Destroyed Tapes Show CIA Prisons In Thailand

[geriatrickid]

Am I the only one that wonders as to why permission was granted for a covert interrogation and detention center on Thai soil? Would I be on shaky ground if I had the impression that the facilities were also shared with the Thai security service that has been battling an insurgency in large part funded and encouraged by the same entities that the USA is tangling with? Technically, there is nothing wrong with the US government having such a facility on foreign soil. However, the disregard for the rules of oversight made the presence wrong.

As for the word torture, I don't think there was torture as in the the good old days of Europe. Everyone knows in the intelligence services that torture is practically useless when it comes to gathering information from these types of people. You get incorrect info. The agencies in the USA have testified to that. The psychological evidence backs that up. What you have are physical interrogations and that's a significant difference.

I do not condone torture, particulary when it is so open to abuse. That's why there are specific rules in place, including oversight. Yes, these detainees are usually violent people that think nothing of killing and maiming, but we can't become the monsters they want us to be. I believe the real issue here is that the CIA circumvented the regulatory oversight that was put in place to ensure that the rules of interrogation were followed. There is no justification whatsoever for people sworn to uphold the US law and the US constitution to break that oath of duty. I don't care how evil these detainees are, it was not up to the CIA to decide whether or not the specific oversight rules were to be followed. Old adage about the fruit of the poisoned tree being poisoned says it best.

[snowflake]

I think that the problem lies in the fact that the american nation demands results and they want it quick. This is something that is not easy to obtain hence drastic measures are taken. The public will never get to know what is really happening around them and if they did, a new world would open up. This is not a debate about right and wrong, it's about getting information from someone that might/might not have it.

One should be very careful about who was picked up for interregation, if a reliable source gives information one should ofcourse question the suspect.

Picture the fact that the ports in New York only check 3%(think it was this number) of the containers that arrive the US from foreign soil (Discovery Chanel) You found out that there was a Nuke on its way to New York in a container or already there. What would you do? There is not enough manpower to search all the containers.

Then you find out that this one/two people might know something about it, what would you do then? Take them to a quiet room with tea and biscuits? NO you would do anything to find out what they knew. (I agree that torture is bad but sometimes ....)

The usage of truth serum (if there is a good version on it (CIA tried LSD in the 60's) should be used).

Problem is as told earlier in the tread is that one side is trying to play by the rules, the other does not.

Torture is bad but the end justifies the means.

[Gary A]

I have been tempted to call the terrorists animals but that would be wrong. Animals would NEVER do things terrorists do. Terrorists are monsters and savages who hide behind women, children and other innocent people.

One thing that may help is for the liberal peacenics to all band together and go negotiate with the terrorist bastards. I for one would not miss any of you. After some of you are truly tortured and/or beheaded the rest of you may decide that drastic measures are indeed necessary. YES, it is a terrible cruel world we live in.

[DavidLeeRoth]

I agree beheadings and bombings are barbaric but to respond by torturing suspects takes our vaunted western civilisation back to the level of Ghengis Khan and the mountains of skulls

Pouring water on somebody or depriving them of sleep is hardly is comparable to having your head cut off with a hunting knife or being mutilated alive then killed, like some American soldiers and reporters have endured. Do you just read the word "torture" and automatically think of iron maidens and other medievel devices? Or do you actually take a look at the facts and now whats being done?

this was what we fought the second world war for. All the countries of the west have signed the Geneva Convention and all european countrie have a human rights act specifically forbidding torture

The Geneva Convention only applies to those fighting under a flag. These are terrorists who don't wear uniforms, and who have no affiliation. Why don't they have to follow international regulations and feed prisoners and give them all their rights??

To stop terrorism, you have to start talking and you can't get them to listen while ever you are torturing them.

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Ya, lets sit down with Bin Laden and talk things over, maybe wine and dine him? You need to lock your apartment door and board up the windows. That way you can continue to live in your little dream world where every problem can be worked out peacefully, and no one needs to suffer.

hel_l, too bad you weren't the U.S. President during WWII! Instead of nuking Japan, they could have parachuted you in and had you hammer out a peace deal with Hirohito! You know, the guy who convinced his entire country to fight to the death? Why didn't Churchill have tea with Hitler and discuss a cease fire? The war could have been over in a week.

[TAWP]

It's been know for sometime about these CIA prisons in Thailand. The, if you want to call them 'Conspiracy Theorists' have talk about it for some time. I know whom i believe.

As far as waterborading goes, it is torture. It causes an unbelievable amount of distress and is very difficult to breath. Water is continously poured over the person near to drowing or suffocation.

No, they are never near drowning. Only the mind thinks so. That is why it's so effective.

Simulated drowning !!! . What's simulated about it? Did they just play a video game or something? Sick or what? Kind of makes you wonder who the enemies and terrorists really are

It's called waterboarding and is highly simulated. You trigger the targets reflexes of fear of drowning, nothing else. No physical damage is done.

Oh well that makes it alright then. Why not have a try out yourself then?

While I have never personaly tried waterboarding I would like to point out that most soldiers back home undergo 'captured by enemy' training, which I'm sure all would violate the 'emotional stress' clause to some degree. So the definition of toture is somewhat outdated.

Heck, being in prison would be torture to me, even if nothing ever happened to me.

Of course there is physical damage done, the lungs are filled with water during the procedure, how could physical damage not be done?

Hmmmm, because you aren't dying, and some water in your lungs doesn't cause physical injury or long term problems. Have you ever gone swimming as a child and sucked water into your nose or throat before? If so, are you still coping with the ill effects of that on a daily basis and collecting insurance money as you are physically unable to work?

No, the lungs are not filled with water. Very small amounts of water even enter the mouth. The target can breath through the nose at all times, but the heightened level of stress will still cause flight-reactions [as all animals have] and make the target more likely to cooperate to avoid more turns.

Edited January 18, 2008 by TAWP

[Jai Dee]

Station Chief Made Appeal To Destroy CIA Tapes

In late 2005, the retiring CIA station chief in Bangkok sent a classified cable to his superiors in Langley asking if he could destroy videotapes recorded at a secret CIA prison in Thailand that in part portrayed intelligence officers using simulated drowning to extract information from suspected al-Qaeda members.

The tapes had been sitting in the station chief's safe, in the U.S. Embassy compound, for nearly three years. Although those involved in the interrogations had pushed for the tapes' destruction in those years and a secret debate about it had twice reached the White House, CIA officials had not acted on those requests. This time was different.

The CIA had a new director and an acting general counsel, neither of whom sought to block the destruction of the tapes, according to agency officials. The station chief was insistent because he was retiring and wanted to resolve the matter before he left, the officials said. And in November 2005, a published report that detailed a secret CIA prison system provoked an international outcry.

Those three circumstances pushed the CIA's then-director of clandestine operations, Jose A. Rodriguez Jr., to act against the earlier advice of at least five senior CIA and White House officials, who had counseled the agency since 2003 that the tapes should be preserved. Rodriguez consulted CIA lawyers and officials, who told him that he had the legal right to order the destruction. In his view, he received their implicit support to do so, according to his attorney, Robert S. Bennett.

In a classified response to the station chief, Rodriguez ordered the tapes' destruction, CIA officials say. The Justice Department and the House intelligence committee are now investigating whether that deed constituted a violation of law or an obstruction of justice. John A. Rizzo, the CIA's acting general counsel, is scheduled to discuss the matter in a closed House intelligence committee hearing scheduled for today.

According to interviews with more than two dozen current and former U.S. officials familiar with the debate, the taping was conducted from August to December 2002 to demonstrate that interrogators were following the detailed rules set by lawyers and medical experts in Washington, and were not causing a detainee's death.

The principal motive for the tapes' destruction was the clandestine operations division's worry that the tapes' fate could be snatched out of their hands, the officials said. They feared that the agency could be publicly shamed and that those involved in waterboarding and other extreme interrogation techniques would be hauled before a grand jury or a congressional inquiry -- a circumstance now partly unfolding anyway.

"The professionals said that we must destroy the tapes because they didn't want to see the pictures all over television, and they knew they eventually would leak," said a former agency official who took part in the discussions before the tapes were pulverized. The presence of the tapes in Bangkok and the CIA's communications with the station chief there were described by current and former officials.

Congressional investigators have turned up no evidence that anyone in the Bush administration openly advocated the tapes' destruction, according to officials familiar with a set of classified documents forwarded to Capitol Hill. "It was an agency decision -- you can take it to the bank," CIA Director Michael V. Hayden said in an interview on Friday. "Other speculations that it may have been made in other compounds, in other parts of the capital region, are simply wrong."

Many of those involved recalled conversations in which senior CIA and White House officials advised against destroying the tapes, but without expressly prohibiting it, leaving an odd vacuum of specific instructions on a such a politically sensitive matter. They said that Rodriguez then interpreted this silence -- the absence of a decision to order the tapes' preservation -- as a tacit approval of their destruction.

"Jose could not get any specific direction out of his leadership" in 2005, one senior official said. Word of the resulting destruction, one former official said, was greeted by widespread relief among clandestine officers, and Rodriguez was neither penalized nor reprimanded, publicly or privately, by then-CIA Director Porter J. Goss, according to two officials briefed on exchanges between the two men.

"Frankly, there were more important issues that needed to be focused on, such as trying to preserve a critical [interrogation] program and salvage relationships that had been damaged because of the leaks" about the existence of the secret prisons, said a former agency official familiar with Goss's position at the time.

Rodriguez, whom the CIA honored with a medal in August for "Extraordinary Fidelity and Essential Service," declined requests for an interview. But his attorney said he acted in the belief that he was carrying out the agency's stated intention for nearly three years. "Since 2002, the CIA wanted to destroy the tapes to protect the identity and lives of its officers and for other counterintelligence reasons," Bennett said in a written response to questions from The Washington Post.

"In 2003 the leadership of intelligence committees were told about the CIA's intent to destroy the tapes. In 2005, CIA lawyers again advised the National Clandestine Service that they had the authority to destroy the tapes and it was legal to do so. It is unfortunate," Bennett continued, "that under the pressure of a Congressional and criminal investigation, history is now being revised, and some people are running for cover."

Recorded on the tapes was the coercive questioning of two senior al-Qaeda suspects: Zayn al-Abidin Muhammed Hussein, known as Abu Zubaida, and Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, who were captured by U.S. forces in 2002. They show Zubaida undergoing waterboarding, which involved strapping him to a board and pouring water over his nose and mouth, creating the sensation of imminent drowning. Nashiri later also underwent the same treatment.

Some CIA officials say the agency's use of waterboarding helped extract information that led to the capture of other key al-Qaeda members and prevented attacks. But others, including former CIA, FBI and military officials, say the practice constitutes torture.

The destruction of the tapes was not the first occasion in which Rodriguez got in trouble for taking a provocative action to help a colleague. While serving as the CIA's Latin America division chief in 1996, he appealed to local Dominican Republic authorities to prevent a childhood friend, and CIA contractor, who had been arrested in a drug investigation, from being beaten up, according to a former CIA official familiar with the episode.

Such an intervention was forbidden by CIA rules, and so Rodriguez was stripped of his management post and reprimanded in an inspector general's report. But shortly after the reprimand, he was named station chief in Mexico City and, after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, was promoted to deputy director of the fast-expanding counterterrorism center. He served under the center's director then, J. Cofer Black, who had been his subordinate in the Latin America division.

When Black -- who played a key role in setting up the secret prisons and instituting the interrogation policy -- left the CIA in December 2002, Rodriguez took his place. Colleagues recall that even in the deputy's slot, Rodriguez was aware of the videotaping of Zubaida, and that he later told several it was necessary so that experts, such as psychologists not present during interrogations, could view Zubaida's physical reactions to questions.

By December 2002, the taping was no longer needed, according to three former intelligence officials. "Zubaida's health was better, and he was providing information that we could check out," one said.

An internal probe of the interrogations by the CIA's inspector general began in early 2003 for reasons that have not been disclosed. In February of that year, then-CIA General Counsel Scott W. Muller told lawmakers that the agency planned to destroy the tapes after the completion of the investigation. That year, all waterboarding was halted; and at an undisclosed time, several of the inspector general's deputies traveled to Bangkok to view the tapes, officials said.

In May 2004, CIA operatives became concerned when a Washington Post article disclosed that the CIA had conducted its interrogations under a new, looser Bush administration definition of what legally constituted torture, several former CIA officials said. The disclosure sparked an internal Justice Department review of that definition and led to a suspension of the CIA's harsh interrogation program.

The tapes were discussed with White House lawyers twice, according to a senior U.S. official. The first occasion was a meeting convened by Muller and senior lawyers of the White House and the Justice Department specifically to discuss their fate. The other discussion was described by one participant as "fleeting," when the existence of the tapes came up during a spring 2004 meeting to discuss the Abu Ghraib prison abuse scandal, the official said.

Those known to have counseled against the tapes' destruction include John B. Bellinger III, while serving as the National Security Council's top legal adviser; Harriet E. Miers, while serving as the top White House counsel; George J. Tenet, while serving as CIA director; Muller, while serving as the CIA's general counsel; and John D. Negroponte, while serving as director of national intelligence.

Hayden, in an interview, said the advice expressed by administration lawyers was consistent. "To the degree this was discussed outside the agency, everyone counseled caution," he said. But he said that, in 2005, it was "the agency's view that there were no legal impediments" to the tapes' destruction. There also was "genuine concern about agency people being identified," were the tapes ever to be made public.

Hayden, who became CIA director last year, acknowledged that the questions raised about the tapes' destruction, then and now, are legitimate. "One can ask if it was a good idea, or if there was a better way to do it," he said. "We are very happy to let the facts take us where they will."

Source: Washington Post - 17 January 2008

[Lilawadee]

I have been tempted to call the terrorists animals but that would be wrong. Animals would NEVER do things terrorists do. Terrorists are monsters and savages who hide behind women, children and other innocent people.

Cool. How about:

"I have been tempted to call the US government animals but that would be wrong. Animals would NEVER do things the US government does. They're are monsters and savages who murder women, children and other innocent people."

?

[Lilawadee]

The Geneva Convention only applies to those fighting under a flag.

How convenient.

Still: Presumably the US military is fighting under a flag. So it applies to them, seeing they did sign the thing.

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Ya, lets sit down with Bin Laden and talk things over, maybe wine and dine him? You need to lock your apartment door and board up the windows. That way you can continue to live in your little dream world where every problem can be worked out peacefully, and no one needs to suffer.

You'd talk to people who are open to talking. You know, the ones the US has been trying their damnedest to alienate and radicalize during the past 7 years.

hel_l, too bad you weren't the U.S. President during WWII! Instead of nuking Japan, they could have parachuted you in and had you hammer out a peace deal with Hirohito!

It's funny you mention that because that's exactly what happened in the end: a peace deal with Hirohito that allowed him to remain emperor. He didn't have to say they were surrendering.

[PeaceBlondie]

I was taught in World Religions class that every major religion has a golden rule such as "Treat other people the way you would want them to treat you." Waterboarding and other forms of torture violate that command, as well as Jesus' command, "Love your enemies....so that you be the children of God." President Bush claims to follow Jesus, but he surely does not. Thailand has lost face because of this. It is a disgraceful bunch of sins, nothing less.

Rubbish, sometimes you have to fight fire with fire, take the gloves off and level the playing field. Some of these people know no limits in their actions.

Good on Thailand if they did allow this on home soil, i believe the UK was accused of the exact same thing either last year or the year before.

We keep hearing islam is a religion of peace. And if you dare to criticize or make light of it, may you rest in peace.

Chloe.

I keep believing that true Christianity is a first and foremost, ethically, a religion of peace, and people condemn that view daily. Chloe, does the end always justify the means? Is there a golden rule, some standard rule that always takes priority, such as "it's not nice to rape innocent virgins"? What's it all about, Alfie? Do we always have to level the playing field by rolling in the gutter with the worst bastahds?

[Seneque]

What's the point in videotaping all this nonsense and then '''ask permission''' to destroy them !!

[DavidLeeRoth]

It's funny you mention that because that's exactly what happened in the end: a peace deal with Hirohito that allowed him to remain emperor

I don't think he had much of a choice, considering two nukes were dropped on his country first, with the threat of more! Try working out a deal with that guy before that happened...

How convenient.

Still: Presumably the US military is fighting under a flag. So it applies to them, seeing they did sign the thing.

Do you know how to read? The rules on treatment of prisoners ONLY applies to soldiers who are part of a country's armed forces. Lemme try to make this easier for you...

The TERRORISTS are not part of any country's army. They come from many assorted terrorist groups, and they are not fighting a conventional war under the flag of a nation. Therefore, THEY are not required to be handled the same way as would a german soldier captured during WWII by the allies. If the terrorists capture US soldiers, they are killed. Got it?

You'd talk to people who are open to talking. You know, the ones the US has been trying their damnedest to alienate and radicalize during the past 7 years.

Name these people please. Who are they, and why do you know who they are when no one in the US, or UK know them? Please give us some names, we'd be interested. How would you talk Al Qaida out of killing thousands of people on 9/11? Please answer this, as it would give you a chance to redeem yourself after having all of your ridiculous counter-arguments shot down.

Seriously, some of the people posting on this thread just blow my mind.

Edited January 18, 2008 by DavidLeeRoth

[geriatrickid]

The issue in this case is not one of interrogation techniques. It is the blatant disregard of existing regulations and the rogue actions of an agency as well as an apparent attempt to interfere with duly authorized Representatives of the US Congress. We have a small group of people that took it upon themselves to disregard legal counsel from competent neutral parties acting in their capacities as representatives of the executive branch of government. Instead the agency sought out "opinions" that would at best provide cover for constructive disobedience and was at worst an excuse for gross insubordination and contempt of Congress.

These people took it upon themselves to disobey the duly authorized representatives of the US people and in so doing broke their sworn duty to uphold the law and the US constitution. It is inexcusable. Imagine what would happen if everytime some enlisted soldier didn't agree with his superior officer's orders he or she did as he or she saw fit. Or worse, if a police officer chose to disobey police department procedure and act well outside his given authority. Yes the terrorists are bad, but if the existing US requirements and the US constitution is violated, then the rule of law is corrupted and the very principles upon which the judicial system rests are ripped apart. Unsettling for some, but it is the trade off to live in a society that trys to be "free".

[Gary A]

Cool. How about:

"I have been tempted to call the US government animals but that would be wrong. Animals would NEVER do things the US government does. They're are monsters and savages who murder women, children and other innocent people."

?

I have two wishes. Number one is to live to see the day the world can tell OPEC to eat their oil. The second is to see the day that the USA decides it doesn't have to be the world's policeman.

[moldy]

The issue in this case is not one of interrogation techniques. It is the blatant disregard of existing regulations and the rogue actions of an agency as well as an apparent attempt to interfere with duly authorized Representatives of the US Congress. We have a small group of people that took it upon themselves to disregard legal counsel from competent neutral parties acting in their capacities as representatives of the executive branch of government. Instead the agency sought out "opinions" that would at best provide cover for constructive disobedience and was at worst an excuse for gross insubordination and contempt of Congress.

These people took it upon themselves to disobey the duly authorized representatives of the US people and in so doing broke their sworn duty to uphold the law and the US constitution. It is inexcusable. Imagine what would happen if everytime some enlisted soldier didn't agree with his superior officer's orders he or she did as he or she saw fit. Or worse, if a police officer chose to disobey police department procedure and act well outside his given authority. Yes the terrorists are bad, but if the existing US requirements and the US constitution is violated, then the rule of law is corrupted and the very principles upon which the judicial system rests are ripped apart. Unsettling for some, but it is the trade off to live in a society that trys to be "free".

Check mate! What a great posting. Three cheers.

[buffcoat]

Used against suspected members...a bit hard to tell them what they want to know if you are innocent in the first place.

This is vile beyond words but apparently it is ok because the US Govt has defined this method of interrogation as not being torture.

I am sorry to see that the Thai Govt is involved although you have to wonder what pressure was put on them by the US and if they were aware of what was actually going on.

Once you start walking down the path of the ends justify the means you are in a moral black hole.

I hope the new Thai Govt makes it clear that no such facility will ever again be provided to the US.

Are you saying this is solely the fault of the'US'? What about the 'UK' and all other countries envolved? Please, let us know more.

Yes I am and the US Govt agrees since they admit to rendition having been carried out in numerous countries at their instigation.

I am not happy that US allies have allowed this to take part on their soil or allowed transit flights.

I am firmly against the use of torture to protect me. I do not accept the arguement that 'they are evil so we can be too'.

'We' are fighting for freedom and decency, turning into our enemy in order to do so is an insanity.

Yes I knew people who died in 9/11 and I am closely aware of the impact of terrorism here in London and I still do not agree with torture to defend me and mine.

[Chloe82]

No, the lungs are not filled with water. Very small amounts of water even enter the mouth. The target can breath through the nose at all times, but the heightened level of stress will still cause flight-reactions [as all animals have] and make the target more likely to cooperate to avoid more turns.

Hmm i think this guy may know just a little more than you about the subject or is he wrong also?

Interrogation expert Malcolm Nance, who serves as a counterterrorism and intelligence consultant for the U.S. government and was formerly an instructor at the Navy's Survival, Evasion, Resistance and Escape school in California, did not mince when detailing the dangers of waterboarding, the highly controversial interrogation technique to which he was previously subjected.

"I didn't feel like I was about to die, but I understood that the process of degrading my respiratory system was taking effect," he said in an interview with ABC News' Brian Ross. "I was drowning."

Nance experienced this simulation during staff instructor training at the Navy school. Because the staff must be exposed to all of the processes any student would ever encounter, the dangerous tactic was required as well.

"I know my first thought was, 'I'm being tortured,'" he said, "'and this is not a simulation.'"

Nance, who has served 17 years with the Navy, pointed out that waterboarding videos circulating in the media don't accurately depict the procedure, which he says involves "a very rapid process where a person is put onto a table and then water is introduced to the point where it overcomes their ability to swallow or spit it away, eventually filling the lungs".

On Wednesday, Nance told a House subcommittee that "waterboarding should be banned." As an instructor, Nance conducted "prisoner of war and terrorist hostage survival programs," according to an AP report.

Cite

Chloe.

[moldy]

No, the lungs are not filled with water. Very small amounts of water even enter the mouth. The target can breath through the nose at all times, but the heightened level of stress will still cause flight-reactions [as all animals have] and make the target more likely to cooperate to avoid more turns.

Hmm i think this guy may know just a little more than you about the subject or is he wrong also?

Interrogation expert Malcolm Nance, who serves as a counterterrorism and intelligence consultant for the U.S. government and was formerly an instructor at the Navy's Survival, Evasion, Resistance and Escape school in California, did not mince when detailing the dangers of waterboarding, the highly controversial interrogation technique to which he was previously subjected.

"I didn't feel like I was about to die, but I understood that the process of degrading my respiratory system was taking effect," he said in an interview with ABC News' Brian Ross. "I was drowning."

Nance experienced this simulation during staff instructor training at the Navy school. Because the staff must be exposed to all of the processes any student would ever encounter, the dangerous tactic was required as well.

"I know my first thought was, 'I'm being tortured,'" he said, "'and this is not a simulation.'"

Nance, who has served 17 years with the Navy, pointed out that waterboarding videos circulating in the media don't accurately depict the procedure, which he says involves "a very rapid process where a person is put onto a table and then water is introduced to the point where it overcomes their ability to swallow or spit it away, eventually filling the lungs".

On Wednesday, Nance told a House subcommittee that "waterboarding should be banned." As an instructor, Nance conducted "prisoner of war and terrorist hostage survival programs," according to an AP report.

Cite

Chloe.

Another great posting. This and Geriatic Kids posting top all others. Very, very good.

[AlexLah]

My goodness, some of the people here really are brainwashed by all the EU and US mainstream propaganda.

Have no idea about the history of the CIA, history of the ME, no clue about so callled waterboarding and think all Muslims are (potential) terrorist and think all Christians are holier then the Pope.

Anyway I am just wondering when those torture chambers in Thailand were build and who authorised that.

Must be someone at a very high position but I am sure the dearly beloved would not have approved it.

[britmaveric]

Well I'd expect Yanks picked countries that held favourable views of such procedures, and I dare say yanks themselves didnt apply the procedures, but their generous host country security personnel. Anyways well done - this procedure has gained valuable info and stopped quite a few plots and captured/eliminated other AQ targets.

[AlexLah]

Well I'd expect Yanks picked countries that held favourable views of such procedures, and I dare say yanks themselves didnt apply the procedures, but their generous host country security personnel. Anyways well done - this procedure has gained valuable info and stopped quite a few plots and captured/eliminated other AQ targets.

Brit, inform yourself other then watching the news on the Tv.

Or are you trying to be sarcastic?

[moldy]

Well I'd expect Yanks picked countries that held favourable views of such procedures, and I dare say yanks themselves didnt apply the procedures, but their generous host country security personnel. Anyways well done - this procedure has gained valuable info and stopped quite a few plots and captured/eliminated other AQ targets.

It's an honest posting and the poster doesn't distance himself from his conscience. How does he explain away the criminality though? Does he think there should be a trial and what punishment if any should be meted out?

It's a tricky one for sure.

[britmaveric]

I amazed how naive a lot of you are - if you think your home country isn't doing this every day then you are living in a fairy tale. Black Ops happen all the time - you just dont know about or choose to not think about it.

The problem with some of you - if its out to save your life or your families life you have no problem with these techniques. However when it comes to someone else its morally wrong.

Whatever it takes to save lives I am ok with and I have a clear conscience to boot.

[AlexLah]

So how about I take you for a bit of waterboarding Brit, as I think you are involved or at least know something.

I am sure within a few minutes you will give me all the replies I want to hear.

You wanna try?

It is really not harmfull, just a bit uncomfy.

You wanna try?

Hmmmm?

[MrSnrang]

I think torture is justifiable in this case. Why should you care about one life and one person when you could potentially extract information that could save lives? That's more important, a dangerous person's psychological health or the lives of many? What's more evil, to let information be concealed or to force it out of an individual and prevent the death of many?

The people interrogated weren't civilians, they were combatants. They weren't your nephew who struggles to get good grades so he can get into a good school, they're people who would kill you if they were given the chance. I acknowledge that what they're doing is torture, there is no doubt of that; it's just that I think in cases like this it's pretty justifiable. I think it's appalling that you think that torture of these individuals isn't right.

On the other hand, it's pretty weird that the CIA has prisons here of all places.

[moldy]

I think torture is justifiable in this case. Why should you care about one life and one person when you could potentially extract information that could save lives? That's more important, a dangerous person's psychological health or the lives of many? What's more evil, to let information be concealed or to force it out of an individual and prevent the death of many?

The people interrogated weren't civilians, they were combatants. They weren't your nephew who struggles to get good grades so he can get into a good school, they're people who would kill you if they were given the chance. I acknowledge that what they're doing is torture, there is no doubt of that; it's just that I think in cases like this it's pretty justifiable. I think it's appalling that you think that torture of these individuals isn't right.

On the other hand, it's pretty weird that the CIA has prisons here of all places.

In my view that's a reasonable argument too, but what if the guy is innocent ?, intelligence isn't always right is it ?, take the case in the UK where an innocent Brazilian was killed, not to mention those chemical weapon dumps that were never, well never were.

I'm sure other methods could produce results, eg, sound bombardment. This waterboarding does seem to have a sadistic edge.

[AlexLah]

I think torture is justifiable in this case. Why should you care about one life and one person when you could potentially extract information that could save lives? That's more important, a dangerous person's psychological health or the lives of many? What's more evil, to let information be concealed or to force it out of an individual and prevent the death of many?

The people interrogated weren't civilians, they were combatants. They weren't your nephew who struggles to get good grades so he can get into a good school, they're people who would kill you if they were given the chance. I acknowledge that what they're doing is torture, there is no doubt of that; it's just that I think in cases like this it's pretty justifiable. I think it's appalling that you think that torture of these individuals isn't right.

On the other hand, it's pretty weird that the CIA has prisons here of all places.

Have you ever read some books written by former detainees that have been released after no offenses had been found?

A lot off them have been brought to those prisons only because they read or sell some historic Islamic books.

Have you ever stopped watching the news on TV and do your research online or in library?

How many of those people in Guantanamo have been convicted and how many have been held there?

Do you know?

I know but I urge you to do some research.

Do you really think that the governement is doing all it can to serve your best interest?

Wake up!

Setting up prisons that practice torture is illegal, no matter what argument you bring up.

The US would be better of if they spend the money spend in the war to protect their borders.

[meom]

On the other hand, it's pretty weird that the CIA has prisons here of all places.

There's a (US) airbase here and Thailand is probably one of the nearest allies when it comes to flying in suspects from for example Afganistan.

[AlexLah]

Oeps!

http://www.reuters.com/article/worldNews/i...762987120080117

Go there

[MrSnrang]

I think torture is justifiable in this case. Why should you care about one life and one person when you could potentially extract information that could save lives? That's more important, a dangerous person's psychological health or the lives of many? What's more evil, to let information be concealed or to force it out of an individual and prevent the death of many?

The people interrogated weren't civilians, they were combatants. They weren't your nephew who struggles to get good grades so he can get into a good school, they're people who would kill you if they were given the chance. I acknowledge that what they're doing is torture, there is no doubt of that; it's just that I think in cases like this it's pretty justifiable. I think it's appalling that you think that torture of these individuals isn't right.

On the other hand, it's pretty weird that the CIA has prisons here of all places.

Have you ever read some books written by former detainees that have been released after no offenses had been found?

A lot off them have been brought to those prisons only because they read or sell some historic Islamic books.

Have you ever stopped watching the news on TV and do your research online or in library?

How many of those people in Guantanamo have been convicted and how many have been held there?

Do you know?

I know but I urge you to do some research.

Do you really think that the governement is doing all it can to serve your best interest?

Wake up!

Setting up prisons that practice torture is illegal, no matter what argument you bring up.

The US would be better of if they spend the money spend in the war to protect their borders.

I know that in Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib they went too far with human rights abuses, way too far; but the people in these videos are definitely dangerous and definitely have information useful to us. I know that the government of the US is pretty-much useless and only wants to police the world but in this case, two men are being dealt with very appropriately. I rarely watch TV as a news source, I'm extremely dependent on the internet for my entertainment and news. I don't condone random torture, that's wrong and I can't present an argument that supports it; but torture on definite terrorists, in my opinion, is a proper procedure. I'm probably the most unpatriotic American you'll ever meet, but patriotism and loyalty to a country has little to do with this. It's a matter of safety that definite criminals are dealt with to the fullest extent.

Think of this scenario:

Your child is being held hostage by a gang in a cell somewhere you'll never find. They've put a ransom on him/her that you'll never be able to raise. Somehow one of the gang members has been caught but refuses to talk. Will you kindly ask him where your child is until he tells you while his buddies prepare the execution or will you beat the living shit out of him and by any means possible get the location out of him?

[AlexLah]

You have been watching too many Jack Bauer episodes na.

I will write a bit more tommorow as I go sleep now.

Take care!

Alex