Football Forum | Ticket Forum | Off-Topic Forum | All

Organi5ed Chao5 8:53 Tue Dec 9
The US carried out 'brutal' interrogations

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-30401100

Justified? Hypocritical? Necessary? More harm than good?

Some highlights from the article:

- "The CIA misled Americans about what it was doing"

- "The intelligence gained from the programme was critical to our understanding of al-Qaeda..."

- "Suspects were interrogated using methods such as waterboarding, slapping, humiliation, exposure to cold and sleep deprivation."

- "...the authors concluded that in none of the cases they looked at did these brutal methods stop a terrorist attack"

- "...America is big enough to admit when it's wrong and confident enough to learn from its mistakes"

Russ of the BML 1:22 Fri Dec 12
Re: The US carried out 'brutal' interrogations

SurfaceAgentX2Zero 1:13 Fri Dec 12

Haha....You know what I mean!!

SurfaceAgentX2Zero 1:13 Fri Dec 12
Re: The US carried out 'brutal' interrogations

Russ of the BML 9:52 Fri Dec 12

'' The US didn't fly planes into Afghanistan or Pakistan and kill 3000 innocent people did they?'


Hmmm.

Agree with the rest, though.

cholo 11:19 Fri Dec 12
Re: The US carried out 'brutal' interrogations

He didn't so much defend history as his story.

peroni 11:08 Fri Dec 12
Re: The US carried out 'brutal' interrogations

riosleftsock 10:37 Fri Dec 12

That's a very good article rios. It's also a viewpoint that the sensible amongst us have always understood.

Coffee 11:00 Fri Dec 12
Re: The US carried out 'brutal' interrogations

riosleftsock 10:37 Fri Dec 12

Interesting article, although I can't see him defending history.

It doesn't make the whole issue any less tricky.

riosleftsock 10:37 Fri Dec 12
Re: The US carried out 'brutal' interrogations

This is a long Eddie B, but is a viewpoint that has received very little publicity



By Michael Hayden, CIA director 2006-09

5:46PM GMT 09 Dec 2014

I'm not here to defend torture. I'm here to defend history.

The CIA held about a hundred detainees from 2002 to 2008; about a third of them underwent interrogation techniques that have been variously described as enhanced, tough or torture. The toughest was water boarding, used on three detainees, the last in early 2003. At the other end of the spectrum was grabbing a detainee's chin or collar. In between were things like being limited to a liquid diet of about 1400 calories a day.

If you think any of these objectively constitute torture, I respect your position. It is a principled one. Torture is always wrong.

The Senate Democrat report, however, avoids arguments about narrow legal definitions. Its case is more expansive: not just that this program was wrong but that it was ineffective and instituted by a rogue Agency that consistently lied about it

On the first point, it needs to be said that the harshest technique (water boarding) was inflicted on thousands of American airmen in their training. On multiple occasions all of the techniques were determined lawful by the Department of Justice and judged appropriate for the circumstances after 9-11.
Related Articles

An image allegedly of a prisoner at the Abu Ghraib prison in Baghdad

CIA paid psychologists $80m to devise and use torture techniques
09 Dec 2014

CIA lied over threat to Britain to justify torture
09 Dec 2014

Jihadists issue call for retaliation against US over torture report
10 Dec 2014

Ground Zero to Guantanamo: a timeline of CIA torture since 9/11
09 Dec 2014

The few instances of detainee treatment beyond what was authorized were self identified by the Agency and appropriately dealt with. Most abuses happened early in the program where, admittedly, the Agency was ill-prepared to be the Nation's jailer or interrogator of terrorists.

The Senate Democrat report is exceedingly graphic in its description of several interrogations; it is designed to shock and it does. So too would an equally detailed description of drone strikes, which are currently supported by these same lawmakers and, by the way, deemed lawful by the Department of Justice. That makes such strikes America's program, not unlike the way detentions and interrogations were America's program a decade ago.

With regard to effectiveness, everything observed by those responsible for it at the time confirms that this program was successful. The authors of this report did not give themselves a chance to credit that, though, since no one involved in the program was interviewed for a report that was in preparation for five years, longer than CIA held any detainee. Let me repeat that: no one was interviewed.

If Democrat staffers had talked to any of us (probably hundreds), they would have had to deal with our absolute assurance that this program led to the capture of senior al-Qa’ida operatives (including helping to find Osama bin Laden); added enormously to what we knew about al-Qa’ida as an organization; and led to the disruption of terrorist plots, saving American and Allied lives.

The last included British lives, as well. Dhiren Barot (aka Issa al Britani) had planned mayhem on both sides of the Atlantic, including a scheme to detonate a bomb on the London tube under the Thames. He was arrested by British police in 2004 and is now serving a thirty year sentence for conspiracy to commit murder. We first learned of him, truthfully and in some detail, from Khalid Sheikh Mohammed after KSM had undergone enhanced interrogation in 2003.

In the American system Congress must be informed of all significant intelligence activities (this certainly qualified), but to lessen the chance of leaks the President may limit notification to the "gang of eight", the senior leadership of the intelligence committees and Congress.

CIA briefed Congress approximately 30 times under these restrictions. The briefings were detailed and graphic and drew reactions that ranged from approval to no objection. The briefers held nothing back. Nor did Senators, who asked, among other things, whether CIA had the authorities it needed to aggressively defeat al-Qa'ida.

The Senate Democrat document reads like a shrill prosecutorial screed rather than a dispassionate historical study. What happened here seems clear. The staff started with a conclusion and then “cherry picked” their way through 6 million pages of documents, ignoring some data and highlighting others, to make their case.

In the intelligence profession, that is called politicization.

There are several other surveys available. The CIA's own IG produced an unsparing critique of missteps in 2004; a redacted version has been publicly available since 2009.

Career professionals in the Department of Justice twice investigated the program and twice declined to prosecute anyone except for one contractor who is in prison for his unauthorized and abusive actions. The last investigation ended in 2012 and exhaustively “examined any possible CIA involvement with the interrogation and detention of 101 detainees who were alleged to have been in United States custody”.

Currently, the Republican minority on the Senate intelligence committee and the CIA itself have issued strong, fact based rebuttals to the Democrat report.

So, this caution. Do not rush to judgment based on the Manichean partisanship of the Senate Democrat document. Life is more complicated than that.

The men and women who operated in the unprecedented circumstances after 9-11, who did what they did out of duty rather than enthusiasm, deserve at least that.

cholo 10:27 Fri Dec 12
Re: The US carried out 'brutal' interrogations

Riosleftsock


They are only necessary if it works, when I say "works" I mean actually prevents acts of terrorism.

I'm not saying it definitley does not work, but I am sceptical that its established that it does, as you appear to be convinced that it is.

I'm uneasy with it as...

A) It provides extremists ammunition to convince already paranoid Muslims that it's a war on Islam, therefore garnering sympathy and /or converts where there would be less

and B) Innocent people, with lives as important as mine or yours are being arrested, detained and "tortured" for no good reason.


If it could be proved that it keeps us all safer I'd be willing to change my mind.

The Kronic 10:19 Fri Dec 12
Re: The US carried out 'brutal' interrogations

Russ of the BML 9:55

*sniggers

Darby_ 10:18 Fri Dec 12
Re: The US carried out 'brutal' interrogations

Does everything we hold dear include torture?

riosleftsock 9:57 Fri Dec 12
Re: The US carried out 'brutal' interrogations

cholo 12:13 Fri Dec 12

I think the gloves came off and the normal rules of engagement no longer apply.

These people are fundementally against everything we hold dear, there is no reasoning with them as their aim is nihilistic.

I would quite happily sanction extremely brutal military action, whatever it takes against these sub-human scum.

The interrogations, where necessary, only bother me in one respect. I am concerned that they could have a seriously disturbing effect on the people who are instructed to carry out the interrogations.

Russ of the BML 9:55 Fri Dec 12
Re: The US carried out 'brutal' interrogations

And, as shocking as this may seem, I find myself reluctantly agreeing with Katie Hopkins' view on this issue in The Sun today.

Think she sums it up perfectly.

Russ of the BML 9:52 Fri Dec 12
Re: The US carried out 'brutal' interrogations

Sue Perdupa 5:36 Thu Dec 11

To suggest the behaviour of ISIS is connected to anything the CIA do is ridiculous and completely clutching at straws just to have a go at the US for dealing with the situation that they thought was the best way to do it at the time.

Cheney said he has no regrets. 9/11 was a game changer and it made the US finally sit up and say 'enough is enough'. If that's how they want to play then that's how we will play.

And who is guilt free of overstepping the rules of engagement? Have you ever found yourself face down in a gully with Taliban crawling all over you after just seeing two of your mates shot in the head? Don't give me all that rules of engagement bollocks. War is dirty. War is brutal. And when the heat is turned up you either melt or stand up and fight.

And why do you keep saying 'torture'. It's not torture its interogation. Different. Do you actually believe a report hat has no author, no evidence from any inteorgators and no evidence from anyone inteorgated?

It's political vitorol that has been published so all the lefties can scream at the US for 'keeping people awake for days on end' and 'playing loud music for days on end' and 'slapping' people.

Yes, I know they used other brutal techniques and I am not playing it down but who ever said interogation was nice? It's not meant to be. No one said it was. But when you are in the hornets nest and have intelligence on a guy youtake him out of the action and do what you can to get more out of him. People that are shocked by this are so naive. Interogation is a major part of how the CIA and MI5 get intelligence.

The rights and wrongs of using bounty hunters can be argued. Did they bring in petty criminals and declare them as terrorists for money reward? Who knows? Where is the evidence? If that did happen it was wrong but there is alot wrong about war. People who are innocent get caught up.

But, as I said before, if people think the people being brought in were fucking some sort of local community hero then you are mistaken. They were criminals. And they had history. The parts of Afghanistan and Pakistan the US went into were breeding grounds for criminal activity and you do realise that if you are a criminal in those areas you will almost 99% have some link to Al-Quaeda.

It's the same as the mafia. You think some local thug in Hew Jersey doesn't have to pay his dues to the local mafia? They are all connected.

And you say violence breeds violence. Yes it does. I agree. But you say about being the bigger and saying we stand for something better. This wasn't two kids arguing over a toy, or a married couple arguing over what to watch on TV. This was 9/11. The biggest and most despicable act of terrorism ever carried out at the heart of the US.

Do you really believe they were going to stand there and say "Hold on. We are the worlds police. We must think about the values of peace and freedom we preach before we go in. Let's enter into negotiations and find out what really is their gripe. Let's talk about this"

Jesus bloody wept. It beggars belief how liberal some people are.

You ask where does it end? Who know's. The bigger question you should be asking is 'where did it start?' The US didn't fly planes into Afghanistan or Pakistan and kill 3000 innocent people did they?

So I go back right to where I started on this thread. The little bully in the playground keeps digging and digging at the big kid until the big kid flips. It is no longer about where it ends it's about where it started.

neilalex 12:34 Fri Dec 12
Re: The US carried out 'brutal' interrogations

I personally wouldn't bother with stuff like Guantanamo. I'd accept that history is littered with ideologues who are implacably opposed to what other people are, not what they do. essentially, if you're not one of them, then you are fair game to be oppressed and murdered. Hitler and the Nazis were like that, and so are the likes of ISIS. The notion of rationalising with these kind of people, or arriving at some kind of agreed settlement is naive to a comical degree.

So I wouldn't bother with Guantanamo. I'd like to see an overwhelming ground force invasion of the territories that ISIS and the Taliban occupy, and wipe every single one of the fuckers off the face of the planet.

As a final token of brutal US imperialism they could perhaps open a few Macdonalds and Burger Kings amongst the ruins.

I'd be interested to hear alternative means of dealing with the situation, other than letting them get on with it. What would you actually do, other than meet force with force?

jools268 12:27 Fri Dec 12
Re: The US carried out 'brutal' interrogations

Frankly if Dick Cheney thinks something is bad, generally you can assume that the opposite is correct, the man is the devil incarnate.

cholo 12:14 Fri Dec 12
Re: The US carried out 'brutal' interrogations

*unjustified or unnecessary

cholo 12:13 Fri Dec 12
Re: The US carried out 'brutal' interrogations

Rios


Like i asked what would it take for you to feel it's unjustified?

Anything at all?

Justin R 12:09 Fri Dec 12
Re: The US carried out 'brutal' interrogations

Say something that doesn't give that impression Rios, and I'll give you the credit for it.

Texas Hammer 12:07 Fri Dec 12
Re: The US carried out 'brutal' interrogations

http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/truth-about-interrogation_819024.html

Worth a read.

riosleftsock 12:06 Fri Dec 12
Re: The US carried out 'brutal' interrogations

Wise man Justin, nice bit of snobbism thrown it there too.

Justin R 12:02 Fri Dec 12
Re: The US carried out 'brutal' interrogations

I'd make a start by dealing with the Saudi's and Emirates who fund the worldwide Wahhabist movement that leads to radicalisation, but it's easier to torture nobodies and pretend you are doing something, whilst funding dubious groups that vaguely align with your current position.

But then I'm not operating on the basis of what I read in a tabloid.

riosleftsock 11:59 Thu Dec 11
Re: The US carried out 'brutal' interrogations

Quite a lot of people saying what the americans have done wrong, wonderful hindsight, but very little form our knicker-wetters on what they would do.

Apart from offering a teddy that looks like George Bush and asking Mohammed where he touched him?

Page 1 - Next