Glenn Greenwald writes well: Deck- consider this whole paragraph bolded, but head over to GG to read the whole thing. [rquoter]This information was almost certainly leaked to the Post by intelligence officials who are highly irritated -- understandably so -- from watching the manipulative spectacle whereby these Democrats now prance around as outraged victims of policies to which they deliberately acquiesced, when they weren't fully supporting them. Numerous liberal bloggers are already drawing the only conclusions that can be drawn, and expressing their outrage and horror at the Democratic Party leadership. Those sentiments are indisputably appropriate, and I just want to add a few more points to them.[/rquoter]
Before you get too giddy about this whole thing, remember that we're upset because the Bush administration mucked up everything and then some Dems rolled around in the muck. Also remember that if the shoe were on the other foot, you'd be posting Malkin columns in defense rather than expressing outrage over what members of your own party did. None of this necessitates a reevaluation of whether the actions of the administration are correct. They are wrong.
I hope everyone reads and rereads this. Anyone, of any party or persuasion, defending this practice for our proud nation should be ashamed, and they should take a good look in the mirror, and they should repent if they love our country. That includes Bush, Pelosi, basso, on down the line. One of the low points I've seen in 38 years as an American. Fear does not justify sinking to this barbaric level. The fact that the technique does not work makes it embarrassing on the intellectual plane as well.
Looks like waterboarding saved many lives through disrupting terror attacks. I'll gladly have our people pour water on our enemies' faces in exchange for saving American lives. Too bad the soft liberals believe the opposite. Get a clue, people. http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/5368169.html Dec. 11, 2007, 9:36AM Ex-CIA agent: Waterboarding had top-level OK By PAMELA HESS Associated Press WASHINGTON — The CIA's waterboarding of a top al-Qaida figure was approved at the top levels of the U.S. government, a former CIA agent said today as agency director Gen. Michael Hayden prepared for questioning by congressional panels about the destruction of videotapes of terror suspect interrogations. According to the former agent, waterboarding of Abu Zubaydah got him to talk in less than 35 seconds. The technique, which critics say is torture, probably disrupted "dozens" of planned al-Qaida attacks, said John Kiriakou, a leader of the team that captured Zubaydah, a major al-Qaida figure. Kiriakou did not explain how he knew who approved the interrogation technique but said such approval comes from top officials. "This isn't something done willy nilly. This isn't something where an agency officer just wakes up in the morning and decides he's going to carry out an enhanced technique on a prisoner," he said today on NBC's "Today" show. "This was a policy made at the White House, with concurrence from the National Security Council and Justice Department." At the White House, press secretary Dana Perino said the CIA interrogation program approved by the president is safe, tough, effective and legal. But she said that Hayden will not "talk about techniques and explain to the enemy what we are doing" during two days of questioning before closed sessions of the Senate and House intelligence panels. "It's no secret that the president approved a lawful program in order to interrogate hardened terrorists," Perino said. "We do not torture. We also know that this program has saved lives by disrupting terrorist attacks." Each time CIA agents wished to use waterboarding or any other harsh interrogation technique, they had to present a "well-laid out, well-thought out reason" to top government officials, Kiriakou said. In Zubaydah's case, Kiriakou said the waterboarding had immediate effect. "The next day, he told his interrogator that Allah had visited him in his cell during the night and told him to cooperate," Kiriakou said in an interview first broadcast Monday evening on ABC News' World News. "From that day on, he answered every question. The threat information he provided disrupted a number of attacks, maybe dozens of attacks." Zubaydah, the first high-value detainee taken by the CIA in 2002, is now being held with other detainees at the U.S. base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. He told his interrogators about alleged 9/11 accomplice Ramzi Binalshibh, and the two men's confessions also led to the capture of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, whom the U.S. government said was the mastermind behind the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. Details of Zubaydah's interrogation came as Hayden prepared for two days of questioning by the Senate and House intelligence panels about the CIA's destruction of the videotapes. Both are closed sessions. Kiriakou said he did not know the interrogation of Zubaydah was being recorded by the CIA and did not know the tapes subsequently were destroyed. "Like a lot of Americans, I'm involved in this internal, intellectual battle with myself weighing the idea that waterboarding may be torture versus the quality of information that we often get after using the waterboarding technique," Kiriakou, now retired from the CIA, told ABC News. "And I struggle with it." He added: "What happens if we don't waterboard a person and we don't get that nugget of information and there's an attack. I would have trouble forgiving myself. ... At the time, I felt that waterboarding was something that we needed to do." Waterboarding is a harsh interrogation technique that involves strapping down a prisoner, covering his mouth with plastic or cloth and pouring water over his face. The prisoner quickly begins to inhale water, causing the sensation of drowning. Hayden told CIA employees last week that the CIA taped the interrogations of two alleged terrorists in 2002. He said the harsh questioning was carried out only after being "reviewed and approved by the Department of Justice and by other elements of the Executive Branch." Hayden said Congress was notified in 2003 both of the tapes' existence and the agency's intent to destroy them. The White House refuses to talk about specific types of interrogation techniques but insists that the United States does not torture. The CIA destroyed the tapes in November of 2005. Exactly when Congress was notified and in what detail is in dispute. Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Jay Rockefeller, D-W.Va., said the CIA claims it told the committee of the tapes' destruction at a hearing in November 2006. Rockefeller said, however, that the hearing transcript found no mention of that subject. The House committee first learned the tapes had been destroyed in March 2007, according to Committee Chairman Rep. Silvestre Reyes, D-Texas. In last week's message, Hayden told CIA employees that "the leaders of our oversight committees in Congress were informed of the videos years ago and of the Agency's intention to dispose of the material. Our oversight committees also have been told that the videos were, in fact, destroyed." But Reyes said Monday that Hayden's claim that Congress was properly notified "does not appear to be true."
[rquoter]According to the former agent, waterboarding of Abu Zubaydah got him to talk in less than 35 seconds. The technique, which critics say is torture, probably disrupted "dozens" of planned al-Qaida attacks, said John Kiriakou, a leader of the team that captured Zubaydah, a major al-Qaida figure.[/rquoter] rimmy and ted kennedy faint.
There would be significant beneficial results from not offering any sort of civil protection rights to any criminals at all. After all, if the police could waterboard the people that the police suspect are murderers, think of all the confessions we could get. If the police could put secret cameras in every house, and microphones in every orifice, think of all the evidence of wrongdoing we could get. If police could take away all the guns, think of all the violent crime we could prevent. In the Soviet Union, the crime rate was insanely lower than the crime rate in the USA. This was mostly due to draconian security measures. These are facts. Do you want the good ol' freedom loving US of A to become the draconian mind-numbing Soviet Union, basso? That is where your arguments for judging the value of intelligence tactics based only on results leads us.
Jeebus, but the wingnuts are a bunch of pansies. They're willing to throw sacred American ideals under the bus at the slightest hint of risk or danger. Getting rid of habeas corpus, protection from unreasonable search and seizure, refusal to torture are small prices to pay if it buys them the slightest bit of "security". You know who used waterboarding while the US outlawed it- the Japanese and Gestapo during WW II, the KGB, the Khmer Rouge. Nice company. li'l t and basso need to crawl back under the bed before they stain the sheets or find a less risky country to live in. Freedom's not for sissies.
you can't possibly be comparing the repression the soviet union engaged in against its own people w/ the interrogation of a known terrorist, captured on the field of battle w/ other american lives at stake. are you?
[rquoter] We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights... [/rquoter] ...and if they were captured on the field of battle, they are subject to the Geneva Conventions. Do you really want to go there?
well, yes, because the declaration of independence doesn't apply to foreign nationals, and the geneva conventions place obligations on all combatants, among which are not targeting civilians, and wearing of a uniform, obligations al queda does not adhere to.
He has answered that, albeit slowly and painfully. He does want to go there, and supports our nation being there. It's only a few ideals, right? Hopefully basso is never mistakenly suspected of terrorist-related activities.
they are still entitled to a tribunal under the Geneva Convention to determine if they actually are 'enemy combatants'. Go ahead, read Convention III, Article 5 for yourself. Signatories (like the U.S.) are supposed to extend protection preemptively, until and unless a tribunal has determined that the Geneva protections don't apply.
Exactly. Grow some balls. The best part: the simultaneous proclamations that those americans who disagree are being "soft". Hilarity and irony, wrapped into one delicious serving of asshattery.
Actually it says if there is doubt about whether they belong to a group enumerated in Article 4, then they are entitled to a tribunal, not under all circumstances. Terrorists don't belong to any enumerated group in Article 4.
There is absolutely no difference between waterboarding and all of that, right? I'm not even in favor of waterboarding and I can see that your argument is absurd. Use drugs, its less creepy and probably more effective.
