cheney calls for documents showing "torture" worked to be released

[papalovesmambo]

Posted: 4/21/09 at 2:44pm

there's conflicting reports out there. cheney is saying he's asked for the declassification of memos showing the effectiveness of the so-called torture interrogations.

http://tinyurl.com/vaderboarding

greg sargent says his guy at cia says cheney has done nothing.

http://tinyurl.com/sargethroat

andrew sullivan says we should form a panel to review all the documents and release what can be released without compromising national security.

http://tinyurl.com/sullytruth

what do you think will happen?

[madbrian]

Posted: 4/21/09 at 2:51pm

I'm having trouble comprehending what subtantive results could be released without endangering national security.

Even so, is the proposition being put forth is that the ends justifies the means?

Personally, I think Obama has handled this pretty well. He's released the documents, stated that operatives working under DOJ guidance should not be prosecuted, but left the door open for prosecution of those who crafted the guidlines.

[papalovesmambo]

Posted: 4/21/09 at 3:03pm

mb, the argument being made in many quarters against the torture is that regardless of the ethical dilemma it was not effective. if the american people are shown that waterboarding a jihadi stopped an attack or saved lives, suddenly the issue is a bit less black and white.

[PalJoey]

Posted: 4/21/09 at 3:14pm

The Conservative News Service says that the CIA now confirms that waterboarding Khalid Sheik Mohammed prevented a 2005 airplane attack on Los Angeles that was supposed to be called the "Second Wave."

Cheney's defense will be that they changed the laws so that enhanced interrogation "may be used on a High Value Detainee only if the CIA has 'credible intelligence that a terrorist attack is imminent'; 'substantial and credible indicators that the subject has actionable intelligence that can prevent, disrupt or deny this attack'; and '[o]ther interrogation methods have failed to elicit this information within the perceived time limit for preventing the attack.'"

Therefore, he will say, there was no legal wrongdoing.
CIA Confirms: Waterboarding 9/11 Mastermind Led to Info that Aborted 9/11-Style Attack on Los Angeles

[DAME]

Posted: 4/21/09 at 3:20pm

Why does Cheney get to ask for anything? Why wont that troll just dissapear? I hated him then. I despise him now. He is a criminal and all I want to know about him as when they are dragging his tired ass to jail.

Updated On: 4/21/09 at 03:20 PM

[papalovesmambo]

Posted: 4/21/09 at 3:45pm

i turst cns about as much as i trust rawstory and see them as two sides of the same coin. but if that story is true and only three people were ever waterboarded? that sure changes things a bit. if the technique was subject to those specific rules and was used only in those specific circumstances and indeed prevented an imminent attack? that makes the grandstanding that has gone on over this technique look pretty stupid. even more stupid than i originally thought.

[Radiana]

Posted: 4/21/09 at 6:58pm

Updated On: 4/24/09 at 06:58 PM

[StickToPriest]

Posted: 4/21/09 at 7:15pm

"It couldn't be as bad as being burned to death like 3,000 people were in the Twin Towers."

No one is suggesting that they're in any way comparable. The point is we are a nation who places a higher value on human rights and dignity than terror organizations like al-Qaeda. We can't torture them and then say, "But what they do is worse." We shouldn't even stoop even slightly to their level in any way, shape or form. We have to place ourselves on a higher standard. Right? Well, I suppose that's largely what the argument boils down to...

[PalJoey]

Posted: 4/21/09 at 10:56pm

Is it painful or just uncomfortable?

It's been said it's not "like drowning." It IS drowning--and knowing that you're drowning. That's why it has been considered the most effective form of torture since the Spanish Inquisition.

It creates an immediate gag reflex that causes terror in the subject, followed by an urgent desire to breathe through the mouth, which fills the cheeks and throat with water until the stomach is distended and the subject begins to strangle. During all this, the subject is conscious.

The large amounts of water in the body cause extreme pain, damage to the lungs, brain damage from oxygen deprivation, and other physical injuries including broken bones due to violent struggling against restraints. There is always lasting psychological damage--indeed, that is what is so effective about it!--particularly after repeated treatments, which sometimes end in inadvertent death. Oops!

Waterboarding has been used to great effect by the Japanese and the Nazis during World War II, the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia, the Pinochet regime in Chile and, most recently, the Bush Administration.

It really is the most tried-and-true of torture techniques.

So, yes, indeed, it IS more than "just uncomfortable," you stupid twit.

[Phyllis Rogers Stone]

Posted: 4/21/09 at 11:15pm

Did anyone see Ari Fleischer on Anderson Coooper tonight? I felt bad for him. He seems to really be disillusioned here, although he still "but but but Clinton"ed a couple of times.

[Radiana]

Posted: 4/21/09 at 11:34pm

"You stupid twit"

O.K. you discribed waterboarding, can you discribe being burned to death and knowing you're being burned to death.

[Phyllis Rogers Stone]

Posted: 4/21/09 at 11:57pm

O.K. you discribed waterboarding, can you discribe being burned to death and knowing you're being burned to death.

Reading that post comes close.

[LaurenB]

Posted: 4/22/09 at 7:55am

If there is an imminent threat and time is of the essence, I don't care what method is used against someone who is possibly withholding information that could lead to the capture of terrorists and/or the saving of many lives. It's a no-win situation, but you risk one life versus hundreds. I'll go with the hundreds. Just imagine that one of your family members is in imminent danger. You're going to not try and save them because you think waterboarding is too torturous? I say bring in Jack Bauer.

FYI, I've had some encounters with near death experiences. I had been in a diving accident years ago and nearly drowned. Plus I was in a burning building and I can tell you that you will probably suffocate before you burn from the flames. If I can survive those experiences, so can a terrorist.

[papalovesmambo]

Posted: 4/22/09 at 8:13am

pj, what if the subject has no gag reflex?

[PalJoey]

Posted: 4/22/09 at 8:15am

Give him my number.

[papalovesmambo]

Posted: 4/22/09 at 8:23am

i demand an investigation into the practice of paljoey-boarding!

[papalovesmambo]

Posted: 4/22/09 at 8:33am

a day after josh amrshall and greg sargent went ape-s*** calling cheney a lair and a fraud and mocking his claim to have formally asked for the release of documents it turns out that he did exactly what he said he did. apologies? hah! more ridicule and sneering self-righteousness.
oh, yeah, he actually did request those documents

[madbrian]

Posted: 4/22/09 at 8:34am

If we rationalize and condone this, are we giving free rein to any of our enemies to do the same when our soldiers are captured, or when any American travelling abroad is accused of espionage?

[papalovesmambo]

Posted: 4/22/09 at 8:38am

how many lives is it right to sacrifice when our enemies are already doing much, much worse to our soldiers?

[Q]

Posted: 4/22/09 at 8:56am

"are we giving free rein to any of our enemies to do the same"

That almost sounds like you think they don't already.

[madbrian]

Posted: 4/22/09 at 9:06am

Sounds like part of your justification is that since our enemies do the same, it's OK for us.

[papalovesmambo]

Posted: 4/22/09 at 9:09am

sounds like part of your justification for not doing it is that if we don't do it neither will they.

[Q]

Posted: 4/22/09 at 9:10am

I don't see where I justified anything - or, in fact, gave any opinion on the matter - I was simply commenting on your statement.

[madbrian]

Posted: 4/22/09 at 9:18am

Then let me clarify. I have no misconception that our enemies have tortured and will continue to torture, irrespective of out actions. Despite this, we should live up to the standards set in our constitution and treaties we've signed, like the Geneva Convetion.

[papalovesmambo]

Posted: 4/22/09 at 9:23am

sorry, if it's a choice between living up to a treaty and saving american lives i'm on the side of saving american lives.

i'm sure the american people would understand though if it came out following an attack that cost hundreds of american lives that prior to the attack we had held a terrorist who had knowledge of the attack and rather than use any means necessary get from him the information necessary to stop the attack, we lived up to our treaty obligations and tried to coax the information out of him using the comfy chair.

Updated On: 4/22/09 at 09:23 AM