Waterboarding Used 266 Times on 2 Suspects

[TX-Beau]

How could Sheikh Mohammed's water-boarded confession have prevented the Library Tower attack if the Bush administration "broke up" that attack during the previous year? It couldn't, of course. Conceivably the Bush administration, or at least parts of the Bush administration, didn't realize until Sheikh Mohammed confessed under torture that it had already broken up a plot to blow up the Library Tower about which it knew nothing.

http://www.slate.com/id/2216601/

 

[TX-Beau]

"The scientific community has never established that coercive interrogation methods are an effective means of obtaining reliable intelligence information," former military interrogation instructor and retired Air Force Col. Steven M. Kleinman wrote in the Intelligence Science Board report. "In essence, there seems to be an unsubstantiated assumption that 'compliance' carries the same connotation as 'meaningful cooperation.'"

In short: Slam someone up against the wall, keep him awake for days, lock him naked in a cell and slap his face enough, and he will probably say something. That doesn't necessarily make it true.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gnfAvCwlj47h69HUZLqX5kxLMkGgD97NC4380

Torture doesn't work.

 

[HenryReardon]

Now obviously we felt that once our actions changed that would probably change perceptions as well, but as far as terror goes, our actions needed to change because a strongly allied nation with many international partners working together is a better defense against terror than an unwieldy unilateral nation. It was not just for a popularity contest.

Neither Afghanistan nor Iraq were "unilateral" actions.

 

[opinterph]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/28/AR2009032802066.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/18/world/middleeast/18zubaydah.html?_r=3&hp

http://www.slate.com/id/2216601/

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gnfAvCwlj47h69HUZLqX5kxLMkGgD97NC4380

TX-Beau,

Any reference to an external source should also include an explanation of how your quote relates to the topic under discussion … For example; you should include your own personal criticism, illustration, clarification, parody, or summary of the work you are quoting.

 

[TX-Beau]

Waterboarding wasn't legal, we've prosecuted people for it and sent them to prison.

On Jan. 21, 1968, The Washington Post published a front-page photograph of a U.S. soldier supervising the questioning of a captured North Vietnamese soldier who is being held down as water was poured on his face while his nose and mouth were covered by a cloth. The picture, taken four days earlier near Da Nang, had a caption that said the technique induced "a flooding sense of suffocation and drowning, meant to make him talk."

The article said the practice was "fairly common" in part because "those who practice it say it combines the advantages of being unpleasant enough to make people talk while still not causing permanent injury."

The picture reportedly led to an Army investigation.

Twenty-one years earlier, in 1947, the United States charged a Japanese officer, Yukio Asano, with war crimes for carrying out another form of waterboarding on a U.S. civilian. The subject was strapped on a stretcher that was tilted so that his feet were in the air and head near the floor, and small amounts of water were poured over his face, leaving him gasping for air until he agreed to talk.

"Asano was sentenced to 15 years of hard labor,"

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/04/AR2006100402005.html

 

[TX-Beau]

TX-Beau,

Any reference to an external source should also include an explanation of how your quote relates to the topic under discussion … For example; you should include your own personal criticism, illustration, clarification, parody, or summary of the work you are quoting.

I though it was pretty self explanatory myself , but OK I'll go edit what I can.

 

[White Eagle]

Saddam didn't have wmd? Tell that to those ethnic groups in his own country, against whom he used them. Even your sainted Al Gore says so:

http://www.aim.org/wls/saddam-hussein-used-wmd/

“f you allow someone like Saddam Hussein to get nuclear weapons, ballistic missiles, chemical weapons, biological weapons, how many people is he going to kill with such weapons? He’s already demonstrated a willingness to use these weapons; he poison gassed his own people. He used poison gas and other weapons of mass destruction against his neighbors. This man has no compunctions about killing lots and lots of people.”

Source: NewsMax.com, November 23, 2005, 1:20 p.m. EST.
Hardcopy: Copy of NewsMax item.
Where: During a conversation with Larry King on “Larry King Live.”
When: December 16, 1998.
Contributor: AIM.
Category: WMD

You DO realize that this article was in 2005 and the poison gas and all was in 1998. This had nothing to do with the WMDs that Bush went into Iraq for.
Jesus, Henry, pay attention to what you post. We call it reading.

 

[White Eagle]

http://www.slate.com/id/2216601/

You must have missed my post to jackoroe. #55 (I believe)

http://waterboarding.org/success_story

Khalid Shaikh Mohammed was captured in Rawalpindi, Pakistan on March 1, 2003 — after the plot was discovered, after the plot was "derailed", after the pilot of the plane was captured. Khaled Sheikh Mohammed could not have "provided valuable information and saved lives" when all aspects of the plot were well-known and the attack had been foiled prior to his capture.

 

[HenryReardon]

You DO realize that this article was in 2005 and the poison gas and all was in 1998. This had nothing with the WMDs that Bush went into Iraq for.
Jesus, Henry, pay attention to what you post. We call it reading.

Of course, it has everything to do with the WMDs that Bush (and all other politicians, including prominent Democrats) were talking about.

Jesus, pay attention and comprehend, as well as read.

The whole world knew that Saddam had WMD and was developing more.
Of course, the UN screwed around for 12 years giving him time to hide them or more likely, move them into the desert in Syria. We'll never know, for sure.

The fact remains, - He had WMD; he used WMD on his own people; and, it would seem, he had every intention of continuing to do so.

It wasn't very smart of Bush to have harped so on the WMD issue - he had ample authority under the UN resolutions to do what he did.

 

[hotatlboi]

It wasn't very smart of Bush to have harped so on the WMD issue

Oh of course it was. He wouldn't have gotten his way had he not. What the war ultimately became about (liberating the Iraqi people) would not have sufficed as the initial justification. Bush knew what he had to do, and that was to hype up the fear as much as he could.

 

[White Eagle]

Of course, it has everything to do with the WMDs that Bush (and all other politicians, including prominent Democrats) were talking about.

Jesus, pay attention and comprehend, as well as read.

The whole world knew that Saddam had WMD and was developing more.
Of course, the UN screwed around for 12 years giving him time to hide them or more likely, move them into the desert in Syria. We'll never know, for sure.

The fact remains, - He had WMD; he used WMD on his own people; and, it would seem, he had every intention of continuing to do so.

It wasn't very smart of Bush to have harped so on the WMD issue - he had ample authority under the UN resolutions to do what he did.

Ok, we'll try it this way.
Give me some cites that Saddam had WMDs.
You are not even trying to understand what went on.

 

[naked gent]

The fact remains, - He had WMD; he used WMD on his own people; and, it would seem, he had every intention of continuing to do so.

I can see the difference between using such weapons on your own defenseless people to maintain power as opposed to using them on a major world power who could obliterate you should you decide to engage them.

For most americans the case that had to be made was that their lives could be in danger not the lives of innocent iraqi's.

And with the national security advisor saying things like 'we don't want the smoking gun to be in the form of a mushroom cloud' that is the (false) case that was made.

Oh of course it was. He wouldn't have gotten his way had he not. What the war ultimately became about (liberating the Iraqi people) would not have sufficed as the initial justification. Bush knew what he had to do, and that was to hype up the fear as much as he could.

Exactly right. And even if that point is over Henry's head it was understood by those who made the case for war.

 

[HenryReardon]

Ok, we'll try it this way.
Give me some cites that Saddam had WMDs.
You are not even trying to understand what went on.

Been there, done that. Evidently you blinked.

 

[TX-Beau]

You must have missed my post to jackoroe. #55 (I believe)

http://waterboarding.org/success_story

Actually I wasn't aiming that at anyone in specific, just the general idea that what Bush/Cheney did was somehow not torture, effective, and legal, and the false claim that it somehow foiled the supposed LA bombing, which it didn't.

 

[jackoroe]

Waterboarding wasn't legal, we've prosecuted people for it and sent them to prison.

And we even waterboard our own soldiers. No prosecutions here. Must be OK!

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...--i-did-it-myself-says-us-advisor-398490.html

 

[TX-Beau]

And we even waterboard our own soldiers. No prosecutions here. Must be OK!

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...--i-did-it-myself-says-us-advisor-398490.html

Yes we waterboard them to train them how to deal with being captured and tortured.

If you're incapable of seeing the distinction I can't help you.

 

[HenryReardon]

Actually I wasn't aiming that at anyone in specific, just the general idea that what Bush/Cheney did was somehow not torture,

What was done could only be considered torture by liberal bedwetters whose collective thongs are in a wad because a few murdering scumbags might have been made uncomfortable.

 

[hotatlboi]

What was done could only be considered torture by liberal bedwetters whose collective thongs are in a wad because a few murdering scumbags might have been made uncomfortable.

Just stop it. You people have the same tired old song. No one opposed to torture is so because they care one bit about the terrorists it was used on.

It's about the rule of law, and us fulfilling the international treaties we are party to.

 

[HenryReardon]

Just stop it. You people have the same tired old song. No one opposed to torture is so because they care one bit about the terrorists it was used on.

It's about the rule of law, and us fulfilling the international treaties we are party to.

If you really believe that nonsense, I've got a bargain for you in Florida real estate. I guarantee it's dry (once in a while). LMAO

 

[hotatlboi]

And we even waterboard our own soldiers. No prosecutions here. Must be OK!

In a training situation, the soldier knows what the method is. He knows the risks, practices, and common usage of the method. He knows that he is not in any imminent danger of death. He knows that it is just a training simulation.

When it was used during an interrogation, it is intended to provoke an actual sense of urgency and fear. It is intended to make the subject fear for his life and contemplate that his captors could actually kill him. And since that's what it feels like, if the person isn't previously aware of the technique, he could think that is what is actually happening.

It isn't even close to the same thing.