Courting disaster

VonVulcan · Post by **VonVulcan** » Fri Sep 23, 2011 5:11 pm

Anyone read the book? From the excerpts it looks like a very interesting read.

Here is an excerpt from "Courting Disaster":

Just before dawn on March 1, 2003, two dozen heavily armed Pakistani tactical assault forces move in and surround a safe house in Rawalpindi . A few hours earlier they had received a text message from an informant inside the house. It read: "I am with KSM."

Bursting in, they find the disheveled mastermind of the 9/11 attacks, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, in his bedroom. He is taken into custody. In the safe house, they find a treasure trove of computers, documents, cell phones and other valuable "pocket litter."

Once in custody, KSM is defiant. He refuses to answer questions, informing his captors that he will tell them everything when he gets to America and sees his lawyer. But KSM is not taken to America to see a lawyer Instead he is taken to a secret CIA "black site" in an undisclosed location.

Upon arrival, KSM finds himself in the complete control of Americans. He does not know where he is, how long he will be there, or what his fate will be.

Despite his circumstances, KSM still refuses to talk. He spews contempt at his interrogators, telling them Americans are weak, lack resilience, and are unable to do what is necessary to prevent the terrorists from succeeding in their goals. He has trained to resist interrogation. When he is asked for information about future attacks, he tells his questioners scornfully: "Soon, you will know."

It becomes clear he will not reveal the information using traditional interrogation techniques. So he undergoes a series of "enhanced interrogation techniques" approved for use only on the most high-value detainees. The techniques include waterboarding.

His resistance is described by one senior American official as "superhuman." Eventually, however, the techniques work, and KSM becomes cooperative-for reasons that will be described later in this book.

He begins telling his CIA de-briefers about active al Qaeda plots to launch attacks against the United States and other Western targets. He holds classes for CIA officials, using a chalkboard to draw a picture of al Qaeda's operating structure, financing, communications, and logistics. He identifies al Qaeda travel routes and safe havens, and helps intelligence officers make sense of documents and computer records seized in terrorist raids. He identifies voices in intercepted telephone calls, and helps officials understand the meaning of coded terrorist communications. He provides information that helps our intelligence community capture other high-ranking terrorists, KSM's questioning, and that of other captured terrorists, produces more than 6,000 intelligence reports, which are shared across the intelligence community, as well as with our allies across the world.

In one of these reports, KSM describes in detail the revisions he made to his failed 1994-1995 plan known as the "Bojinka plot" to blow up a dozen airplanes carrying some 4,000 passengers over the Pacific Ocean.
Years later, an observant CIA officer notices the activities of a cell being followed by British authorities appear to match KSM's description of his plans for a Bojinka-style attack.

In an operation that involves unprecedented intelligence cooperation between our countries, British officials proceed to unravel the plot.

On the night of Aug. 9, 2006 they launch a series of raids in a northeast London suburb that lead to the arrest of two dozen al Qaeda terrorist suspects. They find a USB thumb-drive in the pocket of one of the men with security details for Heathrow airport, and information on seven trans-Atlantic flights that were scheduled to take off within hours of each other:

* United Airlines Flight 931 to San Francisco departing at 2:15 p.m.;

* Air Canada Flight 849 to Toronto departing at 3:00 p.m.;

* Air Canada Flight 865 to Montreal departing at 3:15 p.m.;

* United Airlines Flight 959 to Chicago departing at 3:40 p.m.;

* United Airlines Flight 925 to Washington departing at 4:20 p.m.;

* American Airlines Flight 131 to New York departing at 4:35 p.m.;

* American Airlines Flight 91 to Chicago departing at 4:50 p.m.

They seize bomb-making equipment and hydrogen peroxide to make liquid explosives. And they find the chilling martyrdom videos the suicide bombers had prepared.

Today, if you asked an average person on the street what they know about the 2006 airlines plot, most would not be able to tell you much.

Few Americans are aware of the fact al Qaeda had planned to mark the fifth anniversary of 9/11 with an attack of similar scope and magnitude.

And still fewer realize the terrorists' true intentions in this plot were uncovered thanks to critical information obtained through the interrogation of the man who conceived it: Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.

This is only one of the many attacks stopped with the help of the CIA interrogation program established by the Bush Administration in the wake of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

Editor's Note: For other foiled terrorist plots, see page 9 of "Courting Disaster."

In addition to helping break up these specific terrorist cells and plots, CIA questioning provided our intelligence community with an unparalleled body of information about al Qaeda Until the program was temporarily suspended in 2006, intelligence officials say, well over half of the information our government had about al Qaeda-how it operates, how it moves money, how it communicates, how it recruits operatives, how it picks targets, how it plans and carries out attacks-came from the interrogation of terrorists in CIA custody.

Former CIA Director George Tenet has declared: "I know this program has saved lives. I know we've disrupted plots. I know this program alone is worth more than what the FBI, the Central Intelligence Agency, and the National Security Agency put together have been able to tell us."
Former CIA Director Mike Hayden has said: "The facts of the case are that the use of these techniques against these terrorists made us safer. It really did work.."
Even Barack Obama's Director of National Intelligence, Dennis Blair, has acknowledged: "High-value information came from interrogations in which those methods were used and provided a deeper understanding of the al Qaeda organization that was attacking this country."

Leon Panetta, Obama's CIA Director, has said: "Important information was gathered from these detainees. It provided information that was acted upon."

And John Brennan, Obama's Homeland Security Advisor, when asked in an interview if enhanced-interrogation techniques were necessary to keep America safe, replied : "Would the U.S. be handicapped if the CIA was not, in fact, able to carry out these types of detention and debriefing activities? I would say yes."

Tunnelcat · Post by **Tunnelcat** » Sat Sep 24, 2011 1:27 pm

Well, with friends like these, who needs enemies.

http://news.yahoo.com/pakistans-pm-gila ... 28917.html

As for torture, aka, waterboarding, actually working, an actual Al Qaeda interrogator and the U.S. Army Training Manual seem to disagree.

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article ... html?imw=Y

http://www.globalsecurity.org/intell/li ... apter1.htm

Marc Thiessen isn't exactly a "neutral author" in this case either. He WAS the speechwriter for George W. Bush AND Donald Rumsfeld after all. I smell some partisan history rewriting and image buffing.

And whether torture is accepted depends on a lot of factors:

http://filipspagnoli.wordpress.com/stat ... n-torture/

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Sat Sep 24, 2011 4:42 pm

TC, KSM, as a direct result of waterboarding, gave up the identity of an Al Queda messenger who led to another Al Queda messenger working for Ossama bin Ladin who we finally captured his voice in a cell phone call which then gave us his number which led to his location and we then followed him to bin Ladin's location as KSM implied we would, where the SEAL Team killed Ossama. And you proudly gave Obama credit for that....

So now you can find people who disagree with lots of stuff and poke your head in the sand beside theirs if it suits you but the reality is, if not for Obama failing to end the illegal wiretaps and the rest of Bush's methods in the War on Terror, Gitmo, etc., Ossama would still be in an unknown location plotting to strike again. So find a reflective surface and take a look at the "partisan history rewriting and image buffing" allegation again.

Zuruck · Post by **Zuruck** » Sat Sep 24, 2011 4:53 pm

Sure he did Will, sure he did. I heard he also gave up the location of the Easter Bunny while he was at it.

VonVulcan · Post by **VonVulcan** » Sat Sep 24, 2011 5:23 pm

You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink...

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Sat Sep 24, 2011 8:18 pm

Zuruck wrote:Sure he did Will, sure he did. I heard he also gave up the location of the Easter Bunny while he was at it.

Don't believe me Zuruck, listen to Obama's own man: Leon Panetta, the CIA director, has confirmed that controversial "enhanced interrogation techniques" such as waterboarding yielded some of the intelligence information that ultimately led to Osama bin Laden.

And how did we ever find out about KSM in the first place? Oh, that's right, we water boarded another Al Queda crazy, Abu Zubaida, and he gave up KSM....

But Zuruck says it isn't true so I guess if I want to be cool I need to deny it too because denouncing anything conservative is much more important than speaking the truth

Top Gun · Post by **Top Gun** » Sun Sep 25, 2011 12:29 am

This all comes back to a classic ends-justify-the-means question, though. These particular techniques provided some very useful information, but does that affect whether or not we choose to operate on that particular level?

Sergeant Thorne · Post by **Sergeant Thorne** » Sun Sep 25, 2011 8:28 am

I'd like to know your own and anyone else's thoughts about the implications of operating on "that level", TG. Looking on, it's one of the few areas where certain people's moral chart, if you will, seems to spike higher than anything that I'm familiar with, which I tend to assume means that its nothing more than high-minded nonsense.

In my mind, the idea of not showing unusual cruelty to captured enemy combatants is a good one. They are following orders, and fighting for their country, which is something anyone should be expected to appreciate, even if we happen to be on the other side of the conflict.

A terrorist is something else altogether, even if you manage to win the argument that he does what he does for some country, and not just against your own, the fact remains that he does not attack your country's military--your own soldiers in battle, but targets innocents in order to create fear and sway public opinion. Such a man is part of an organization that we should not be expected to identify with. While this murderer is in your prison you can be sure that his fellows plot atrocities against your country's innocents. A man who is party to that deserves no quarter, in my mind--the twisted son of a ★■◆● has chosen one which level we'll be operating when he signed on to kill noncombatants. In my mind water-boarding, considering the situation, is roughly equivalent to a slap on the wrist--I think I'd go a lot further.

Krom · Post by **Krom** » Sun Sep 25, 2011 8:51 am

Sergeant Thorne wrote:I'd like to know your own and anyone else's thoughts about the implications of operating on "that level", TG. Looking on, it's one of the few areas where certain people's moral chart, if you will, seems to spike higher than anything that I'm familiar with, which I tend to assume means that its nothing more than high-minded nonsense.

In my mind, the idea of not showing unusual cruelty to captured enemy combatants is a good one. They are following orders, and fighting for their country, which is something anyone should be expected to appreciate, even if we happen to be on the other side of the conflict.

A terrorist is something else altogether, even if you manage to win the argument that he does what he does for some country, and not just against your own, the fact remains that he does not attack your country's military--your own soldiers in battle, but targets innocents in order to create fear and sway public opinion. Such a man is part of an organization that we should not be expected to identify with. While this murderer is in your prison you can be sure that his fellows plot atrocities against your country's innocents. A man who is party to that deserves no quarter, in my mind--the twisted son of a ★■◆● has chosen one which level we'll be operating when he signed on to kill noncombatants. In my mind water-boarding, considering the situation, is roughly equivalent to a slap on the wrist--I think I'd go a lot further.

Good thing you aren't in charge then. Allowing your personal feelings to influence the methods used to extract information from a captive is a bad idea; the goal is not to punish them, it is to extract useful information from them.

Sergeant Thorne · Post by **Sergeant Thorne** » Sun Sep 25, 2011 12:05 pm

I think you're referring only to my last sentence, Krom.

I wrote:In my mind water-boarding, considering the situation, is roughly equivalent to a slap on the wrist--I think I'd go a lot further.

And you misunderstood me. I'm not talking about punishment at all, I'm talking about how far we as a country are willing to go to put a stop to this, with regard to the interrogation and torture of captured terrorists. I'd just as soon the sorry son of a ★■◆● broke down on the spot and spilled his guts in remorse for what his fellow terrorists are wanting to do, and be granted leniency, but I don't think that would happen very often.

By the way I'll throw in that I believe that a suspected terrorist should be innocent until proven guilty in a court of law, and then he should be tortured if there is a need to get information.

Tunnelcat · Post by **Tunnelcat** » Sun Sep 25, 2011 1:33 pm

Will Robinson wrote:And how did we ever find out about KSM in the first place? Oh, that's right, we water boarded another Al Queda crazy, Abu Zubaida, and he gave up KSM....

But Zuruck says it isn't true so I guess if I want to be cool I need to deny it too because denouncing anything conservative is much more important than speaking the truth

Did you NOT read Soufan's statement in the Time article? Harsh tactics were NOT USED on Abu Zubaydah, and the relevent information WAS obtained from him.

"In an op-ed piece in the New York Times, Soufan says Abu Zubaydah gave up the information between March and June 2002, when he was being interrogated by Soufan, another FBI agent and some CIA officers. But that was not the result of harsh techniques, including waterboarding, which were not introduced until August. "We were getting a lot of useful material from [Abu Zubaydah], and we would have continued to get material from him," Soufan told TIME. "The rough tactics were not necessary."

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Sun Sep 25, 2011 2:48 pm

tunnelcat wrote:
Will Robinson wrote:And how did we ever find out about KSM in the first place? Oh, that's right, we water boarded another Al Queda crazy, Abu Zubaida, and he gave up KSM....

But Zuruck says it isn't true so I guess if I want to be cool I need to deny it too because denouncing anything conservative is much more important than speaking the truth
Did you NOT read Soufan's statement in the Time article? Harsh tactics were NOT USED on Abu Zubaydah, and the relevent information WAS obtained from him.

"In an op-ed piece in the New York Times, Soufan says Abu Zubaydah gave up the information between March and June 2002, when he was being interrogated by Soufan, another FBI agent and some CIA officers. But that was not the result of harsh techniques, including waterboarding, which were not introduced until August. "We were getting a lot of useful material from [Abu Zubaydah], and we would have continued to get material from him," Soufan told TIME. "The rough tactics were not necessary."

OK, lets assume he gave up KSM prior to his water boarding. KSM didn't give up the path to bin Laden until he was waterboarded. So maybe the interigators thought Zubaydah had even more so they tried the waterboarding, if that's the way it went then good for them for being thorough. If they just wanted to see him suffer then bad on them..but that doesn't make me want to abandon using the tactic, it just makes me want better supervision of those performing the deed.

Now, more important, if Obama instead of Bush was in charge and he had actually done what he said should be done with these guys NEITHER of them would have given up anything because they would have been given lawyers in the U.S. Court system instead of a trip to GITMO!
Bush ultimately gave Obama the means to find bin Laden. You gave Obama credit for getting bin Laden but you want to deny the way he did it was by going against his word and following the methods Bush laid out.

I enjoy pointing out your hypocrisy because it is symptom of the disease that eats away at the quality of our political system, this stupid allegiance to one of the two big partys instead of standing for principles and calling bull★■◆● on anyone, from any Party, who does the wrong thing.

Jeff250 · Post by **Jeff250** » Sun Sep 25, 2011 3:19 pm

ST, do you think that protection from cruel and unusual punishment is a universal right? If not, then is our constitutional protection from cruel and unusual punishment a mistake? Or are U.S. citizens somehow special in this regard?

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Sun Sep 25, 2011 3:39 pm

Jeff250 wrote:ST, do you think that protection from cruel and unusual punishment is a universal right? If not, then is our constitutional protection from cruel and unusual punishment a mistake? Or are U.S. citizens somehow special in this regard?

Didn't he say he wasn't talking about punishment at all?
We execute people here in the land of freedom from cruel and unusual punishment don't we? Should execution be outlawed simply by virtue of the cruel and unusual provisions?

Jeff250 · Post by **Jeff250** » Sun Sep 25, 2011 5:44 pm

Capital punishment, in general, isn't cruel and usual. Certain kinds of capital punishment can be cruel and usual, but that's why those are outlawed.

You concede that torture for information is cruel and unusual, but your argument is that it isn't punishment? If not for it's illegality, then why don't we torture terrorists who are U.S. citizens for information? Why is there that difference?

When you torture someone for not giving you information, then you're punishing them for not giving you information.

In any case, dwelling on the word "punishment" is being pedantic.

Sergeant Thorne · Post by **Sergeant Thorne** » Sun Sep 25, 2011 7:53 pm

I don't believe that torturing someone who is party to ongoing, random mass-murder is cruel and unusual. I believe that as a "punishment" torture does not serve a purpose, but that as a means of preventing further impeding atrocities it is not beyond what is reasonably warranted.

Ferno · Post by **Ferno** » Sun Sep 25, 2011 8:00 pm

so you think torturing someone will act as a deterrent?

VonVulcan · Post by **VonVulcan** » Sun Sep 25, 2011 8:09 pm

Ferno wrote:so you think torturing someone will act as a deterrent?

Where did you get that? I get prevention as in getting info on their plans and stopping the terrorist act before it happens.

Top Gun · Post by **Top Gun** » Sun Sep 25, 2011 11:01 pm

Well obviously Thorne keeps the whole "love thy enemies" thing close to heart.

But to answer your earlier question, I don't see how the labels "enemy combatant" or "terrorist" have any bearing whatsoever on the morality of extreme "interrogation" techniques. To spin it another way, I don't see our prison systems using similar techniques on brutal serial killers to ascertain if they were responsible for additional cold cases. By most definitions, these individuals deliberately terrorize whole communities, or even regions...yet we don't do things like waterboard them. What makes someone like KSM functionally different from Hannibal Lecter?

And oh, while we're talking about "levels," do we really want to operate at the same level as civilian-targeting scum just because "they started it"? Can our country claim to stand for any legitimate ideals if we're that willing to get down and dirty?

Sergeant Thorne · Post by **Sergeant Thorne** » Mon Sep 26, 2011 4:32 am

The notion of torturing prisoners/murders to obtain information about past crimes is pretty far removed from what we're talking about.

Top Gun wrote:And oh, while we're talking about "levels," do we really want to operate at the same level as civilian-targeting scum just because "they started it"? Can our country claim to stand for any legitimate ideals if we're that willing to get down and dirty?

You would go a long way toward providing an answer to my original question if you could explain what these legitimate ideals are and then more specifically why they're at odds with torture in such extreme cases. Also when I said that the terrorist has chosen what level we're operating on it doesn't mean that we're operating on their level, it means that what they're doing is so heinous--so bad that the situation will only be satisfied by taking some very harsh steps.

CUDA · Post by **CUDA** » Mon Sep 26, 2011 6:15 am

Top Gun wrote:What makes someone like KSM functionally different from Hannibal Lecter?

Lecter was a man acting alone. and once caught, there was no need to look into possible future killings.
while KSM belongs to a network of assassins that are planning future attacks that are preventable. HUGE difference.

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Mon Sep 26, 2011 6:19 am

Top Gun wrote:..., I don't see our prison systems using similar techniques on brutal serial killers to ascertain if they were responsible for additional cold cases. By most definitions, these individuals deliberately terrorize whole communities, or even regions...yet we don't do things like waterboard them. What makes someone like KSM functionally different from Hannibal Lecter? ...

Besides fiction and reality?

One big difference is a Hannibal Lecter type prisoner isn't part of an organization of equally dangerous people at large and at work trying to continuously cause mass destruction.
That is probably the main reason you don't see U.S. law amended to provide for enhanced interrogation techniques.

At the core of our behavior and customs civility is a luxury not an inherent trait. We aspire to peacefulness and all sorts of warm-fuzziness-for-all but we live in a world where violence between people has always been the ultimate arbiter.
It's a good thing we look down on cruelty but the hard truth is the only reason we don't water board rapists is they don't posses intel about where the next rapist will strike.

Jeff250 · Post by **Jeff250** » Tue Sep 27, 2011 5:20 pm

Why don't we torture domestic terrorists? Why don't we even torture the Islamic terrorists who are U.S. citizens?

Will wrote:At the core of our behavior and customs civility is a luxury not an inherent trait.

Human rights are an inherent trait.

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Tue Sep 27, 2011 6:03 pm

Jeff250 wrote:Why don't we torture domestic terrorists? Why don't we even torture the Islamic terrorists who are U.S. citizens?

Probably because the ones we've encountered and arrested haven't been one member of an ongoing imminent threat. Otherwise you would be seeing provisions made in law that would be something along the lines of assigning certain prisoners 'enemy combatant' status which would strip them of their civil rights.

Ever see Unthinkable? When the FBI agent picks up the scapel? That's who we are....

Jeff250 wrote:
Will wrote:At the core of our behavior and customs civility is a luxury not an inherent trait.
Human rights are an inherent trait.

No, compassion is and sometimes it is prudent to override it. Rights are just a concept.

Jeff250 · Post by **Jeff250** » Tue Sep 27, 2011 7:17 pm

Will wrote:Probably because the ones we've encountered and arrested haven't been one member of an ongoing imminent threat. Otherwise you would be seeing provisions made in law that would be something along the lines of assigning certain prisoners 'enemy combatant' status which would strip them of their civil rights.

You cannot expatriate a U.S. citizen against his will. The rest of our rights as U.S. citizens are pointless if you can arbitrarily strip someone of citizenship. The reason why we don't torture domestic terrorists or other criminals isn't because it has never been very useful. It's because it would be unconstitutional.

Will wrote:No, compassion is and sometimes it is prudent to override it. Rights are just a concept.

In this country, our constitution acknowledges that we have the right to not be tortured. There are no exceptions for committing heinous crimes, committing terrorism, or withholding life-saving information. In fact, we even have a right to "remain silent" and not to self-incriminate ourselves. I'll reask my original question: Is our constitutional protection from cruel and unusual punishment a mistake? Or are U.S. citizens somehow extra-deserving than citizens of other countries in this regard?

Sergeant Thorne · Post by **Sergeant Thorne** » Tue Sep 27, 2011 7:26 pm

Where does a terrorist's right not to be tortured come from?

Human rights do not reside somehow in the individual at all--they are not an "inherent trait", as such. Our historic and present grasp (if indeed we grasp it correctly) of "human rights" is derived from an understanding of who we are before God and in relation to each other, because that is where our rights come from. We have basic equal rights because we are all on a certain level the same--"created equal". When one individual trespasses against another and infringes on a common/human right, despising that right and putting their own desires or purposes above it, they have infringed on that person's rights in denial of their equal standing before their creator. When you say that it infringes on a terrorist's human rights to torture them you are in ignorance of the fact that the whole situation is already very much out of balance--that they are by virtue of their association and allegiance actively engaged in grossly infringing on the rights of others. What about the rights of the people they have murdered and expect to murder (as a group)? How defensible are a man's "rights" when they exist in violation another's?

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Tue Sep 27, 2011 8:13 pm

Jeff250 wrote:... I'll reask my original question: Is our constitutional protection from cruel and unusual punishment a mistake? Or are U.S. citizens somehow extra-deserving than citizens of other countries in this regard?

I choose none of the above. Our protection is not a mistake but it isn't magical either. It's more like a mere technicality if you insist on trying to frame it like you are.
We are covered, they are not. It is just a line drawn where it was because it suits us. It's a good idea, a good place to work from in the conditions that existed when the line was drawn. Let those conditions deteriorate too much and the lines will be gone.

We erase those lines and redraw them from time to time. Right now if we capture foreigners waging mass destruction we don't group them in with our criminal citizens, we want to be able to put more pressure on them than we allow to be placed on our citizens. Last I heard if you are a foreigner here out of uniform waging war you can be hung by the neck with no trial.
Simple, line drawn...segment erased...redrawn with a bit of a curve in it to accommodate our desire to cover that scenario.

If there was a serious al Queda-like group of domestic terrorists causing mass death and destruction and we were constantly capturing one or two at a time and we knew they had critical information about upcoming attacks you would see those uncrossable lines you think are tattooed on our souls are really more like memos sketched on a steamy mirror. There would be changes to the law, emergency lifting of rights...whatever it takes to stop the mass murder. It has happened before. Why do you think it couldn't happen again?

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Wed Sep 28, 2011 5:23 am

Ferno wrote:so you think torturing someone will act as a deterrent?

No more than than the threat of locking someone up for smoking pot will deter one from using weed.

Jeff250 · Post by **Jeff250** » Thu Sep 29, 2011 5:39 pm

ST wrote:When one individual trespasses against another and infringes on a common/human right, despising that right and putting their own desires or purposes above it, they have infringed on that person's rights in denial of their equal standing before their creator. When you say that it infringes on a terrorist's human rights to torture them you are in ignorance of the fact that the whole situation is already very much out of balance--that they are by virtue of their association and allegiance actively engaged in grossly infringing on the rights of others.

So you're taking the first option--our Constitution is too generous in giving protection from torture and self-incrimination to all criminals. We should amend it so that the government can torture some kinds of domestic criminals and deny them their right to remain silent so that we can remain consistent with our foreign policy. This is at least consistent. I'm not comfortable with your analysis though. It's not like criminals were an unexpected corner case when these rights were written. Protection from torture and self-incrimination are rights specifically given for criminals. If our founding fathers thought that committing crimes denied you these rights, then why did they expressly give them to criminals?

Will wrote:If there was a serious al Queda-like group of domestic terrorists causing mass death and destruction and we were constantly capturing one or two at a time and we knew they had critical information about upcoming attacks you would see those uncrossable lines you think are tattooed on our souls are really more like memos sketched on a steamy mirror. There would be changes to the law, emergency lifting of rights...whatever it takes to stop the mass murder. It has happened before. Why do you think it couldn't happen again?

I don't think it's impossible for the government to violate our rights. It's done so in the past, it's doing it now, and it will do it again, using all sorts of justifications. But I don't think that this demonstrates what you think it's demonstrating. Showing that the government can violate our rights doesn't mean that we don't really have them--it means that our rights were violated.

As a side note, we actually allow lifting of some rights temporarily, such as habeus corpus in the case we have a non-functioning court system, but we've still abused even this one in the past.

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Thu Sep 29, 2011 7:49 pm

Jeff250, If the suspension of a "right" passes the challenge that it is unconstitutional then the "right" is no more.
I know it says 'endowed by our creator' or something to that extent but ultimately it was just a man that thought that up, God didn't author the Constitution or Bill of rights so just-a-man can take them away, legally. I guess it is a semantic argument really but the point I was making relative to this thread is to illustrate our willingness to change our standards to suit our situations regardless of the constitutional conflict of doing so.

Jeff250 · Post by **Jeff250** » Fri Sep 30, 2011 2:29 pm

Ah yes, we do, but that doesn't always mean we should.

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Fri Sep 30, 2011 3:21 pm

Jeff250 wrote:Ah yes, we do, but that doesn't always mean we should.

I guess my opinion on that would have me rephrase it slightly:

We do but that doesn't mean we should adopt it as standard operating procedure.

In context of the torture discussion, I like the way it was before when the policy was - we don't torture - but in the field we sometimes would if circumstances warranted it and the upper ranks would protect the lower ranks for doing so as long as the motive was pure.

When politics started trumping security in the minds of some of the players we started to lose the ability to maintain that contradictory practice. That and the quality of the enlisted men and private contractors went to hell so purity of motive has become a rarity.

flip · Post by **flip** » Fri Sep 30, 2011 6:48 pm

I imagine if you just simply deprived someone of food and water, in just a few days they would begin cooperating. You have to put pressure on people in these situations, but you have to be a sadistic sob to do some of the stuff they were doing. You can't tell me there isn't a little bit of satisfaction causing pain to terrorists in light of their deeds, right Thorne?

flip · Post by **flip** » Fri Sep 30, 2011 6:58 pm

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yGE-jNxxV6A

I think this happened in the 60's too

Sergeant Thorne · Post by **Sergeant Thorne** » Sat Oct 01, 2011 1:43 pm

flip wrote:... You can't tell me there isn't a little bit of satisfaction causing pain to terrorists in light of their deeds, right Thorne?

I think taking satisfaction in something like that is putting yourself in a compromised position, at best.

flip · Post by **flip** » Sat Oct 01, 2011 7:17 pm

Yeah I agree. The answer has to be yes or no, otherwise it kinda feels like letting someone else do your dirty work and on top of that, once you allow it for anyone it becomes a possibility for everyone. If all someone wants is information, there are ways to get it without being sadistic. I would think just depriving someone of essentials would be enough. Subject them to hunger and dehydration and exposure. Put it all in their hands, and if the SOB chooses to die instead of cooperate, give him an honorable burial. He may be screwed up in the head, but at least he's sincere.

Heretic · Post by **Heretic** » Sun Oct 02, 2011 1:12 am

flip wrote:I imagine if you just simply deprived someone of food and water

Yet some would think that simple act is torture itself.

Stanford Encyclopedia Philosophy defines Torture as

1. Definition of Torture

Torture includes such practices as searing with hot irons, burning at the stake, electric shock treatment to the genitals, cutting out parts of the body, e.g. tongue, entrails or genitals, severe beatings, suspending by the legs with arms tied behind back, applying thumbscrews, inserting a needle under the fingernails, drilling through an unanesthetized tooth, making a person crouch for hours in the ‘Z’ position, waterboarding (submersion in water or dousing to produce the sensation of drowning), and denying food, water or sleep for days or weeks on end.

flip · Post by **flip** » Sun Oct 02, 2011 4:50 am

I think a distinction can be made between torture and deprivation. Torture is to inflict.
Deprivation is to deny.

VonVulcan · Post by **VonVulcan** » Sun Oct 02, 2011 5:23 am

Like beauty, it seems torture is in the eye of the beholder.

flip · Post by **flip** » Sun Oct 02, 2011 6:44 am

True, but you gotta draw a line somewhere, that's just where I draw mine.