Bush Says Interrogation Methods Aren’t Torture

[traynod]

President Bush, reacting to a Congressional uproar over the disclosure of secret Justice Department legal opinions permitting the harsh interrogation of terrorism suspects, defended the methods on Friday, declaring, “This government does not torture people.”


“I have put this program in place for a reason, and that is to better protect the American people,” the president said, without mentioning the C.I.A. by name. “And when we find somebody who may have information regarding a potential attack on America, you bet we’re going to detain them, and you bet we’re going to question them, because the American people expect us to find out information — actionable intelligence so we can help protect them. That’s our job.”

Source: Link

And quite frankly I believe that Bush is right. If the CIA deems that a certain individual is a terrorist suspect and has information related to a potential terrorist attack, it is imperative that that individual is interrogated as necessary so as to neutralise the terrorist threat. In fact government intelligence agencies are morally obliged to do this. A simple trade off: either another 9/11 or slightly inconveniencing a potential terrorist.

Administration officials stated "that they approved techniques that were “tough, safe, necessary and lawful.”

[Akrasia]

Torture does not work and it is a crime against humanity.

When someone is tortured, they tend to tell the torturer anything they think they want to hear to make it stop.

You can beat a confession from almost anybody.

There is a reason why the rules of war state that POWs are only required to give their name rank and serial number. Because allowing 'interrogations' of POWS leads to horrific human rights violations.

[Akrasia]

And quite frankly I believe that Bush is right. If the CIA deems that a certain individual is a terrorist suspect and has information related to a potential terrorist attack, it is imperative that that individual is interrogated as necessary so as to neutralise the terrorist threat. In fact government intelligence agencies are morally obliged to do this. A simple trade off: either another 9/11 or slightly inconveniencing a potential terrorist.

First of all, we are all 'potential terrorists'.

Secondly, torture is an act of terrorism in itself. Saddam Hussain tortured his citizens, that is part of the reason America gave for invading Iraq.

thirdly, There is a vicious cycle involved. CIA arrest a guy because he's of fighting age and happened to be in afghanistan at the wrong time. He is a 'potential terrorist' They torture him to find out if he knows about any terrorist attacks, he doesn't but he names people or places to make the torture stop. He has just created a number of other 'potential terrorists' are then candidates for terrorism.

Fourth, The U,S. army in Iraq regularly do full sweeps of areas where they have 'intelligence' that insurgents might be hiding. They storm houses and arrest all the men of fighting age. These are 'potential terrorists' based only on the 'intelligence' that they have received. According to testimony of returned soldiers, the vast vast majority of this 'intelligence' is false.

[Meursault]

You are a potential terrorist Traynod.

[FakeViking]

I wonder if Bush was waterboarded, what would he say about his election results?

[traynod]

First of all, we are all 'potential terrorists'.

Please forgive my loose wording. Of course anybody could 'potentially' be a terrorist; the people whom I am referring to are those who are strongly suspected of being terrorists. Usually with a large and detailed dossier of preliminary evidence so that the individual in question is rightly regarded with suspicion. I'm not referring to a random John Doe (or Mohammed Boe) who is picked off the street, detained and interrogated.

Secondly, torture is an act of terrorism in itself. Saddam Hussain tortured his citizens, that is part of the reason America gave for invading Iraq.

Just because the US listed the torture/genocide of innocent Iraqis as one of the reasons for wanting to remove Saddam from power, does not mean they considered it to be a form of terrorism. I'm unaware of the US ever citing Iraq as having been a perpetrator of terror. I do know that they did tag Iraq as being part of an axis of evil and state sponsor of terror. If one considers interrogating terrorist suspects as being an act of terrorism in itself, they can........however nonsensical that interpretation is.

thirdly, There is a vicious cycle involved. CIA arrest a guy because he's of fighting age and happened to be in afghanistan at the wrong time. He is a 'potential terrorist' They torture him to find out if he knows about any terrorist attacks, he doesn't but he names people or places to make the torture stop. He has just created a number of other 'potential terrorists' are then candidates for terrorism.

I would hardly call Afghanistan a 'Mecca' for Chechen and Arab holiday makers, particularly as it would appear to have become since the US invasion in 2001. Nor is it the type of country (pre or post Taliban) that is a magnet for immigrants and refugees (quite the opposite actually). They many thousands of Arabs and Chechens found in Afghanistan of fighting age, were terrorist fighters linked to Al-Qaeda and the Taliban. They are enemy combatants. Some more prized in terms of their knowledge base than others. Interrogating such terrorists is a vital part of the coalition forces' strategy. Not only does it provide information about the enemy structures in Afghanistan it also sheds light on the international structures used to funnel such terrorists into Afghanistan in the first place. Many of these fighters inevitably return to their respective homelands, maintaining links with al-Qaeda, ripe and ready to re-enact the skills they were taught in Afghanistan in their home countries and internationally.

Fourth, The U,S. army in Iraq regularly do full sweeps of areas where they have 'intelligence' that insurgents might be hiding. They storm houses and arrest all the men of fighting age. These are 'potential terrorists' based only on the 'intelligence' that they have received. According to testimony of returned soldiers, the vast vast majority of this 'intelligence' is false.

I will respond to that point later....[/i]

[rkeane]

I wonder if Bush was waterboarded, what would he say about his election results?

You wouldn't need to torture the idiot, just tank him with his favourite juice and the truth would be revealed.

[Akrasia]

First of all, we are all 'potential terrorists'.

Please forgive my loose wording. Of course anybody could 'potentially' be a terrorist; the people whom I am referring to are those who are strongly suspected of being terrorists. Usually with a large and detailed dossier of preliminary evidence so that the individual in question is rightly regarded with suspicion. I'm not referring to a random John Doe (or Mohammed Boe) who is picked off the street, detained and interrogated.

Strongly suspected? based on what? A dossier? Based on what? evidence of other tortured suspects? The only time torture could ever be justified would be if there was a ticking timebomb and you had the bomber in your custody and needed to know where it is. That kind of scenario never ever happens outside of movies and books.

Secondly, torture is an act of terrorism in itself. Saddam Hussain tortured his citizens, that is part of the reason America gave for invading Iraq.

Just because the US listed the torture/genocide of innocent Iraqis as one of the reasons for wanting to remove Saddam from power, does not mean they considered it to be a form of terrorism. I'm unaware of the US ever citing Iraq as having been a perpetrator of terror. I do know that they did tag Iraq as being part of an axis of evil and state sponsor of terror. If one considers interrogating terrorist suspects as being an act of terrorism in itself, they can........however nonsensical that interpretation is.

Torture is one of the worst crimes in international law. America used Saddams torture chambers as justification for their invasion. If it was wrong for Saddam to torture people, then it is wrong for America to torture people. The act of torture uses the threat of terror to extract information. It is terrorism on the micro scale. Terrorism targets innocents, so does torture, especially when used in a dragnet fashion based on age sex location and religion. This is what America does. (this point has been vindicated in numerous court cases taken against america by victims of rendition and internment)

thirdly, There is a vicious cycle involved. CIA arrest a guy because he's of fighting age and happened to be in afghanistan at the wrong time. He is a 'potential terrorist' They torture him to find out if he knows about any terrorist attacks, he doesn't but he names people or places to make the torture stop. He has just created a number of other 'potential terrorists' are then candidates for terrorism.

I would hardly call Afghanistan a 'Mecca' for Chechen and Arab holiday makers, particularly as it would appear to have become since the US invasion in 2001.

Right there, you have classified an entire country as 'potential terrorists'. You consider anybody to have visited there to be suspects in the war on terror. You have just betrayed your whole argument. And you assume that people who travel to afghanistan to fight against america are all terrorists. That is bullsh1t. Afghanistan is a war zone, a zone of occupation. People have a right to join in the fight against that occupation without being labeled as terrorists and tortured. Irish men fought with the british
against the nazis in WW2. were they terrorists?

Nor is it the type of country (pre or post Taliban) that is a magnet for immigrants and refugees (quite the opposite actually). They many thousands of Arabs and Chechens found in Afghanistan of fighting age, were terrorist fighters linked to Al-Qaeda and the Taliban.

so you think it's ok to torture enemy soldiers. That is a war crime.

They are enemy combatants. Some more prized in terms of their knowledge base than others. Interrogating such terrorists is a vital part of the coalition forces' strategy.

So you would think it fair game should captured U.S. or U.K. soldiers be tortured as well.

Not only does it provide information about the enemy structures in Afghanistan it also sheds light on the international structures used to funnel such terrorists into Afghanistan in the first place. Many of these fighters inevitably return to their respective homelands, maintaining links with al-Qaeda, ripe and ready to re-enact the skills they were taught in Afghanistan in their home countries and internationally.

like who?

[traynod]

Strongly suspected? based on what? A dossier? Based on what? evidence of other tortured suspects? The only time torture could ever be justified would be if there was a ticking timebomb and you had the bomber in your custody and needed to know where it is. That kind of scenario never ever happens outside of movies and books.

However the hell intelligence is gathered. Phone tapping, undercover surveillance, moles, email interception etc., etc. If based on such, evidence appears strong, a suspect is rounded up and the threat of a serious terrorist attack appears unacceptable. And if this individual is privy to sensitive information likely to result in the dismantling of the terror plot, then and only then should this individual be interrogated to the full rigours that the law permits. I'm NOT condoning torture, I don't believe the US tortures suspects....rather they use the maximum level of coercion permissible to extract information from these suspects and save lives. If I had a choice between an uncomfortable Khalid Sheikh Mohammed experiencing a bit of waterboarding or many thousands of individuals massacred by a terrorist dirty bomb, I know which option I'd choose.

Torture is one of the worst crimes in international law. America used Saddams torture chambers as justification for their invasion. If it was wrong for Saddam to torture people, then it is wrong for America to torture people. The act of torture uses the threat of terror to extract information. It is terrorism on the micro scale. Terrorism targets innocents, so does torture, especially when used in a dragnet fashion based on age sex location and religion. This is what America does. (this point has been vindicated in numerous court cases taken against america by victims of rendition and internment)

Saddam tortured political opponents, dissenters. America tortures no one. It interrogates terrorists. A shop criminal uses the threat of terror to extract money; its criminality yet its hardly terrorism. Anyway, this is besides the point. Whatever your objection to torture, stop calling it terrorism. Both are bad phenomena, but that hardly means they deserve the same definition. Let me reiterate however, the US does not utilise torture. It interrogates suspects, perhaps verging on torture, but not falling over the threshold. So stop 1) calling torture terrorism. That's retarded. 2) Stating that the US tortures suspects, it does not and I have never said they do. I am not condoning torture, I am condoning tough interrogation techniques for terrorists.

Right there, you have classified an entire country as 'potential terrorists'. You consider anybody to have visited there to be suspects in the war on terror. You have just betrayed your whole argument. And you assume that people who travel to afghanistan to fight against america are all terrorists. That is bullsh1t. Afghanistan is a war zone, a zone of occupation. People have a right to join in the fight against that occupation without being labeled as terrorists and tortured. Irish men fought with the british
against the nazis in WW2. were they terrorists?

Eh, no I didn't. I'm just not naive, perhaps you are. Several hundred Chechens in Afghanistan for no reason at all arouses suspicions. Precedent shows that Chechens are ardent al-Qaeda sympathisers. They fought in their droves in Bosnia. They are waging their own 'holy war' against the Russians (recall the Moscow theatre seige and Beslan school children massacre as two of their more notable Jihad contributions). They've been training in Afghanistan well before the invasion. Many were noted throughout Bin Ladens terror camps. They fought with the afghans, Bin Laden and other Jihadists against the commies in the late eighties. Chechens in afghanistan are Jihadists.

Yes I am assuming that those who go to Afghanistan to fight the 'occupiers' are terrorists. They fight with/for al-Qaeda. al-Qaeda is a terrorist group, hence they are terrorists. Recall, you short brained fool why the US attacked Afghanistan in the first place. You moron, don't equate the Iraq debacle with Afghanistan. While you might well question the Iraq motives, the Afghanistan motives were clear and noble. The US suffered a large scale attack on its soil. The perpetrators were in Afghanistan harbored by the Taliban (Educate yourself as to how noble a government this was. Even if the Taliban were not harboring al-Qaeda, eradication of the Taliban would have been a just enough reason for the west to invade Afghanistan so as to remove these animals from power). The US demanded the Taliban to extradite the al-Qaeda suspects...the Taliban said no, they took the piss. The US went in. NATO there now. NATO can't leave until Afghanistan is strong enough to resist the despotic Taliban returning.

I just can't get over the idiocy of people like you who give some moral credence to those who fight the so-called occupation of Afghanistan. Its idiots like you who make the left seem so stupid. What are they fighting for? To remove NATO troops from Afghanistan so that women can once again be treated like dogs? So the extreme perverted wahhabist Sharia law is once again forced on Afghanis, and when it is they return home to their own countries leaving the Afghanis to suffer? So public executions can once again return to state stadia? Research the Taliban you moron before you start complaining about the 'occupation' of Afghanistan.

So you would think it fair game should captured U.S. or U.K. soldiers be tortured as well.

This last piece of retardation shouldn't be dignified with a response, oh well....I'm now off to the pub.

good night, take care and thanks for the milk.

[The Earl of Desmond]

Should be interesting to see what affect - if any - the movie Rendition has in the US when it is released. Will it go right over their heads as it has a good cast and they'll think it's a story or will it make people - in the US - think about what their country is doing on their behalf?