Legislature declared that the only legal standard for counting vote is “clear intent of the voter.” The Florida Court was condemned for not adopting a clearer standard after the election.
Q: I thought the Florida Court was not allowed to change the Legislature’s law after the election.
A: Right.
Q: So what’s the problem?
A: They should have. The US Supreme Court said the Florida Supreme Court should have “adopt[ed] adequate statewide standards for determining what is a legal vote”
Q: I thought only the Legislature could “adopt” new law.
A: Right.
Q: So if the Florida Court had adopted new standards, I thought it would have been overturned.
A: Right. You’re catching on.
Q: Wait. If the Florida Court had adopted new standards, it would have been overturned for changing the rules. And since it didn’t do it, it’s being overturned for not changing the rules? That makes no sense. That means that no matter what the Florida Supreme Court did, legal votes could never be counted if they would end up with a possible Gore victory.
A: Right. Next question.*******************************http://www.mediasense.com/itsnotover/SupremeCourt-QA2.htm
Rage:
That’s a MIS statement of the rationale of Bush v. Gore. However, it’s water under the bridge at this point. Done.
Off topic much?
Same ol piss’n match; same ol players!
“That’s a MIS statement of the rationale of Bush v. Gore. However, it’s water under the bridge at this point. Done.
Posted by: GMC70 | December 11, 2007 at 03:22 PM
I agree with Poster Boy, so I’ll let that one slide. Read Justice Breyer’s dissent, folks.
Get back on topic, folks–thanks!
Legal votes being different interpretation of “chads” – which was changing the rules after the election.
So much spin by the Dems. :)
Some Libs are speculating that because Pelosi was in the loop, that’s why the Dems aren’t more interested in impeaching worst. president. ever.
Makes sense . . .
GMC–
I gave you two examples of how I belief my principles are consistent.
Can you give me an example of how I only concern myself with outcomes, not principles?
I’d be interested to see what your opinion is based upon.
Last spring, however, a journalist subjected himself to the torture and revealed that, even though he knew the people who were waterboarding were his *friends* and colleagues… and there was no rational reason for him to be in fear for his life… the experience was, well, *torture.*
Posted by: MonkeyHawk
And on Mythbusters they had some folks got water dropped on their forehead a drop at a time. Even though the subject knew that her friends were right there, she cracked after a little time and declared it “torture”. Your point???
You’re the President, it is September 5, 2001. You are told hey we have a high value target, in custody, who says that there will be some type of attack using airplanes in the next 2 weeks. Do you waterboard this high value target to get the information to TRY and prevent the attack?
No. Because study after study has proven that torture gets you what you want to hear and what will stop the torture and that’s not necessarily factual.
LindaIf someone kindnapped your kid, or someone close to you, and burried that person, alive, in a box, in the woods, what would you do?You have that person, in your custody. You have a gun pointed at that person, who is grinning and telling you that they want your kid to die a slow death, in the dark.He knows where your kid is burried, he is the one that burried your kid.Keeping him awake for several hours, or playing loud music, or any number of other methods won’t work.Your child only has so much air to breath, in that box.
If you would not even consider shooting this person in the arm, or in the leg, to get the location of the burried child out of him, I frankly do not understand you at all.
That makes us even. I don’t understand you at all either.
You’re the President, it is September 5, 2001. You are told hey we have a high value target, in custody, who says that there will be some type of attack using airplanes in the next 2 weeks
“Bin Laden determined to attack inside US”
bush had THAT little bit of info in August 2001.
His response was to go fishing!
It really is sick the scenario twisting some on the right go to to justify torture. It is like a small child wheedling and pleading. “Well if this, this, this and this, THEN can I torture? Huh huh? Can I?”
I think it demonstrates the rights deep need to have power over and hurt others for their own pleasure. Sick.