Cheney, other top officials OK'd harsh interrogation techniques

Friday 11th April, 08:00 AM JST

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

Latest 15 of 116 Total Comments Show All

SezWho2 at 11:03 AM JST - 14th April

redacted,

You know, don't you, that people tend to vote on local issues and not on global ones? They will vote for a criminal who they believe can keep bread on their tables in preference to an upstanding public servant who they believe cannot. Leadership in foreign countries is not elected on the basis of its affinities to the United States. We aren't that important.

Nonetheless, our ally Spain did vote in a leader who gave rebuke to the war effort. Our ally England did see a change in leadership in favor of a politician who distanced himself from our war effort and who has drawn down troops, notably in Basra. Our ally Australia saw a change in leadership in favor of a politician who disagreed with our war effort but does not wish to provide combat support for it. And our new-found ally Pakistan has a leader who has been most likely terminally weakened by his support for our war effort.

If you look at any of the countries you have named, I think it would be difficult for you to find a leader who was elected because of their support for our war efforts and for the policies that have accompanied them. And ultimately this is not about what the leaders do or think. After all, we have a leader who has practically doubled our national debt, displaced about 3 million Iraqis and Afghanis, killed hundreds of thousands more along with 4,000 or so US troops. I don't think we voted for that.
SezWho2 at 11:07 AM JST - 14th April

SuperLib,

Yes our allies do assist us whenever possible. That brings to mind Mark Twain's definition of patriotism. He said:

Patriotism is supporting your country all the time, and your government when it deserves it.
redacted at 12:23 PM JST - 14th April

You know, sezwho, to me (and maybe only me) in many of your posts it's like you try to come off as somewhat neutral or sort of commenting from a disinterested position on many of the issues discussed in the world section.

And on those rare occasions when news out of Iraq is good you are quick to play down the positive and get the perception back to quagmire or total disaster.

Maybe I'm reading too much into your personal style but on threads such as this one it's like you have a perspective - "internationalist" I'm guessing - you believe you can't openly disclose and must, usually by sort of deconstructing others' opinions or illuminating what you regard as ironies more than arguing, advance by some other way your ideas on US policy.

Which is why in your above post the frequency of "our ally" and phrases like "we have a leader" and "We aren't that important" seem oddly out of character when contrasted with your other posts.

By gum, there are times when I do believe you are not what you say you are.

But to get to your post -

" Nonetheless, our ally Spain did vote in a leader who gave rebuke to the war effort."

There was that gentle nudge from Al Qaeda days before the election. Only 200 innocents killed...

"Our ally England did see a change in leadership in favor of a politician who distanced himself from our war effort and who has drawn down troops, notably in Basra. "

If so, where is the love these days?

"The latest YouGov poll in the Sunday Times showed the resurgent Conservatives on 44 percent with Labour on 28 percent and the centrist Liberal Democrats on 17 percent." http://uk.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUKL1269734320080413

"Our ally Australia saw a change in leadership in favor of a politician who disagreed with our war effort but does not wish to provide combat support for it."

Is that what you really meant to say?
SezWho2 at 11:23 PM JST - 14th April

redacted,

I'm totally unconcerned with your opinion of me. I'm much more interested in your opinion on the issues. But just to swap personal opinions for a moment, you appear to be someone who cannot talk about issues without attempting to throw mud at those who disagree with you and you tend to confuse "left" and "right" with meaningful constructs. But enough personal nonsense.

Yes, Spain was nudged by al Qaeda. However, the point was that when nudged the people repudiated the policies of the US. The people were already leaning to oust the existing government and that government compounded its problems by trying to blame the Basques.

As for England, it doesn't seem to me to be particularly informative that the Conservatives are resurgent unless you can show that their resurgence is based on a grass roots feeling that what England really needs to do is to support the US policy against terrorism. This gets back to issues which you either agree with or are unable to comment upon--namely that people vote for local issues not for international ones.

As for Australia, yes, that is what I really meant to say. As far as I know, Rudd is supportive of the need to bring order to Iraq and supports the US in the goal of achieving that. However, as I understand it, he is not thrilled with the idea of using Australian troops to support that mission and I have never seen anything to the effect that he believes torture is a good idea.
redacted at 07:33 PM JST - 15th April

"I have never seen anything to the effect that he [Rudd] believes torture is a good idea."

I have never seen anything to the effect that he thinks waterboarding is torture.

In the article it is termed a "harsh interrogation technique."

No permanent organ damage.

To date it has been used on three individuals. The Islamofascist Khalid Mohammed sang like a little bird.

The info he provided saved lives, by gum.

American lives.

I don't know about you, but that is good enough for me.
SezWho2 at 10:05 PM JST - 15th April

redacted,

I think it would be more accurate were you to say that the claim that it saved lives is good enough for you.

Yes, the article calls this a "harsh interrogation technique" and it does so because it is considering the administration's own terminology. Others consider this technique to be torture. The claim that it causes no permanent organ damage is a false one as it can cause brain damage from lack of air.

The CIA has admitted to using this technique on three people. We don't know how many the US has actually subjected to this treatment.

As far as Rudd is concerned, my original contention was that Australia has elected someone who does not support American policy to the extent that he wishes to have Australian boots on the ground. If you are now conceding that is true, fine. If you are avoiding this by quibbling about whether Rudd supports waterboarding or not, show me something that says he does.
Everton2 at 10:20 PM JST - 15th April

America and Australia are miles apart when it comes to things like torture, human rights and social justice. There is no way in hell that Kevin Rudd would agree with water boarding or any form of torture for that matter. It is just not consistent with Australian culture or values, and any standing Australian Prime Minister that became a party to such measures would be committing political suicide.
redacted at 10:54 PM JST - 15th April

"The claim that it causes no permanent organ damage is a false one as it can cause brain damage from lack of air."

I'm inclined to think Sheik Kalid Mohammed's brain damage occurred long before the CIA stuck a rag in his mouth and spent two and a half minutes pouring water over his face.
SezWho2 at 03:57 PM JST - 16th April

redacted,

I'm inclined to wonder when other people's brain damage occurred.
redacted at 05:47 PM JST - 16th April

sez who wrote:"I'm inclined to wonder when other people's brain damage occurred."

Surely one as politically correct as you dutifully are knows that discussing the disastrous medical, social and financial consequences of consanguineous marriages, shockingly widespread even among Khalid Shaikh Mohammed's fellow kinsmen who have come to the West, is something "progressives" like you have tacitly agreed among yourselves not to do.

Don't make others here the keeper of your bad faith.

It's embarrassing.
SezWho2 at 10:51 PM JST - 16th April

redacted,

That is quite irrelevant to the discussion at hand. You continue to stretch to divert from the point and to conceal your lack of argument.
redacted at 11:09 PM JST - 16th April

"You continue to stretch to divert from the point and to conceal your lack of argument."

What lack of argument? I have repeatedly written: 3 Al Qaeda murderers got waterboarded. The info extracted saved lives. American lives. I have no problem with that.
adaydream at 02:02 AM JST - 17th April

I've read that the waterboarding that we conducted revealed nothing of value. None of the information received saved any lives at all. I believe that my sourses and the articles I've read are at least as truthful as any report that says the different.

Just as george bush and dick cheney were running around screaming WMD and nuclear programs and dual use vehicles; their information and reports are full of untruths.
rjd_jr at 01:05 PM JST - 17th April

I would like to add to the discussion (besides the fact that waterboarding IS TORTURE), I find it highly ironic and disgusting that one of the most notable cases of waterboarding occured during the world war 2 era where a Japanese Imperial soldier was accused of waterboarding an American.
SezWho2 at 11:05 PM JST - 17th April

redacted,

Repetition is not an argument--especially when it does not address challenges. I have no problem with your repeating yourself. My problem is in the host of things you have either left unanswered or have run from.

Here's a partial list:

(1) It was a mistake to give official countenance to torture;

(2) Torture is widely acknowledged to be ineffective;

(3) Torture is absurd in that it presumes the existence of that of which the existence is not known;

(4) Torture has diminished American prestige and moral authority;

(5) Citizens of our allies and a good number of governments have repudiated our policies vis-a-vis the war on terror;

(6) Citizens of some of our allies have actually put into office governments which do not favor our policies;

(7) New governments which happen to favor our policies have come into power largely on local issues and not on issues touching upon us;

(8) We do not know how many people we have subjected to waterboarding;

(9) We have only the government's word for it that the procedure has saved lives;

(10) Waterboarding can cause organ damage and thus under the government's own policy it should be classified as torture; and,

(11) A majority of experts consider it to be torture.

You have tried to deal with these through snideness and sarcasm and not through patient exploration. That's what I mean by lack of argument.