CIA threatened detainee families...

[MrCongeniality]

Read this article here.

I am very interested in what your reactions are on this one...

While I don't find it surprising, personally I find it an outrage that an agency in my own country went THIS far.

We are stepping down to their level when we do shit like this. No wonder we keep receiving threats of attacks and what not, it is shit like this that makes the world hate America.

Thankfully, liberals and democrats are taking charge in Washington so that the likelihood of this happening again becomes unlikely. But still, that fact that this happened makes my blood boil.

What say you?

[Warforger]

At 8/24/09 03:02 PM, MrCongeniality wrote: Thankfully, liberals and democrats are taking charge in Washington so that the likelihood of this happening again becomes unlikely. But still, that fact that this happened makes my blood boil.

What say you?

That sentence made me facepalm.

This was just Post 9/11, Democrats as well as Republicans voted on the Patriot act, we were panicking, so this doesn't surprise me. Of course we wouldn't have done the same a year later, but at the time we didn't know what we were doing.

[Tony-DarkGrave]

who cares it was right after 9/11 plus the statute of limitations probbably an out by now.

[aviewaskewed]

At 8/24/09 04:08 PM, Dante-Son-Of-Sparda wrote: who cares it was right after 9/11 plus the statute of limitations probbably an out by now.

Yes, cause christ knows that 9/11 meant that all the rules of American values and what this country was built on should have gone right out the window. It made racism ok, it made torture ok, it made depriving anybody anywhere of the rights and what not that makes this country great was acceptable.

You disgust me.

[Tony-DarkGrave]

At 8/24/09 04:13 PM, aviewaskewed wrote: Yes, cause christ knows that 9/11 meant that all the rules of American values and what this country was built on should have gone right out the window. It made racism ok, it made torture ok, it made depriving anybody anywhere of the rights and what not that makes this country great was acceptable.

don't forget a Illegal war and occupation and the war crimes committed by George W. Bush and Dick Cheney.

[adrshepard]

Before you start aggravating yourself into a self-righteous frenzy, look at the context.
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=
D9A9DSQG0&show_article=1
This happened twice. OMGZORS OUR COUNTRY IS NOW TERRORIST! Two interrogators run their mouths and you immediately know beyond certainty that it was standard CIA procedure, and/or the interrogators were specifically directed to threaten them in this way.
With a more rational approach you would have realized that these "incidents" (if one could even call them that) mean absolutely nothing, and that only new and more detailed information can change that. Of course, it wouldn't have been nearly so dramatic as bellowing your angst and sorrow that the America that you "love" would do such a heinous thing.

BTW, have you ever thought about the implications what it means when people would join or support terrorist groups, which deliberately seek to kill innocent people by the thousands, all because a handful of people in the US made empty threats against two people, waterboarded three, and humiliated, say, a hundred in Abu Ghraib?
The obvious answer is, of course, that the US IS EVILLL!

At 8/24/09 04:13 PM, aviewaskewed wrote: Yes, cause christ knows that 9/11 meant that all the rules of American values and what this country was built on should have gone right out the window. It made racism ok, it made torture ok, it made depriving anybody anywhere of the rights and what not that makes this country great was acceptable.

Don't stop now! Your soapbox yet stands and the trumpets still blare! Bom, Bom, Ba-Ba-Bom....

[Tony-DarkGrave]

plus is was in the heat of 9/11 and the Patriot Act which everyone knows what it does.

[Elfer]

Jack Bauer did this and it was totally fine.

[Warforger]

At 8/24/09 05:09 PM, adrshepard wrote: Before you start aggravating yourself into a self-righteous frenzy, look at the context.
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=
D9A9DSQG0&show_article=1

:With a more rational approach you would have realized that these "incidents" (if one could even call them that) mean absolutely nothing, and that only new and more detailed information can change that. Of course, it wouldn't have been nearly so dramatic as bellowing your angst and sorrow that the America that you "love" would do such a heinous thing.

Didn't expect any less of MSNBC, they always side with the first guy who speaks.

[MrCongeniality]

At 8/24/09 05:44 PM, Elfer wrote: Jack Bauer did this and it was totally fine.

LOL I was actually thinking of that when posting this. Season 2, around episode 10 or something?

[hansari]

At 8/24/09 04:13 PM, aviewaskewed wrote: You disgust me.

I don't like it either, but its to be expected. I mean after Pearl Harbor, we rounded up Japanese people...

[morefngdbs]

So what else is new ?
Surely no one is surprised by this .
We have police & government agents, killing people, buying & selling & importing drugs. I can't believe for a second none of you don't know that goes on.
When you create agencies & grant them special powers...how can you be surprised, when they do things outside of what is considered normal or proper proceedure !

[Elfer]

At 8/24/09 11:34 PM, MrCongeniality wrote:

At 8/24/09 05:44 PM, Elfer wrote: Jack Bauer did this and it was totally fine.

LOL I was actually thinking of that when posting this. Season 2, around episode 10 or something?

Yeah that terrorist thought they shot his kid right in the face but then later it turned out it was just some other kid that didn't really matter.

[Idiot-Finder]

At 8/24/09 05:44 PM, Elfer wrote: Jack Bauer did this and it was totally fine.

No kidding, when he does it it's okay

When someone else does it...

[aviewaskewed]

At 8/25/09 10:22 AM, morefngdbs wrote: So what else is new ?
Surely no one is surprised by this .

Not surprised, and really, not so much pissed off by the threats on it (since I think that's pretty tame compared to putting actual physical harm to somebody. I think there's other things to be threatening them with (things we can legally do) but what gets to me more then anything is the people like Dante who seem to have an attitude of "so what? 9/11 made it ok, and there should be a statute of limitations that expired" so here's a citizen saying "I don't care if they break the law as long as they're doing it to people I don't like" but yet that allows them to set precedents for legal abuse they can then use later on non-terror suspects. The slipper slope? A little, but not completely since I'm not saying they absolutely WILL, but they CAN and the fact that they could scares me and we shouldn't be tolerating that.

I also tend to think it's unnecessary since compare the last two presidents to have a terror attack happen on American soil and they handled it completely differently and yet still wound up with a record of 1 attack during their 8 year term. Everything we traded for Bush's "war on terror" seems completely unnecessary to me because of the simple fact that it hasn't really done much to make us safer.

[morefngdbs]

At 8/26/09 12:43 AM, aviewaskewed wrote:

At 8/25/09 10:22 AM, morefngdbs wrote: Surely no one is surprised by this .

what gets to me more then anything is the people like Dante who seem to have an attitude of "so what? 9/11 made it ok, and there should be a statute of limitations that expired" so here's a citizen saying "I don't care if they break the law as long as they're doing it to people I don't like"

;;;
I agree with you on this.
When youy speak of people who don't care...or agree with these types of actions being taken. THey really just don't grasp the fact that once it's allowed to procced with (for example, "possible" terrorists ) it then becomes a practice of law enforcement . A practice that can easily come back & bite them on the ass if they themselves ever are "possibly" a person of interest...& they can now be tortured etc. just because someone in Law enforcement has decided without proving it in a court of law, that this is justified.
The erosion of your human rights granted under your Constitution , is IMO one of the worst possible things that can happen.
For people to somehow 'think' ( I really don't believe they can think !) that this is ok, because its just a terrorist really don't have a grasp on reality or how they are, by not objecting, eroding their own freedom !

Remember boy's & girl's... suspicion of being one who may have commited a crime, is not at all the same as , a person who has been convicted of a crime .
Remember Innocent until proven guilty .
How would you like to live in a place ,where you are guilty, unless you can prove your innocent ! ! !

[redzone]

Get the information at any means possible.
And on the issue of torcher, I have always said we are too easy with them.
Waterboarding? Ha. What we should have done was pull out their eye's out of the sockets, but the are still connected so they can still see, and point each eye at the other for a while, then turn them away.

Then after they have given all the info we want...kill them.

[adrshepard]

At 8/26/09 12:43 AM, aviewaskewed wrote: ...so here's a citizen saying "I don't care if they break the law as long as they're doing it to people I don't like" but yet that allows them to set precedents for legal abuse they can then use later on non-terror suspects. The slippery slope? A little, but not completely since I'm not saying they absolutely WILL, but they CAN and the fact that they could scares me and we shouldn't be tolerating that.

You're underestimating the line between what detainees experienced at Gitmo to what a normal person ever could in the US. It's not a just a simple matter of the government suddenly declaring who is and isn't a potential threat. The legal justification for the treatment had little to do with the detainee's status and more with a particular interpretation of US law (Gitmo officially belongs to Cuba, waterboarding doesn't produce a rational expectation of death, etc.) These sort of arguments would be difficult to apply to US citizens, whose rights are more explicit.
Also, don't forget that the legal authority to do something does not mean it will happen, or even that it has any conceivable chance of happening. Bush did have the legal authority to declare people , even citizens, enemy combatants, but obviously the legal right alone would be a poor excuse if he had simply rounded up vast numbers of democrats or activists, or a few prominent ones like John Kerry. There is a procedure and a bureaucracy behind every one of these actions that prevents them from becoming simple precedents to be expanded upon.

Everything we traded for Bush's "war on terror" seems completely unnecessary to me because of the simple fact that it hasn't really done much to make us safer.

How would you know if it had?

[Tony-DarkGrave]

well avie n o matter how you feel it happened and they got away with it. get over it it was in the heat of 9/11 paranoia.

[BrianEtrius]

At 8/26/09 07:23 PM, Dante-Son-Of-Sparda wrote: well avie n o matter how you feel it happened and they got away with it. get over it it was in the heat of 9/11 paranoia.

It doesn't matter what the situation is, you can't break the law, no matter how much higher you think you are above the law, you have to abide by it. It's like when Nixon said "The President is above the law." No he isn't, nor is the CIA. Everyone is bound by law.

[homor]

dude, its MSNBC.

they use so many half-truths and spins its less credible than the Onion.

[Tony-DarkGrave]

At 8/26/09 07:31 PM, BrianEtrius wrote:

At 8/26/09 07:23 PM, Dante-Son-Of-Sparda wrote: well avie n o matter how you feel it happened and they got away with it. get over it it was in the heat of 9/11 paranoia.

It doesn't matter what the situation is, you can't break the law, no matter how much higher you think you are above the law, you have to abide by it. It's like when Nixon said "The President is above the law." No he isn't, nor is the CIA. Everyone is bound by law.

lets see they were detained under the Patriot Act 9 (not Illegal) what and holding them as possible terror suspects with empty threats? please...

[TheSavant]

Ok, here is the thing. If torturing (and it sure as hell was torture) potential terrorists was the only way to get the information out of the unsavory fellows, and it had a very high success rate, I'd be in Gitmo right now taking out Al Qaeda eyes with an ice cream scoop. But guess what? It doesn't work. Not any more so than being friendly with the individuals, at least.

Have you ever hold the phrase "You catch more flies with honey than vinegar'? Well in this case it is "You get more information with cookies than waterboarding".

When take a terrorist and slam that man's head into a desk, and waterboard him, and tell him you will kill his family all you are doing is making that individual sure that everything he was raised to believe from birth is true. Americans are devils. They are nothing but torturous, egotistical, immoral brutes who excel at causing pain and suffering to others. You are proving exactly what the brass in Al Qaeda wants their troops to think. Do you really think these men are going to want to go blabbing everything they know to the dirty Americans? Do you think that when they now know that everything they've been told is true, that Allah wants the US destroyed and there are however man virgins waiting for them in heaven that those terrorists are going to back down? It is foolish to think as much.

The only ones who will tell you anything are the mentally weak. And guess what? Al Qaeda doesn't attract too many who are not strong willed and dedicated to their cause. You know that whole part where terrorist members are willing to die for their cause? Do you really, actually think that the bastard enemy pouring some water on them will change their minds? That is foolish.

Look at the interrogations of Saddam Hussein. Do you know how they got him to sing more pretty songs than Elvis Costello and Tom Waits' entire discography put together? They were nice to him. They found an American with middle eastern heritage with the required clearance and had him talk to Saddam. They gave Saddam treats for speaking. It worked.

Look at what Saudi Arabia has done to the men released into the country from Gitmo. They give them a house, a car, a job, tell the men not to screw up, and monitor them. This program has a 90% success rate.Think of how what the rate would be if their hatred of America was not strengthened by their experiences in Gitmo, if Americans opened their arms to these people and showed them some compassion instead of torture. You have to realize that these people are the same as those in cults. They have been programmed a certain way, and they are dangerous. But most of the time they are intelligent people who would have some redeeming values if you just gave them a chance. There is a reason they feel the way that they do, and if we continue down this dark path, I am not so sure that their ideals are entirely unwarranted, if a bit overblown. javascript:ClearTextArea(document.forms[
'mainform'].elements['body'],%208192);

[homor]

At 8/26/09 10:16 PM, TheSavant wrote: WE MUST MUST USE THE POWER OF LOVE TO STOP OSAMA.

we're not trying to get them to like us. THEY'LL NEVER LIKE US.

we can hug them and tell them they're our sweethearts. BUT THE'LL NEVER LIKE US.

THEY HATE US. THEY HATE EVERYTHING WE REPRESENT, THEY HATE OUR VERY CULTURE.

doing nice things for them won't make them like us, we can bend over bnackwards for them and they'll still hate us.

they're not going to turn back on everything they've ever been told or believed them just because we give them gifts and say nice things to them. its asinine.

putting them in Gitmo isn't about trying to get them to like us. ITS ABOUT TRYING TO GET THEM TO GVE US IMPORTANT SECRETS.

these people despise us. all being nice to them would achieve is their laughter.

and to think otherwise is just dreaming.

[aviewaskewed]

At 8/26/09 07:23 PM, Dante-Son-Of-Sparda wrote: well avie n o matter how you feel it happened and they got away with it. get over it it was in the heat of 9/11 paranoia.

This is my whole problem with your argument, you're arguing that 9/11 paranoia makes actions that may be morally or legally questionable under the laws of this country and internationally ok. That is just not acceptable to me. You're saying it's ok to legislate on emotion vs. legislating on logic and what is right and what is fair, and that is the criterion that should be used. You mention the Patriot Act a couple lines down, something who's powers we have seen criticized and abused. I don't believe personally the Patriot Act should be law.

But as I said and more expanded upon, it's not a good idea to allow situations like 9/11 to overwhelm our logic and allow us to start blindly trusting our governmental powers (and this means both and all parties) to do the right thing no matter what. The current economic crisis and a host of other historical examples says that sometimes we elect people who invert what John Kennedy asked of us: They ask what they're country can do for them, and not what they can do for their country. I just can't come around to your viewpoint on this one. At least not insofar as how you've presented it so far.

[TheSavant]

At 8/26/09 11:03 PM, homor wrote:

At 8/26/09 10:16 PM, TheSavant wrote: WE MUST MUST USE THE POWER OF LOVE TO STOP OSAMA.

we're not trying to get them to like us. THEY'LL NEVER LIKE US.

we can hug them and tell them they're our sweethearts. BUT THE'LL NEVER LIKE US.

THEY HATE US. THEY HATE EVERYTHING WE REPRESENT, THEY HATE OUR VERY CULTURE.

doing nice things for them won't make them like us, we can bend over bnackwards for them and they'll still hate us.

they're not going to turn back on everything they've ever been told or believed them just because we give them gifts and say nice things to them. its asinine.

putting them in Gitmo isn't about trying to get them to like us. ITS ABOUT TRYING TO GET THEM TO GVE US IMPORTANT SECRETS.

these people despise us. all being nice to them would achieve is their laughter.

and to think otherwise is just dreaming.

Man, you are missing the entire point. Not once did I say we can make all of the Middle East, or even just Al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations love us. That is just silly and naive. What I am saying is that being a hardass with these people is not working. Taking the soft approach is. It is getting more information, and in the case of Saudi Arabia, it has actually reformed a great deal of former terrorists. Hell, I'm completely fine with treating the men like princesses until they give up all their information, and then taking them to court and nailing their asses in hard labor camp for life. That is, if it works. And I have reason to believe that it would.

And what do you think happens when these stories come over to the middle east and little Haroon reads about what we are doing to people from his country? Do you really think it is fair, and noble, and just? Do you think he'd have be of that opinion? If so, you are every bit as naive as a person who thought we could hug Al Qaeda into destruction. No, it breeds nothing but negative feelings and resentment. Sure, we can't make them all love us, but we can definitely make sure not to ruin what little reputation we have left.

[jeffamphetamines]

In my honest opinion I don't care that we did that stuff I mean if it had to be done then so be it I don't think i should show sympathy for the people who blow up innocent civilians or cut there heads off. But now that its publicly owned they should all be prosecuted. If we want to be so bold and righteous to prosecute german nazis years after then we have to punish the people who did these acts. We can't enforce rules but blatantly ignore them because we are the U.S and I have heard the arguement well we didn't kill innocent people like germans did or what we did wasn't as bad but under the definition of war crimes which we follow:
War crimes are "violations of the laws or customs of war"; including but not limited to "murder, the ill-treatment or deportation of civilian residents of an occupied territory to slave labor camps", "the murder or ill-treatment of prisoners of war", the killing of hostages, "the wanton destruction of cities, towns and villages, and any devastation not justified by military, or civilian necessity".[1]

[adrshepard]

At 8/27/09 02:12 PM, TheSavant wrote: Man, you are missing the entire point. Not once did I say we can make all of the Middle East, or even just Al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations love us. That is just silly and naive. What I am saying is that being a hardass with these people is not working.

According to who? You have definitive evidence that aggressive techniques never produced any useful intelligence? Or, you have similar evidence that shows "touchy-feely" questioning is more effective than waterboarding and the like?
I don't have to wait for your answer. None of it is publicly available, and you're simply assuming there's a factual basis for your effectiveness claim when all you have are inconclusive anecdotes, some expert opinions (which are contradicted by that of other experts), and your foolish personal reasoning.

At 8/27/09 02:12 PM, TheSavant wrote:

Taking the soft approach is. It is getting more information, and in the case of Saudi Arabia, it has actually reformed a great deal of former terrorists. Hell, I'm completely fine with treating the men like princesses until they give up all their information, and then taking them to court and nailing their asses in hard labor camp for life. That is, if it works. And I have reason to believe that it would.
Your original link was dead, but you need to show that these "reformed" terrorists have produced valuable intelligence.

No, it breeds nothing but negative feelings and resentment. Sure, we can't make them all love us, but we can definitely make sure not to ruin what little reputation we have left.

Reputation means nothing. We had a fine reputation before 9/11, but bin Laden had no qualms about attacking us anyway.

[TheSavant]

At 8/27/09 03:01 PM, adrshepard wrote: According to who? You have definitive evidence that aggressive techniques never produced any useful intelligence? Or, you have similar evidence that shows "touchy-feely" questioning is more effective than waterboarding and the like?
I don't have to wait for your answer. None of it is publicly available, and you're simply assuming there's a factual basis for your effectiveness claim when all you have are inconclusive anecdotes, some expert opinions (which are contradicted by that of other experts), and your foolish personal reasoning.

According to the fact that the Saudis are rehabbing 90% of the terrorists they get from Gitmo does a lot to support this kind of method. The fact that Saddam Hussein himself gave out tons of valuable information when we used this kind of method supports it.
That is my oringinal link.How about this article here, in which an interrogations officer himself says torture is less effective?

Also, find me some contradicting claims, since you say so many of them exist. Oh, and make sure none of them come from Dick Cheney. And if you wouldn't mind making me a sandwich, that would be great as well. ;P

At 8/27/09 02:12 PM, TheSavant wrote:

Taking the soft approach is. It is getting more information, and in the case of Saudi Arabia, it has actually reformed a great deal of former terrorists. Hell, I'm completely fine with treating the men like princesses until they give up all their information, and then taking them to court and nailing their asses in hard labor camp for life. That is, if it works. And I have reason to believe that it would.
Your original link was dead, but you need to show that these "reformed" terrorists have produced valuable intelligence.

I never said that they did. But if they can be reformed in their entirety after Gitmo, I'm pretty sure they would be willing to give the US intelligence if we treated them in a humane manner from the start.

No, it breeds nothing but negative feelings and resentment. Sure, we can't make them all love us, but we can definitely make sure not to ruin what little reputation we have left.

Reputation means nothing. We had a fine reputation before 9/11, but bin Laden had no qualms about attacking us anyway.

You have a point here, but just because it can't always prevent attacks doesn't mean we shouldn't work on it. Sure, they might manage to wrestle up troops if we are the most saintly nation in the world. I don't see any reason to make it easier by demonizing ourselves though.

[adrshepard]

At 8/27/09 03:37 PM, TheSavant wrote: According to the fact that the Saudis are rehabbing 90% of the terrorists they get from Gitmo does a lot to support this kind of method. The fact that Saddam Hussein himself gave out tons of valuable information when we used this kind of method supports it.

Don't try to change the argument now, you specifically referenced the Saudi program to say that the soft method works better at producing intelligence. Rehabilitation is an entirely different issue.
To label ineffective a method used on hundreds from a single instance (or two, counting the one with Mr. Zubayda) reflects poor reasoning. Any elementary school child would agree that one example may not represent the whole, yet you use it as an argument against me. In the very article you cite the interrogator states that he cannot pass judgment on anything outside his personal experience, which is a euphemism for saying that he's in the dark on most matters.

Also, find me some contradicting claims, since you say so many of them exist. Oh, and make sure none of them come from Dick Cheney.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/22/us/pol itics/22blair.html
http://articles.latimes.com/2009/jan/16/
nation/na-cia16
http://documents.nytimes.com/justice-dep artment-memos-on-interrogation-technique s#p=92 see bottom of page and top of next page.

I never said that they did. But if they can be reformed in their entirety after Gitmo, I'm pretty sure they would be willing to give the US intelligence if we treated them in a humane manner from the start.

Who says we didn't?
http://documents.nytimes.com/justice-dep artment-memos-on-interrogation-technique s#p=91

You have a point here, but just because it can't always prevent attacks doesn't mean we shouldn't work on it. Sure, they might manage to wrestle up troops if we are the most saintly nation in the world. I don't see any reason to make it easier by demonizing ourselves though.

Terrorists are irrational and full of hate. These people do not wait for a "justification" to attack the US because one reason is as good as another.