Calling out Christiane Amanpour
I told you the other day about Marc Thiessen’s must-read book, Courting Disaster, on how the Left and Obama are sabotaging all the effective intelligence-gathering programs that the Bush administration created to prevent jihadi attacks after 9/11.
Thiessen is taking the fight directly to the liberal lion’s den, and called out Christiane Amanpour on CNN for her own misleading reporting on the CIA interrogation programs.
It’s too early to grab the popcorn, but pull up your bowl of cereal and coffee and watch. This is how more GOP lawmakers need to take on the White House, Democrat majority, and pro-jihadi propagandist media. Head on, with the facts, to set the record straight once and for all:
See what others have said
Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
 |
KSM and company go on military trial, face death penalty
April 4, 2012 01:30 PM by Michelle Malkin
65 Comments
Video of the day
February 21, 2012 12:31 PM by Michelle Malkin
70 CommentsThe trial of the last Haditha Marine: SSgt Wuterich takes plea deal
January 23, 2012 03:25 PM by Michelle Malkin
59 Comments
The last Haditha Marine: Trial update, prosecution collapse, plea deal in the works?
January 19, 2012 05:49 PM by Michelle Malkin
56 Comments
The last Haditha Marine: Wuterich trial update
January 5, 2012 06:19 PM by Michelle Malkin
26 Comments
Remember SSgt Frank D. Wuterich: The last Haditha Marine goes on trial
January 2, 2012 12:24 AM by Michelle Malkin
57 Comments
“Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men.”
December 25, 2011 03:26 AM by Michelle Malkin
75 CommentsJoe Biden: The Taliban Per Se is Not Our Enemy
December 19, 2011 04:06 PM by Doug Powers
105 Comments
Remembering Pearl Harbor: 70 years
December 7, 2011 10:10 AM by Michelle Malkin
123 Comments
Categories: War
Nice Deb
» The Organized Left Now Stalking RomneyNewsBusters.org
» Very Annoyed Matthews Rips ‘Horse’s Ass Right-Wingers’ Who Cite ‘Thrill Up My Leg,’ Calls C-SPAN Host a ‘Jackass’Nice Deb
» Uncovered Ad Shows Obama Appeared At 1996 Event Hosted By Democratic Socialists of AmericaNice Deb
» Uncovered Ad Shows Obama Appeared At 1996 Event Hosted By Democratic Socialists of AmericaNewsBusters.org
» Reuters's Freeland: 'Anorexic' Americans Think Tax Bite Too Heavy When In Fact It's Dangerously Thin
When you look into the eyes of the wives and mothers of 557 young men who expect you to keep their loved ones alive it’s no d@mned fantasy.
When you have to present a folded flag to the father of one of your 20 year old soldiers, because the mother is to overcome with grief to take it you will not think it is no fantasy either.
I cannot speak for others, but at that point, for me, things got pretty clear.
Notice the left can not debate without resorting to insults. Rather than answer a question they know would prove them wrong, they start with the naive, immature, etc comments. I see this all the time. They don’t listen, because they are too busy preaching to you.
Chap is a solicitor not a barrister
I know what is torture however, PARTIAL BIRTH ABORTION, and it is torture of the innocent.
Well, it’s quite simple, really. The first proposition is the substance of my argument.
However, assuming I were willing to concede that the barbarians find waterboarding unpleasant (thus my words If we accept the proposition…), I don’t think it meets the threshold of being any big deal, for the reasons I stated.
Assuming, for the purposes of argument, a position contrary to your own is a well-known rhetorical device that is eminently logical. In fact, it is a technique that is frequently employed in mathematical proofs, which, as you may be aware, are the epitome of logic.
So, again, I would be sincerely grateful if you could point out some substantial logical flaws in my argument.
My contention was not that intelligence can’t save lives. It seemed to me you were advocating an absurd ticking time bomb Jack Bauer scenario. If that was not your contention, my apologies.
But, am I to take it you believe it is not appalling to torture the innocent child and wife of a detainee so that someone you are close to may not be killed?
I’m the source. I observed it first hand. I’d rather not get too specific, but she was declaring a refugee crisis was ending when it was clearly NOT ending.
We called Atlanta to provide them with our evidence, but later watched Christiane tell the world that the crisis was definitively over.
We called Atlanta again and were told that she wanted to put the story to bed because she was due elsewhere the next day.
Funds instantly dried up for the efforts to help the refugees.
Well said.
We are in an existential struggle, a war, for our and our civilization’s existence;
and some individuals, dismissive of or willfully ignoring reality, including but not limited to Amanpour, are stressed out because the damaged Titanic’s deck chairs are arranged incorrectly (in their opinion);
or, in my new favorite metaphor, they want only to contemplate and bu!!$h*t like the German and (most of the) ancient Greek philosophers while the other side is playing the “soccer game”.
Please. Now you’re being an ass.
I could just as easily claim that an American undergoing training actually doesn’t have the power to end his waterboarding session.
Hardly. You are inserting an assumption into your argument to fill a gap in your logic. Ultimately, it comes down to the interrogator’s belief. Not objective reality. You assume the two coincide perfectly. I have seen no evidence that this is a valid assumption.
You could, except that is absolutely wrong, as many of the people that underwent it have told us here. If you want to pull up a story about a soldier or Marine that didn’t have it stop immediately upon his say so, I’d be willing to look at that.
You see, this is what really annoys me about you people. We are not talking about torturing the wife or child of a detainee. We are talking about waterboarding the detainee. The guy who is a terrorist (non-uniformed combatant). If you think that the detainee is totally ignorant of the techniques we use to interrogate captives then you are either naive or so jaded by liberalism to see the truth.
They know we won’t kill them by waterboarding them. They know we don’t go after their family. They know that we don’t go all Jack Bauer on them. And yet they choose to be terrorists.
Ditto the terrorists.
Big Al Q: “Men, I can promise you that you will never feel fear, nor discomfort, nor pain of any kind until you blow yourself to bits.”
Recruit: “Sounds good, where do I sign?”
Yes, I am a former jack-booted thug that your tax dollars paid for to promote the political will of the United States.
Why do I not think that waterboarding is torture? Because I dont care. At the end of the war everyone goes home with no physical or mental damage.
A few books to review as to why I sleep at night:
>On Killing: The Psychological Cost of Learning to Kill in War and Society
Bulletproof: The Making of an Invincible Mind
> On Combat, The Psychology and Physiology of Deadly Conflict in War and in Peace
> Sharpening the Warriors Edge: The Psychology & Science of Training
This is all an excellent mental exercise though. Its keeps the mind sharp.
No. I was talking about DBNinKY’s definition of torture.
Been fun all, but shockingly, I actually have some work to do.
And of course, by “work” I mean “lie and cheat in an adversarial manner to extract the best outcome for my client by any means possible.”
There is NO gap in my logic.
I make no such assumption, and it’s silly for you to think that I did.
Nobody had the power to stop it on their say so. They had to convince the interrogator that they wanted it stopped. How can you possibly claim this isn’t true?
Torture smorture! Call it whatever the f you want! I just don’t want to hear that a suitcase nuke or dirty bomb was snuck into Fenway Park just because some hanky twisting pantywaist thought it was icky!
Btw, I think it’s hilarious that Christiane Amanpour doesn’t even know what waterboaring is.
Interesting phenomenon. If you see a post with 200+ comments you will generally find chap pi$$ing off the patrons.
Jokely Coakley lost chap. Take a stiff belt and some meds and deal with it.
Then you agree that a detainee cannot just call it off by objectively giving all the info he has.
The detainee can call it off by fully cooperating with the interrogators.
Dude, this is no different that someone required to cooperate by testifying in court. Under the threat of incarceration without due process, they are required to answer questions – not simply give info they have.
You’re the one who keeps insisting on applying the “torture” label.
For the record, nowhere did I assert that “waterboarding was not torture because it was not gratuitous”. My apologies if my wording was deficient to the extent that it led you to believe that was my position.
Also, I never said anybody “deserved” anything. I said that they should expect it. Which they obviously do, so I don’t see the problem. They embark on a course of action fully aware of the possible consequences, so when those consequences are realized, they should not complain, and neither should anyone complain on their behalf. Billions of people every day face the consequences of their actions, good or bad, and don’t make a federal case of it.
You began by trying to argue the point that waterboarding should not be applied because it is ineffective, pointing out the number of times the savages were waterboarded as evidence that it was a pointless technique.
Subsequently, you agreed that it was effective, because it produced results.
Then you proceeded to say, that, despite its effectiveness, it’s bad because a) the barbarians get really scared, and b) it may have been applied gratuitously.
I replied by saying that a lot of people get really scared — many of them for reasons more noble than protecting terrorists. And, contrary to your apparent position, not everybody who is in a terrifying position can get out of it by shouting “STOP”. So even if the detainees do get really scared, what’s the big deal? They’re not going to die, and they know it. Otherwise, what were they training for?
And if they think being waterboarded is bad, what would they think of being blown to pieces? If they would prefer, we can certainly arrange that. As non-uniformed combatants, our military have every right to kill them on the spot, as is being done now by the Obama administration to suspected terrorists.
So, in case it needs further clarification, my rhetorical device was to assume I conceded the point that the savages do not like being waterboarded, and were willing to, and in fact, did turn over all information in their possession immediately, but yet their interrogators ostensibly didn’t believe them, and proceeded with treatment. From that premise, I argued that harsh or not, the prisoners should not complain about their treatment, as they should have fully expected it.
So, either waterboarding is so mild that it took many sessions to extract information, or it is harsh, and inconveniences the savages, but should come to them as no surprise, even if they, and some third party who wasn’t there, assert that it was applied unnecessarily. Therefore, knowing full well what might befall them, the savages shouldn’t complain, nor should uninterested third parties.
Seems logical to me.
You go from saying the detainee has the power to call it off by convincing the interrogator he is cooperating fully without explaining AT ALL how an interrogator is supposed to know, objectively, whether the detainee is or not. You simply state the detainee has “the full power”, whatever that means, to do so.
I don’t understand how you can think that there is any comparison between the two situation in this regard.
And by the way, the judge will determine when the witness is cooperating. And the S.Ct. has determined that this is the same as the witness having the keys to their own cell.
The same way a judge is supposed to know, objectively, if a witness providing obligatory testimony. If you don’t like that, then blame the S.Ct.
I did NOT argue that. I argued that one had to conclude that either waterboarding was ineffective or that waterboarding was being used when there was no more intelligence to get. I concluded the later.
See…that is arguing in the alternative.
I have already said that this becomes the subjective decision of the Court.
I never said whether this was good or bad. It is, in fact unavoidable. I merely said it was not in the hands of the detainee (or person in contempt). it is up to the person who decides whether or not the person is genuine.
Thanks, war is not rules, war is not ideals, war is the strength of one peoples will to win against their enemies will to do harm.
There’s only win at all cost or lose and suffer a much worse fate.
There’s no do overs, there’s no Johnnie cheated, there’s only victory or defeat.
Its not kindergarten sandbox, its real and its effect is permanent.
And that includes the person who decides whether or not the trainee is genuinely attempting to quit the training.
Agreed.
Sorry, not only did I not understand that from your post, but now that I understand your position, I still believe you are in error.
Effective means achieving desired results. The barbarians talked, therefore results were achieved, therefore, the waterboarding was effective, unless you are asserting that the same results would have been achieved without waterboarding. If that is your assertion, can you please explain by what technique?
But I can’t see how you proceed from “it took 87 treatments to get results” to “therefore its ineffective, or otherwise gratuitously applied”. It’s already clear the treatment was effective, as results were obtained.
Did it really need 87 treatments to get the results that the interrogators ended up with? That seems to be subject to some debate, but calls into question not the effectiveness, but the efficiency.
If, in fact, it did legitimately need 87 treatments, then, despite its effectiveness, waterboarding may not have been as efficient as other techniques that would have required fewer treatments.
But there is no reason to conclude, from the argument presented, that waterboarding was applied unnecessarily.
So you present a false dichotomy, which, if accusations of flawed logical reasoning are being leveled, may well be at the top of the list.
chapoutier,
When things calm down on this thread I’m going to ask you to name interrogation techniques that you don’t think are torture.
For starters, I’ll assume that you don’t think mere detainment is torture. First question will be, do you think it’s torture to threaten someone with life in prison or the capital punishment during the detainment?
What if the detainee’s wife and child could be convicted of murder and receive the death penalty? Would it be wrong to threaten the detainee that the wife and child will be prosecuted for the murder and likely be handed death sentences?
Fru,
You missed the fact that, according to the CIA itself, Abu was “ready to sing” after 30 seconds.
Sorry, I misstated the question.
Is it torture to threaten prosecution of a wife and child in states which allow capital punishment?
Right. And the other 4.5 minutes was done for pure enjoyment.
How long does it take you to do 87 pours? I’m not sure why the efficiency is being called into question.
No. I think there has to be an element of immediacy.
I don’t quite follow. Are they actually accused of something? Or are you just saying something like “Abu, if you don’t give up the information now, we are going to gin up some murder charges for your wife and kid. Hopefully they won’t rot in prison or get the chair, wink, wink…”?
You don’t think this has occurred? Hello..Abu Grhaib?
Torture- In the Liberal mindset – is no air conditioning for the terrorists in the tropics. Oh, the Humanity.
That’s true, I did miss that. Does “sing” mean that he provided complete and comprehensive data, or could it include the possibility that what he gave up was incomplete, self-contradictory and either probably or in the balance of probabilities clearly false and disingenuous?
Well, it’s all relative. If you had the choice of applying treatment “A” once, or treatment “B” 87 times, both yielding the same result, then by some measures, treatment “B” is less efficient. The point I was making is that they are equally effective provided they eventually produce the same result. This was in the context of the discussion with Chapoutier, and was hypothetical.
I did not necessarily make any judgment about any particular technique — the argument was really more one of my trying to understand Chapoutier’s logic, and get to the bottom of what he sees as the flaws in my argument.
Sorry, I mangled that. I meant to type
either clearly or in the balance of probabilities false and disingenuous.
Not during waterboaring – absolutely not.
No interrogator was charged with anything associated with Abu Grhaib – the guards/staff were.
You do realize that there are worlds of differences between the professionalism of career interrogators and weekend warrior sentries, right?
Not if treatment A took four days and cost $40,000, and 87 treatment Bs took a total of 10 minutes and cost $500 dollars.
Yes, that’s exactly correct. That’s why I said “by some measures”.
Maybe I could have stated this better:
The initial point was to draw the distinction between effectiveness and efficiency. If two different treatments achieve the identical result with equal probability, they are equally effective, although one may be more or less efficient than the other, for some predetermined definition of “efficiency”.
I would recommend you read this article and tell me whether or not you think something is very fishy.
Something is very fishy – the reporting.
But then again, I don’t know much about Gitmo. For example, when did the California national guard take over for the Marines?
Anyway, maybe someone will investigate what happened down in Gitmo. Maybe they’ll put the Vice Admiral on the stand and ask him if he ordered the code red.
What, specifically, did you find lacking?
You find it believable that three men simultaneously bound, gagged and hung themselves in their cells? And were not discovered until two hours later, even though each cell is to be checked every 10 minutes?
What part about the attempted resuscitation…the one that knocked out teeth, did you find most believable?
Do you find the accounts of Hickman, Penvose and Carrol just balderdash?
Why were the throats cut out? Or do you simply not buy that part of the story?
I have no problem believing that California national guard (if that’s what they were – and if they weren’t then the story has serious problems) allowed the checking interval to slip from 10 minutes to two hours over the course of time (lax atmosphere).
Hickman’s sounded like he fancied the fantastic without a firm grasp of the actual. Some of his statements make this obvious. “This place doesn’t exist” was one such statement. And these all sound like guys that weren’t used to “sensitive” operations.
And do these guys claim that the 10 minute rule wasn’t broken?
Forget the guy’s name. Let’s call him John from Texas. John and those that surround him are part of a criminal gang. Law enforcement want information about the gang from him. John’s wife and daughter are said to have committed some murders but none of those lead have been specifically investigated yet.
Law enforcement threatens John with the life of his wife and daughter. Now, is this torture?
Next question. Do you think it’s torture to deny a detainee from eating food for more than 5 hours? Subject him to white noise or loud music? Grab him by the scruff? Punch him in the face?
I don’t get your fixation on the California National Guard. I think the story makes it pretty clear that they were merely the unit that Hickman’s unit relieved at Gitmo. I don’t think they were there when the incident occurred.
Threatens the life on the wife and daughter, or simply the prosecution of them, which could lead to a death penalty? If they are threatening the life, as in “I am going to go to that next room and blow your daughter’s brains out all over the wall”, I think that, under certian circumstances be torture if the threat is credible. Is it the WORST form of torture? No.
No.
No.
No.
Maybe. If it was repeated and unprovoked.
Yeah, I don’t know. I guess it was Navy personnel that would have let the 10 minute checks slip to 2 hours.
What do you think may have happened? A waterboarding operation gone bad on all three people at once? Doesn’t a coordinated suicide make more sense? Hasn’t that happened before at Gitmo?
“Btw, I think it’s hilarious that Christiane Amanpour doesn’t even know what waterboaring is.”
Well, water is involved, and some questions are asked. By this standard hundreds of thousands of evangelical Christians are waterboarded when they are submerged in baptism.
So you might allow unprovoked face punching during interrogation as long as it wasn’t repeated?
Or is that just your definition of torture?
Only the FOOLs will sit down with terrorists and have a coffee talk – hoping that by being nice to the bad animals they can extract equally good information as torture would.
The odds are higher for the animals to spill the beans once their resistance level has exhausted but the torture has not ended yet.
Granted, some of those animals tell you what you want to hear, to end their painful interrogations. So What? Discard the false information.
Besides, our men and women didn’t pick up innocent kids selling flowers at Baghdad or Kabul’s street corners?
Our armchair warriors and intelligentsia in the Academia and Media are well versed in identifying what is wrong or uncivil.
They have mastered the technique of using Historical information in developing Chicano Study or African American study or some other topics throughout American college campuses.
Our Human history is full of wars and conflicts. Has anyone come up with Historical compilations on how to coerce and extract useful information from the enemy combatants which would help us avoid future wars and conflicts?
Does Christiana or her ilk have suggestions on what would be a surefire way of getting information from terrorists without inflicting any pain and suffering to them?
How about Christiana hole up with these falsely accused terrorists in a Resort Penthouse and pamper them with food, fun and entertainment? May be she will have better success than the CIA at Gitmo.
I enjoyed that movie, too. It was fiction.
With regard to terrorism I feel lucky for all of us. Sometimes it is good to be lucky. Do you agree? I am unwilling to sacrifice fellow citizens to luck. I am not willing to sacrifice our citizens to techniques that are not proven to work.
I have demonstrated that good police work and yes sometimes luck has proven successful. Where is the proof that EIT works?
Are you willing to sacrifice your fellow citizens wasting time and effort on techniques that do not work?
His getting to that point was also a failure of EIT.
Trying one more time -
The administration cited specific examples of successes in the war on terror. Success is scored by the number of terrorists captured or killed. How many terrorists were captured or killed with respect to the Library Towers plot?
Every other example cited was supported by presenting terrorists captured or killed.
Where are the Library Tower plotters? Where is the proof? All the other administration cited examples of success were the result of good police work and luck.
Oh yeah, trust me EIT worked, I just can’t prove it. Do you really accept that answer?
No, but I wouldn’t consider it torture.
Please provide proof that other interrogation tools have been proven successful.
It’s absurd to think that water boarding doesn’t help interrogators to extract information during certain situations.
It’s fine to argue whether or not it should be used (I don’t think it should be), but don’t argue that it can’t be effective – or that scientific proof is necessary.
I think the article is quite clear on what it thinks happened:
And yes, I find it more likely that an interrogator went wayyyy too far and killed them than I do that three people, who were essentially in solitary, coordinated stuffing rags down their mouth to the point of choking, and in this state then were able to bind their hands, climb the toilet, slip a noose around their neck, tighten it (still choking and bound) and then jump.
I also find compelling the evidence of a systematic coverup, including the fact that the guards who allegedly neglected their duties for 2 hours were never disciplined, the throat being removed from each of the bodies, and the heavily redacted official report from NCIS.
In response to the following from
January 21st, 2010 at 11:40 am, chapoutier said:
On January 21st, 2010 at 11:57 am, DBNinKY said:
I find that response regarding Chapoutier’s scenario distressing. In fact I find that scenario distressing. I’ve actually seen the victims of such acts, Not only are the people to whom the unspeakable acts done to victims, so are the people that have to endure the sights, sounds, smells and other sensory inputs. Call me weak and lilly livered if you feel you must, but while I don’t feel waterboarding even in the manner executed by the CIA, which I don’t recall being very different from my experience at SERE school (and that perhaps because unlike some, I have a pretty high tolerance for ‘water induced apnea’) with nose and mouth occluded by a cloth that water was poured onto at an angle that made heightened the sensation. That physical stress is nothing like the torment that people have inflicted upon others throughout the world.
Maybe others would think less of me, but I not just will not, but cannot stoop to the acts I’ve seen used by the Sandinistas, Contras, the FNLA, FARC, AQI and the Taliban et alia over the years. The way some folks here talk, they’d be using tongs and thumbscrews, branding irons and more to try to ellicit information from terrorists. I can agree with shooting them outright but cannot abide to stooping to their level.
So, let me get this straight. The Bush administration is quilty of torture for making a few mass murderers, like KSM, uncomfortable during harsh interrogation. It doesn’t matter that KSM is still in good health and no permanent injuries occurred during these sessions. It’s still “torture”. It’s still equivalent to burning out someone’s eyes with a hot iron, or roasting someone slowly inside a brass bull.
This is nonsense. The watering down of the definition of torture is motivated by pure politics. Do these Bush haters and Obama supporters accuse Obama of torture? Just like Bush, Obama continues to use unmanned drones to attack suspected terrorists overseas, and rightfully so. (But I’m not the one concerned with the rights of terrorists.)
No one can argue that innocent people have not been killed and wounded by these drone attacks. These people were not convicted in a court of law before they were executed. They didn’t even get a hearing or a lawyer nor were their rights read to them before they were maimed or killed. And we’re arguing over whether waterboarding is torture?
Someone in Pakistan invites a suspected terrorist to dinner and a child sleeping next door gets her legs blown off in a drone attack. Apparently that’s ok. But pooring water on the face of a mass murdering terrorist in an attempt to save lives is torture? If you had a choice between having your limbs blown off or being waterboarded by the CIA, which would YOU choose?
These silly arguments on torture are not motivated by values, they’re motivated by politics and politics alone. These are the same people who defend partial birth abortions, where an innocent and viable fetus is killed in a barbaric procedure at the end of the delivery process. These are the same people who voted for Obama knowing that he voted against giving medical aid to infants who survive an abortion procedure, even if that means leaving the baby alone in a closet to die a slow and torturous death. When these people pretend to be offended by the safe but harsh treatment of terrorists, it’s not because of their “values”. It’s to score political points.
If you don’t believe me, just wait until the next 911 occurs on Obama’s watch. Just wait until they are rudely awakened by a reorganized terrorist group and no longer feel safe in their own neighborhoods. Then their objections to harsh interrogation techniques, which they now insist are “torture”, will evaporate like frost before the rising sun.
No one, at least no one here, ever claimed there were not gradations of torture.
No. It is not okay. It is also not a deliberate choice made in a controlled environment. Silly comparison.
On January 21st, 2010 at 6:06 pm, chapoutier said:
Beg to differ, It is a deliberate decision made in a controlled environment. The control room for a drone located in CONUS is definitely a very ‘controlled’ environment. The situation room either in CONUS or CENTCOM where those decisions to shoot or not shoot are most definitely controlled and in some cases the decision is made by a man who is even more distant then those already mentioned who is either in residence at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue or Air Force One or anyone of his vehicles, helicopters or other temporary situation rooms while on one of his numberless junkets.
Frankly, I think the interrogator is in a less controlled environment. But that’s an opinion.
I’m glad at least you acknowledge that. But you would never get that idea from Obama. The whole reason he equated harsh interrogation techniques to torture was to score political points and claim superior values. He wanted people to equate Bush with the agents of the Spanish Inquisition. I have never heard him make any reference to “degrees” of torture. Have you?
The word “torture” comes from the latin word for twist or disfigure. It traditionally refers to treatment that results in perminent damage or a slow, painful death. By watering down the definition, it can now include anything that causes discomfort. And that makes a mockery of real torture.
In an interview, a man just released from Gitmo was asked if he had been tortured. He said “yes”. He then explained that he had been separated from his family, which was torture to him. How do you argue against that? If anything that causes discomfort is torture, then being separated from his family caused this man great discomfort and thus was torture.
Paris Hilton was humiliated by her stint in jail, especially having to wear that awful jumpsuit. Since our definition of torture now forbids “humiliating treatment” of prisoners, wasn’t she tortured?
If torture is always wrong, and any degree of torture must be outlawed, how can you justify putting anyone in prison? It causes them great discomfort and humiliation. It is a degree of torture. But we do it to protect society. And that is the same reason legal forms of harsh interrogation were used on terrorists. Yes, we have to be careful where we draw the line. But lowering the bar just to score political points leaves society less protected.
The left will call anything torture, from the spanking of children to putting a terrorist next to a “poisonous” catapiller, as long as it suits their political purposes. It has nothing to do with “values”. We know this because when one of their own is the guilty party, they ignore the misdeed, or they bend over backwards to make excuses for it. If it’s not a Republican violating the rules, their new found “values” suddenly disappear from the conversation.
I would assume, however, it is not controlled in the sense that they can choose to kill the terrorist in the living room, while sparing the life of the innocent child in the adjoining bedroom.
That is more the sense that I meant.
Papa, I will explain to you my definition of torture when I return. But it will not be until late tonight.
On January 21st, 2010 at 8:30 pm, chapoutier said:
More that they can choose what they believe is ‘acceptable’ level of ‘corollary damage’. More so, perhaps than a sniper. The choice is always one of when and where. In a way this moral decision of what is ‘acceptable’ in the way of interogation techniques is similar to that of how much ‘corollary damage’ is ‘acceptable’.
War is Hell.
Mick Jagger? Is that you?
CNN’s war slut.
It doesn’t seem likely that an interrogator went way too far overboard and killed three guys on the same night.
Btw, what was described wasn’t waterboarding. So, I assume you’re saying that if those actions can get out of hand – to the point of death – then waterboarding can, too. Even if true, that not a reason to consider waterboarding torture. Anything can get out of hand.
Based on the article, I absolutely think so. I understand that this is simply a point we will have to agree to disagree.
Correct. My point in bringing this up was to rebut your assumption that trained interrogators do not lose control. Not tied to any specific method of interrogation per se.
I think you should base your opinions on more than just one article, but ok. Even if an interrogator was going too far, I think he would have reigned himself in after he killed the first guy. Why would he allow himself to destroy another potential source of intelligence?
I never stated any such assumption. I never stated that accidents couldn’t happen. Our guys die during all sorts of training frequently. I happened to believe that any such high visibility operations are probably more controlled than you’re giving them credit for.
Then you came pretty dang close.
I am not talking about accidents. I am talking about sadism.
High visibility? Are you kidding? We have had to scratch and claw for any and all information interrogation techniques at Gitmo.
Then you are cuckoo.
Surely you admit there’s a difference between: 1) a waterboard operation not lasting 10x longer than necessary for “pure enjoyment”; and 2)interrogators never losing control.
I have no doubt you believe that most such interrogators are barely able to restrain their whimsical desires to cause anguish and torment on detainees. I believe that any such interrogators are, for the most part, highly professional and attempting to do a job the best they can.
Learn the difference between visibility and transparency. High visibility means subject to the likely interest of the chain of command.
As opposed to cleaning toilets – there’s no risk that the chain of command will take an interest in toilet cleaning. I have no doubt that toilet cleaning operations are susceptible to rogue lunatics breaking the rules to get the job done since they’re confident nobody is looking over their shoulder. I don’t put waterboarding operations in the same category, but accidents can still happen.
Now, regardless whether or not a waterboarding operation lasts 10x longer than necessary (5 minutes versus 30 seconds), that still doesn’t make it torture.
You think interrogators are all cherry and cream pie, and I am the one that’s cuckoo?
Be clear.
No doubt you are aware I said nothing of the sort.
Well, lets talk about that little “for the most part”, shall we? Or rather, what happens during that “less part”?
Lose the attitude. I have no idea if you are in the military or whether or not you have any special knowledge of military terminology. But I am pretty sure you know I do not. If by “high visibility” you mean with respect to the chain of command, then you should have made that clear, especially when one could just as easily assume a plain meaning definition.
But do you think that Abu Ghraib was high visibility enough? They sure as hell were not able to keep control there. I mean hell, they only had a Brigadier General in charge of the place. Maybe “high visibility” only kicks in at the Major General level.
You don’t even have to accept that waterboarding is torture to know that it is mighty unpleasant and that intentionally inflicting it for longer than “necessary” (assuming one could even define it as such in the first place) is sadistic.
I do not think that.
Yes, you are cuckoo.
No, but it should have been high vis despite the fact that there were no high value detainees there. The interrogators were attempting to sort out who had useful knowledge of the insurgency and who was just a gang member type thug.
You’re dead right. Those pictures are damning evidence that several incidents of abuse occurred.
A reserve officer was in charge. I think she may have even been retarded, but I’m not sure.
It’s a shame that Abu Ghraib wasn’t managed as seriously as Gitmo. It should have been.
No doubt about it. Amanpour is an idiot. But making “Gitmo Guests” read the “debate” between Corkie and Chappy would be pure torture!
To many, psychological torment is cumulative and subjective while torture is immediate, explicit and direct.