Dammit, Condi. (torture)

[LucyDuke]

The CIA's use of waterboarding to interrogate terrorism suspects was approved by Condoleezza Rice as early as 2002, a senate report reveals.

As national security adviser, Ms Rice consented to the harsh interrogation of al-Qaeda suspect Abu Zubaydah, the Senate Intelligence Committee found.

Memos released last week show that he and another key detainee were subjected to waterboarding 266 times.

Former Vice-President Dick Cheney has said the techniques produced results.

The latest details were revealed in a timeline of the CIA's interrogation programme produced by the US Senate Intelligence Committee.

It shows Ms Rice and other top Bush administration officials were first briefed about "alternative interrogation methods, including waterboarding", in May 2002.
The CIA is reported to have wanted to use the techniques to interrogate Abu Zubaydah, who was captured in Pakistan in March 2002.

In a meeting with the then-CIA Director George Tenet in July 2002, Ms Rice "advised that the CIA could proceed with its proposed interrogation" of Zubaydah, subject to Justice Department approval, the report says.

A year later, the CIA briefed officials including Ms Rice, Mr Cheney and Attorney General John Ashcroft on the use of waterboarding and other methods.

The officials "reaffirmed that the CIA programme was lawful and reflected administration policy", the Senate report says.

CIA memos released by President Barack Obama's administration last week revealed that Zubaydah was waterboarded at least 83 times and self-confessed 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammad 183 times.

Other interrogation methods mentioned in the memos include week-long sleep deprivation, forced nudity and the use of painful positions.

Former Vice-President Dick Cheney has called for the release of additional documents that he said would show what the techniques yielded.

Earlier this week, President Obama left open the possibility of prosecuting officials behind the CIA's harsh interrogation techniques, saying it would be up to the attorney general to prosecute.

He had been criticised by human rights groups and UN officials after saying, when the memos were released, that CIA personnel working from Bush administration legal opinions would not face prosecution.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8013759.stm

I just lost a lot of respect for Condi. (Never had any for Cheney or Ashcroft.)

Also, I agree with Cheney, I want to see what they got out of this.

 

[Cutlass]

No surprises here.

 

[El_Machinae]

I find it weird that Cheney's objection is getting so much airtime, considering how obfuscatory it is.

I mean, don't we expect warcrimes to give a temporary strategic advantage? How incompetent would a gov't have to be to authorize warcrimes and not gain an advantage. I mean, sure, we'd like to see the cases it helped crack some case. But then, how about all the times the Geneva Conventions were violated without any productivity?

Anyway, this saddens me, because people liked Condi. It will be frustrating that she'll be one of the leaders who authorized an illegal order that was then carried out.

 

[aelf]

Welcome to the bureaucratization of violence. Yet another nail for those who would sing praises of democracy blindly.

 

[Simple Simon]

well, what DID they get out of it?

I know for sure that if they needed to waterboarded the 'he was the toughest, but cracked in less than 2 minutes' guy roughly a hundred times, then he was giving them a bunch of male cow feces. Otherwise, why do it so often?

or did they do it for fun?

 

[warpus]

Also, I agree with Cheney, I want to see what they got out of this.

Me too, but that list would be worthless without an accompanying list of all the dead ends and all the lies that were told by the people being tortured.

 

[Simple Simon]

Me too, but that list would be worthless without an accompanying list of all the dead ends and all the lies that were told by the people being tortured.

You are talking about the other 82 and 182 cases?

 

[scherbchen]

as Jon Stewart said: after having been waterboarded for 92 times don't you go "you guys aren't really going to drown me, are you?" when you come into the chamber again? (paraphrased a ton)

not a laughing matter, I know. typed itself...

as for the yields: how does that even matter? is a crime against humanity less of one because it benefits you? is murder okay when you can get away with it? is cheating on your spouse? or is going to war for all the wrong reasons and then claiming you had gone to war for different reasons, that make better PR, make it ok when you sorta win that war?

 

[innonimatu]

You know that old belief that the inability to maintain "conspiracies" secret would deter conspirators?

This whole torture thing proves exactly the opposite: everyone in positions of power had been briefed about what was happening, apparently. And now everyone wants the whole story to just go away - and it will have to go away, because there's no chance that they'd all tumble from power.

Moral of - sorry, lesson from - this story: if you're going to override the law, get as many people on board as you can, and do it as arrogantly and openly as possible.

 

[Simple Simon]

is a crime against humanity less of one because it benefits you?

as with any crime, you must look for the motivation, as well as whether the person committing it really was convinced that he/she would achieve his/her aim.

If you now assume a morally positive aim (e.g. saving an innocent person), the crime weighs less bad than if the aim is e.g. personal profit.

In this case, the CIA and others knew - or could have known if they had bothered to check well-known facts - that the effect would not be as desired, so there is no (partial) excuse.

 

[scherbchen]

as with any crime, you must look for the motivation, as well as whether the person committing it really was convinced that he/she would achieve his/her aim.

continued.

I believe I challenge that view though it might play out in court I guess. Nixon meant well from his pov I suppose. Hitler surely did. sorry that I have to resort to these overused examples. (which rule of the internet was that again?)

 

[El_Machinae]

It doesn't matter. The Geneva Conventions were formed with the understanding that there would be strategic disadvantage to compliance. And Milgram long ago taught us about people following immoral orders.

What's funny is that there are quite a few military folk who emphasise repeatedly that they're taught to refuse an illegal order. I guess the CIA and Condi aren't military.

 

[Simple Simon]

continued.

I believe I challenge that view though it might play out in court I guess. Nixon meant well from his pov I suppose. Hitler surely did. sorry that I have to resort to these overused examples. (which rule of the internet was that again?)

Oh, the abyss is deep, obviously. But the other end of the scale is killing someone with slightly too much vigor in the defense of someone else's life (e.g. you slit the abductor's throat instead of knocking him out). In many countries, erring when aiding is penalty-free, but still a crime. Morally, however, you will agree that this is not really that bad, I guess.

So yea, it is a crime, and morally bad. But if someone is firmly convinced, then that is a partial(!) excuse. In the cases you mentioned I'd say that a certain amount of mental instability (megalomania) was involved. I am not excusing either Nixon's or Hitler's actions, but if either of them had (as far as I can judge) acted in BAD faith, that would be even worse than it was.

 

[scherbchen]

but then again it is about subjectivity and who presides over the case (read: is in power) isn't it, Simon? the reason to have laws, absolute and internationally respected laws (with the obvious caveats) is that this should not matter. now the US is a special case when it comes to this, but still....

to cintinue my horrible example: had the Axis won Churchill would have probably been tried at Nuremburg, Stalin surely would have... (insert rumbling sound the incoming train of alternate history experts make as they bear down on me)

 

[Perfection]

Condi could torture me any day.

 

[Simple Simon]

but then again it is about subjectivity and who presides over the case (read: is in power) isn't it, Simon? the reason to have laws, absolute and internationally respected laws (with the obvious caveats) is that this should not matter. now the US is a special case when it comes to this, but still....

to cintinue my horrible example: had the Axis won Churchill would have probably been tried at Nuremburg, Stalin surely would have... (insert rumbling sound the incoming train of alternate history experts make as they bear down on me)

Don't start mixing up (potential) flaws in the system with the principles behind the system.

Now, I am sure you know that when someone breaks a law the court will always look at the motivation, to determine the degree of guilt. That is applicable here as well.

 

[FriendlyFire]

Former Vice-President Dick Cheney has called for the release of additional documents that he said would show what the techniques yielded

I call for the release of the 3 Million deleted emails. Which was accidently deleted, removed from trash can, accidently removed from backup mail server and accidently written over to prevent recovery.

 

[Formaldehyde]

I just lost a lot of respect for Condi. (Never had any for Cheney or Ashcroft.)

I'm just surprised it took you this long. All the halfway respectable token blacks left after the first term, if not long before.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4gqaw5UnHA4

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VjSoKy7jNUQ

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v0wbpKCdkkQ

 

[Simple Simon]

I call for the release of the 3 Million deleted emails. Which was accidently deleted, removed from trash can, accidently removed from backup mail server and accidently written over to prevent recovery.

No release before waterboarding and a military trial

 

[scherbchen]

Don't start mixing up (potential) flaws in the system with the principles behind the system.

Now, I am sure you know that when someone breaks a law the court will always look at the motivation, to determine the degree of guilt. That is applicable here as well.

I thought I was pointing out the principles. the reason to have universal laws and all that. breaking those is bad. breaking those because you think you are doing good is still bad. you are still breaking the law. if you think you are in the right go ahead but be prepared to stand trial for having broken those laws. then you are subject to the flaws you are mentioned. potentially preventing a crime from happening does not exempt you from falling under the same set of rules as the crime you are going to prevent (as you exemplified in your example about slitting somebody's throat).