Comments on: Former CIA Interrogator: We Carried Out Torture Because The White House Told Us To

By: ozmodiar

ozmodiar — Sun, 16 Dec 2007 21:20:39 +0000

I would just like to know how simulated drowning could be defined as something other than torture, and who determined it. That’s what bothers me most about the issue, and its the same type of subterfuge that characterizes this administration. Refering to torture – in this case the process of systematically submitting someone to emotional, physical, or psychological duress to gain information – as “advanced techniques” completely sidelines every objection a morally conscious person would raise. Regardless of how you feel about the US using torture – if you think its wrong outright, if you think certain circumstances warrant it – you’re not being engaged as a citizen, you’re not given the opportunity to answer the question for yourself, because no one’s asking. Some committe exchanged ‘torture’ for a euphamism, and the end result is that they move forward with their ‘advanced techniques’ while all of us are left arguing about irrelevant semantics on some comment board after the fact.
Personally, I don’t care how other people on this board feel about waterboarding; for better or for worse, that’s their opinion. Fine. I think what everyone should be looking at instead is whether or not our government is acting on behalf of those opinions. Euphamisms are an extremely effective way of masking an issue and all of the complicated questions that go along with it. I think most people would submit that, if done out of absolute necessity, with a clear, greater good at stake, torture is acceptable as a last resort. And that’s exactly what the Bush administration tells us they are doing. Then why euphemize it? Why try and hide it? If there is something else going on here, we sure as hell aren’t asking about it.
I suppose that is what the Bush administration is thinking too. If they probably all agree, why not bother ‘em, right?
Well, my question is, where does that process stop? Who exactly is in control of a government that decides the opinions of its people can be an inconvenience? Not us, but clearly no one seems to mind.

By: pimothy

pimothy — Sat, 15 Dec 2007 18:11:06 +0000

Do’nt worry about the tapes. There will be copies showing up on You Tube in a couple of months.

They will be shown at the CIA Holiday Party.

By: ClintonWasImpeachedAndDisbarred

ClintonWasImpeachedAndDisbarred — Wed, 12 Dec 2007 17:12:05 +0000

barfly,
If you can’t accept the facts then you simply won’t be taken seriously in this debate. Your juvenile taunts only make your argument even weaker.

The question of whether waterboarding “works” in terms of getting reliable information out of terrorists has been answered. It does, and that’s obviously why they do it. Next topic.

By: barfly

barfly — Wed, 12 Dec 2007 01:20:19 +0000

Comment by ClintonWasImpeachedAndDisbarred

How simple minded are you? There is no proof, yet you act as if there is. That one CIA operative has come forward isn’t evidence of anything. It’s just this sort of weak-minded thinking that was convinced we had to invade Iraq, before they nuked us. Grow a pair, and wise up.

By: nanlichi

nanlichi — Wed, 12 Dec 2007 01:07:11 +0000

Captain,

Since the thread is dead I will share a story about beer bongs. We were camping with me new father in law and he saw a bong and of course was curious. I told him that I used it at night to pee without getting out of the sleeping bag in the cold. Pee in the funnel and have the hose out on the ground.

He was impressed with my idea and wanted one for himself until later that night he saw us bonging beers.

By: nanlichi

nanlichi — Tue, 11 Dec 2007 23:27:03 +0000

The Captain’s hinting for a nice beer bong for Christmas.

By: Exley

Exley — Tue, 11 Dec 2007 22:51:24 +0000

Nanlichi,

That is a NICE gift. Yeah, I was amazed how good it was.

Haven’t ever sampled Oban. Thanks for the tip…I shall seek it out.

By: nanlichi

nanlichi — Tue, 11 Dec 2007 22:47:07 +0000

Exley,

Late getting back. You have probably already left, but I got a bottle of Blue about ten years ago as a birthday gift. It was small, about a pint I believe and you are right, it was fantastic.

Oban works too.

By: Exley

Exley — Tue, 11 Dec 2007 22:25:02 +0000

Seeking out a perfect glass of scotch does not make you “pretentious” — It makes you a discerning gentleman.

By: tombaker

tombaker — Tue, 11 Dec 2007 22:16:37 +0000

I’ll endure the momentary stigma of pretentiousness, and find a bar that can dispense a drink (or two) of the stuff.

By: Exley

Exley — Tue, 11 Dec 2007 21:47:25 +0000

Tombaker,

I’ll warn you, it’s pricey. About $200 a bottle…I have no idea how much a glass costs…Try to find a scotch tasting…That’s how I did it.

By: tombaker

tombaker — Tue, 11 Dec 2007 21:33:30 +0000

it is scotch season, after all – i’ll take that advice, and launch an investigation into this “Blue”.

By: Exley

Exley — Tue, 11 Dec 2007 21:27:12 +0000

#212, 213,

TomBaker, Nanlichi….

Had my first taste of Johnny Walker Blue several months back….If you haven’t had some, I beg you, try it. I had some at a scotch tasting….Amazing.

By: ClintonWasImpeachedAndDisbarred

ClintonWasImpeachedAndDisbarred — Tue, 11 Dec 2007 21:23:46 +0000

tombaker,
There are indeed those here who *still* assert that torturing, specifically waterboarding, doesn’t work to extract true information from the terrorists. I think that we all must be open to accept that torturing terrorists can and apparently has saved the lives of innocents, because that point is at the crux of the argument for allowing waterboarding of captured terrorists.
Although actually, I also agree with your point about keeping our principles intact as Americans, at least in theory. It surely sounds good at least. However, preventing the needless deaths of perhaps hundreds or even thousands of Americans is also a valid fundamental principle of our government, and it is also moral to do so. I’m just saying that the moral argument against allowing torture quickly fades when compared to the moral argument *for* allowing torture, at least in those cases where it might save thousands of innocent Americans from being needlessly killed. To me, that is the moral high ground. Additionally, with regards to your point about maintaining our country’s principles, I’d just ask you to remember how America dropped two nuclear devises on Japan and carpet-bombed Dresden and other heavily populated cities in Germany, resulting in tens of thousands of civilian deaths. These actions were of course taken to save innocent American lives. Given the American priniples demonstrated by democrats FDR and Truman during WW2, waterboarding known al queda terrorists in the months following 911 is almost not worth getting upset about.

By: nanlichi

nanlichi — Tue, 11 Dec 2007 21:11:30 +0000

“Give me Dewars or give me Pinch!!!”

Something like that, can’t recall the exact quote.

By: tombaker

tombaker — Tue, 11 Dec 2007 21:02:10 +0000

Dewar’s is actually very good scotch for the $, just as any true Scot would approve – don’t think many would approve of the $100 jugs

“wot have ye’done, boy!!”

By: Exley

Exley — Tue, 11 Dec 2007 20:41:14 +0000

TomBaker,

Yeah, they were two college kids handing out the shots…They had no idea. So young…So naive about the ways of the drinking world.

By: tombaker

tombaker — Tue, 11 Dec 2007 20:39:14 +0000

The ground we’re holding here,

Mr. toolongofahandletoexpectpeopletotypeatyou,

is that there are certain “measures” of defense that the free people of the USA, just as our Founders and Forebarers, should be willing to do without.

It’s about principles. Important, Fundamental Principles.

By: ClintonWasImpeachedAndDisbarred

ClintonWasImpeachedAndDisbarred — Tue, 11 Dec 2007 20:35:21 +0000

barfly et al,
This is what I meant about being taken seriously. You must be at least willing to accept the facts in order to then craft a viable argument.

Apparently, waterboarding these guys resulted in intelligence that saved lives, notably information that indirectly to the arrest of 911 mastermind Khalid Sheik Mohammed. The CIA didn’t know of KLM’s importance until after Zubaydah spilled the beans. Its all in the article. You cannot debate the facts, that’s not how debate works.

The point here is that the arguments asserted here at thinkprogress.org that waterboarding simply doesn’t work has indeed been proven wrong and hence that argument must be conceded if you want to be taken seriously.

Remember, this CIA guy John Kiriakou was actually there, he knows. He’s still saying that he’s against waterboarding and considers it to be torture and he is essentially on “your” side, so be careful before you dismiss his informed conclusions.

By: tombaker

tombaker — Tue, 11 Dec 2007 20:34:49 +0000

That’s what happens when you let a marketing department run free.
Some old Scot is churning ‘neath the peat, I’m sure.