Here's the story:

Link



To be debated:

Should President Bush veto this bill?

Should President Bush veto this bill?

Yes.

I said pretty much everything I have to say on this issue a few weeks ago on another thread

I'll just basically repeat it here. I'll go further and state that I don't believe any leader in their right mind would not veto this bill, and those who voted in favor of it largely did so for political reasons, knowing that the President would have to veto the thing anyway and they could feign disapproval.

First and foremost, this is not a vote on banning waterboarding or other abusive techniques. It is a vote for applying the Army manual interrogation methods for all interrogations. And I can see some definite problems with this idea. For starters, it was created by the military for the military. If this were to pass, would the CIA and FBI be required to vet inquiries that deviate from 'the manual' through military channels, even if such tactics are neither abusive nor humiliating? Apparently so. It is necessary for all interrogators to defer to high-ranking military commanders for approval of all procedure which differs in any way from what is stated in the manual. The CIA and FBI are supposed to answer to the justice and state departments, not the DOD.

Furthermore, there have been some problems with this manual. It might wash for certain facilities, like the Iraqi prisons that McCain referenced in the debate, but high-profile interrogation facilities no. Interrogation is not something that fits into a Congressionally-mandated doctrine. It isn’t a hard science, each person is individual. Mustang, who is the forum expert on this matter and has always, absolutely and positively always been outspoken against torture and abusive tactics, also finds this manual problematic (read through the thread linked above). I’ve heard it described this way by an intelligence officer:

“If my goal is to get to Los Angeles, the interrogation doctrine tells me which route to take, but it doesn't tell me the type of car I ought to drive, the speed at which I drive, when and where I pull over to eat, or even what side of the road I can drive on. Interrogations in a doctrinal context have similar variables. Approach is the mindset, techniques are the methods used to go down that avenue of approach. This law refers to "treatment and techniques", and I don't think Congress is synced up with what Army doctrine can bring to the statute “

In 2006, the following legislation was passed forbidding the use of cruel and degrading techniques for interrogation. It applied to the CIA and FBI and all prisoners under US authority, not only military:



If the above was too vague the solution is pretty simple. Make it less vague and forbid exclusively the use of certain tactics. NOT simply lump a document created specifically for the military and apply it to other agencies with different responsibilities and command structures.

Additionally, it is a fundamentally bad idea for the CIA and FBI to publish their interrogation methods as that would obviously compromise their effectiveness. Waterboarding should be illegal, and it is (via the aforementioned act). There should be oversight to prevent abuse. But the precise interrogation tactics should not be public knowledge any more than any other classified, security-sensitive material would be.

I think this is a worthy idea, gone about in a very bad way. A bit like doing some necessary eye surgery with a bone saw. What the interrogation facilities need is oversight and accountability, legal people at all sites to ensure that techniques used during interrogation are appropriate and not abusive.

I would agree with you in principle, Mrs. P. But if the dems cave to these policies, we'll have Ted-bots saying bad policies are ok because the dems did nothing about it.

So, the democrats - whether substantive or not - are doing what they were elected to do: invalidate Bush's flawed policies. If they say ok to this bill, they have no spine. If they say no to this bill, they're weak on national security. The bottom line is, it's a political fight anyhow. If it comes down to saving a nuke from going off in LA, they'll shoot kneecaps no matter what some manual says.

I think the dems have more to gain by standing firm on this bill if they want to get the White House back. And if both parties are genuinely concerned about national security, seal the borders. Otherwise, all this is political posturing by both parties.

Yes. The use of the “Field manual” as the only legal document detailing the only 19 methods that can be used would certainly allow the enemy to train to resist them. Even McCain is abainst this bill.

More importantly though Ted- is the fact that GW has stood strong and said "The US supports torture, and we will employ terrorism whenever we feel like it, but we won't call it that- only people that torture US citizens are terrorists or torturers- when we do it, it is for the good of the entire world"

That will do more damage to our national security than losing the ability to torture innocent civilians and such.

I must have missed that speech – OH that’s right this was a CR wet dream.


T

Well you know buddy the people who have used it say they got lots of intel that saved lives from it – and I will go with them all day over you – no offence.

Nope- but when you go publically and defend waterboarding like he did- he has basically said exactly that to the whole world. He defended torture- no way to equivocate that.

And those that believe those "intel" people are described with one word "gullible".

Have you EVER served in the military Ted- they are as wrong as they are right about EVERYTHING- even when they want to tell the truth.

Ted- aren't you the one that blamed intel on NOT finding WMDs? If not- what do you have to say about all that "good intel" from the CIA prior to Iraq?

I would also like to see a citation of this comment, CR. You know, when you put something in quotes as you did, it normally means that it was actually something that was stated by the person. So, where did President Bush make this comment? Or did he? Are you just making it up? We all know you hate Bush, and Reagan and all Republicans and most of America, so spare us the rants ok? They are getting tiresome.


Aquilla

Okay- what message do you think it gives the world Aquilla? Do you think it gains us respect as "the good guys"- do you think a presidential veto of a anti-torture bill speaks volumes to the world.

It is a bit tiresome to deny it as well Aquilla.

Difference between you and I is I DO love my country, and see it detiorating under 27 years of corrupt conservative ideology. Your guys have screwed up the entire country, and large parts of the world. YOUR guys screwed up Aquilla, and they screwed it up bad. Time to take some of that "personal responsibility" for your guys there Aquilla- or does it only apply to welfare moms and black people?

GW Bush has made a very public stand in support of torture- trying to pretty it up by calling it "harsh methods" or even "just waterboarding" doesn't make it anything but torture still.

And the president has very publically vetoed a bill banning torture.

Didn't have to say a word, any more than a punch to the face needs alot of words to speak volumes. He has publically supported torture, and by doing this, has told the world the US supports torture.

Trying to pretty it up isn't going to make it any better Aquilla- the president has very publically endorsed the torture of others.

And we already know he has supported the torture of a couple poeple- happens often enough to call it "erroneous rendition"- I mean damn, happens enough to make a phrase describing it?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraordinary_rendition

In a number of cases, suspects to whom the procedure is believed to have been applied later appeared to be innocent.[13] In the cases of Khalid El-Masri and Maher Arar the practice of extraordinary rendition appears to have been applied to innocent civilians, and the CIA has reportedly launched an investigation into such cases (which it refers to as "erroneous rendition").

Hey- but Clinton did it to- so it is okay with you, right? I mean, there was another upstanding moral dude- right?

He hasn't publically condemned it and said it won't happen again. He vetoed a bill outlawing waterboarding- that is, he vetoed a bill outlawing torture.

The RIGHT thing to do, and the right message to send the world is "we done condone or allow torture- ever- or waterboarding, or anything we would ever charge an American military officer for doing- because we are better than those that would harm us"

Which, in effect, is a ban on waterboarding and other abusive techniques - as those techniques are not in the field manual.



And how exactly does that work? Why would they have to answer to the military? Because the military created the manual? But won't the justice and state departments just adopt the techniques from the field manual for themselves? Is there something in the legislation that requires the FBI and the CIA to vet inquiries through military channels?



Well, passing the 2006 legislation proved not to be enough. And if Congress bans one specific technique on the grounds that it is inhuman, degrading treatment, then suddenly other techniques are adopted that are different and yet still inhuman and degrading. Creating an umbrella under which prohibited techniques are covered is the best way. And, boo-hoo, the FBI and the CIA don't get there way... blame the Executive branch for it's excesses in this area.



Well, we aren't getting oversight. So, do we let abuse continue? Should the military techniques be public? They are and prove effective - so McCain says. This argument makes no sense. Why do the CIA and the FBI need harsher techniques than those proving to be effective in the military? If these techniques can be trained against, why are they still effective in the military?

Yes, because we never once thought of asking military forces sent to kill OUR military forces nicely and politely for information upon capture.

"Withholding dinner" is ALSO considered "torture", CruisingRam. My god, my parents tortured me BUNCHES of times in my childhood. If I was a whiny liberal, I'd blame all my failures on the fact that my parents mercilessly tortured me as a child for with-holding the pork chops and mashed potatoes. And the world condoned it. Poor me. Trained killers who are caught by our armed forces FROM America get handled with better kid-gloves than I got growing up IN America. WTF is up with THAT?!

If it was YOU caught by THEM, they'd light you on fire after dragging you behind a car for a few miles and slapping you with shoes before they'd then hang you on a bridge. Or take a few swipes at your head with a machette and send the videotape to CNN in New York. Or cut your limbs off one by one. If you'd like some video, I'd be happy to send you some links of actual TORTURE that makes waterboarding sound like a day at Raging Waters.

So okay, lets hear how we can get critical life-saving information from captured "insurgents" if they don't want to tell, CruisingRam. I'm all ears. We caught some guys 20 miles north of base, and we think that they and their buddies planted some roadside bombs. And we caught them with one of the bombs. But they don't want to tell us where the others are. And they know we can't torture or kill them.

How do we save our soldiers lives if we send them 20 miles north of base?

Do we:

A ) Let the world know that we're going to interrogate and make an insurgent very uncomfortable (but not kill him, even tho he'd kill us!) to the point where we MIGHT make him throw up - until he tells us?

or

B ) Let the world hear about how we let another of our own U.S. soldier bleed to death with shrapnel in his face because we didn't want the world to "think we're being mean by hurting others" so that he'd be safer? But boy, did we do a fan-damn-tastic job of making sure we didn't cross the line of public scrutiny!


Oh, THAT'S specific!

But hey, if they want to throw their own crap at our soldiers in our prisons, we need to respect that.

So technically, we can return fire and splat their brains on the wall behind them in battle. But once they're in our custody, and we can actually use information that they have to our advantage, we have to be polite? And they don't! Does it occur to anyone that power and force is the one thing these guys actually respect and respond to? They won't even trade hostages! They'd rather their own die than to return our soldiers. There's not exactly a level playing field as far as honor or respect is concerned. They play to win, and we play by the rules. Gee, what could possibly go wrong?

What could go wrong -- what has gone wrong -- is that the undeniable fact that there are extraordinarily evil human beings out there gives the Good Guys an excuse to be a little less Good.

What could go wrong -- what has gone wrong -- is that the understandable frenzy for revenge which people whose lives have been devastated cannot help but feel has, in some cases, been approved by official government policies.

What could go wrong -- what has gone wrong -- is that the desire to be "tough" has darkened President Reagan's "shining light on a hill" in the eyes of many people in the United States and elsewhere.

I guess when you deal with people who don't even value human life, the rules change a little.


When your fellow soldiers are beheaded on national television, I don't blame them for wanting revenge.

Obviously our enemies aren't afraid. Again. When you deal with people who don't value human life, the rules change a little.

They can tie our soldiers to the bumper of a car and drag them to death, and we're supposed to understand that. But boy, tie them together naked and have a girl pose in a picture with them - OMFG!!! The outrage!!

You can burn our soldiers alive and hang them off a bridge. Still on fire. We're supposed to understand that. It's their weird twisted culture of perverted justice. But make them think they're choking when they're actually suffering no permanent harm, and THAT"S INHUMANE!!

What do you suggest? Tell them you'll "count to three and then you want an answer"? I'm not trying to be rude. I'm trying to find this magical alternative to torture that you guys think will make prisoners talk about things that would save other soldiers' lives.

But the whole basis of a sane legal system in a free society is that the rules don't change.



Of course. But the authorities in charge of their activities should neither approve of such seeking of revenge, nor facilitate it, nor allow it to go without consequences to those involved.



Let me make it as clear as possible that I do not, in any way, shape, or form, consider the atrocities committed by fanatics to be "understandable." They are evil, almost beyond imagination. There should be universal outrage from all sane human beings against such horrors.

What I contend is that these great evils should not be allowed to excuse official government policy from crossing over the line of humane behavior into smaller evils. If I protest the motes in the eye of my own government, it is because there is very little I can do about the beams in the eyes of individuals, governments, and organizations which are beyond all moral persuasion.



The sad truth is that there is no magic answer -- and that includes torture (or, if you prefer, "harsh interrogation") itself. There have been many, many studies of the effectiveness of torture which show that it doesn't work very well at all. Some random examples I found with a few minutes research:

Link #1



Link #2



Link #3



When this subject comes up, there's always the "ticking bomb" scenario raised; wouldn't you accept torture if it meant saving many innocent lives? The problem with this scenario is that it seems not to exist outside paperback novels and television thrillers.

Thus, if "harsh interrogation" isn't any better at yielding information than standard methods, it would seem difficult to justify it on rational terms. Of course, if you approve of government-sponsored revenge, it probably seems like a good idea.

True. And permitting our soldiers to carry no weapons whatsoever would, in effect, ban fratricide and homicide.



Good question. How does that work exactly? Never been explained as far as I know. Pretty important question though, and, I don't think anyone has thought that far ahead (since everyone knew it wouldn't be passed). But if you have a (cited) answer to this I would be interested in reading it.



Could you provide evidence that this legislation "proved not to be enough"? Again, I'd be interested in reading it. I am unaware of any directly or indirectly condoned abuses taking place after the passing of the above legislation.



And again.....Evidence that we still aren't getting that oversight?



He said one General told him that techniques were effective in Iraqi prisons, and he believes the techniques work for Iraqi prisons.



Well, I did specifically say that the techniques didn't "need to be harsher", nor should they be harsher. Just unpublished. According to Mustang there are problems with this manual (I referenced this above and don't see any reason to repeat myself). But okay....if you could provide evidence of another (first world) intelligence agency on this planet that publishes its exact intelligence interrogation techniques for public scrutiny, and remains effective, I'll change my mind. That would be a very compelling argument. If no other first-world country on the planet with an effective and reputable intelligence agency publishes its interrogation techniques for public review, well there's probably a reason for that and I don't think we should be the first.

Thank you for conceding on that point.



Thank you for admitting that this is not so apparent as you would've had us previously believe.



Did or did not the executive branch say that the 2006 legislation was not clear? If they did, then it wasn't enough. The executive branch wanted Congress to be clearer.



I would direct you to the thread on banning waterboarding for the answer to that. Four members of Congress briefed in secret and gagged does not oversight make.



And the context of those statements was? The implication was that the field manual was enough.



How long have the Field Manual techniques been public? While the Field Manual describes specifically proscribed techniques, does it describe allowed techniques in the freely available version?

Wouldn’t it be great if the world and every issue like this one was “black and white” - we are good and never cross a “line” – they are bad and always do.

But the reality is the world and this situation is “gray”. We have rules and methods for interrogation – that are not public. The bill changes that and allows terrorists to “train” to resist them just as we do. So right there the “manual” should not be the guide.

Then we need to decide if rougher methods should be used on high value detainees that we know have high level operational knowledge. We know that waterboarding the 3 high level people yielded results that broke up operations and saved lives.

So if you want to be “black and white” then fine – but remember when we miss critical intel and we lose say 120,000 Americans one afternoon you don’t get the right to come back later when it is revealed that 1 or more detainees had the info and we could have had it too – but for the interrogation techniques. You don’t get to slam the “intel” people because they could not get the info. And we then live with the consequences. We watch the guys who had the info high fiveing each other as they watch the carnage on their cable TV while having a nice dinner.

You should know that right after 9/11 the CIA did 30 briefings for Congress on interrogation techniques, including House people with “oversight” responsibility. And not only did they have only one slight objection, but some asked if we could be a little “rougher”…….

I guess things change with time.

Splicing my response (by cutting off the end which places it out of context) is a bit juvenile of a debate tactic, isn't it? Atypical for you.



Well, it is written in the manual that all deviations for the specific techniques authorized must be vetted through the military commanders for approval. There is nothing mentioned in this legislation that permits the CIA or FBI to alter anything therein. Nothing stated as to whether CIA or FBI would rewrite or have permission to self-interpret. It was written by the military for the military, but nothing in the legislation addresses this fundamental question, so yes, my answer remains apparently so (unless there is some evidence to the contrary which you haven't provided).



I don't see any problem with making it clearer. I do see a problem with making certain information public.



And now the Justice department has reversed itself. Anyone condoning or permitting abusive tactics in any way is persona non grata. That is why a ridiculous piece of legislation like this could make it this far in the first place. It seems to me that things have changed demonstrably regarding oversight.

Have you heard that the former chief prosecutor for Gitmo and Director of the entire Airforce Judiciary plans to testify on behalf of Hamdan's defense? That doesn't happen when oversight is eliminated. Four or so years ago, (IMO) this wouldn't have even been public information in the first place, and the Colonel would have probably been relieved of all command.

That said, the oversight may still not be adequate. I'm not certain it is. If it isn't adequate, require for legal officers to be present at all interrogation sites. The legal officers are then held accountable for the advice they give. That might already be the case now, I don't know. I do know from what I've read that this wasn't the case before.



To answer the first question, many interrogation methods were classified before 2006. For the second, it states that "the only interrogation approaches and techniques that are authorized for use against any detainee are those authorized in this Field Manual." Sounds like the answer is yes. Either that or it is very fundamentally flawed. The attempt was made initially to classify several pages to prevent public access, but that wasn't politically possible.

Edited to add: It really is unfortunate that topics like these seem to delve into excluded middle fallacies (reading CR's post below). That I don't support this legislation does not mean I'm an advocate of '24' and support abuse or argue the ticking time bomb scenario. I have never supported abusive tactics, and I'm not starting now.

I'll provide a direct example. There was an interrogator in Germany by the name of Hanns Scharff. He was a master interrogation officer, so good that he went down in history for his methods. When the subjects of his interrogation were interviewed later, the view of him was unbelievably favorable. He was never physical or abusive with anyone. One response: "What did Scharff get from me? Nothing, yet there i no doubt he got something. If you talked about the weather or anything else he no doubt got some information or confirmation from it. His technique was psychic, not physical" In the book The Interrogator, written about the man, he shares his thoughts and how his techniques worked. The key was largely surprise. If his methods had been known beforehand and therefore expected, they would have been rendered ineffective. Of course, it would have been good for us if Scharff's techniques had been known at the time. We would have killed a lot more German soldiers that way.

Mrs P- unless there is some teeth in a commitee that can bring charges and arrest wrongdoers for torture, instead of the bound and gagged "oversite" we have now- there is 0 oversite- the one senator that raised objections could raise those objections with- nobody, under pain of punishment the law.

I might be inclined to allow some "tougher measures" (not waterboarding or other forms of outright torture)- if there were an oversite commitee that had real teeth- that can have arrest warrants issued, and can impose harsh sentances on those that step out of line, in a big, big way- ruin careers, jail time.

But the entire problem with this whole bill being vetoed is that the Presidents stance to the world is "we are no better than those we chase"- the "bright shining beacon on the hill" is propaganda and no more.

If we want to be the good guys- we have to act like the good guys, all the time.

The "24" "we gotta torture them to get the location of the nuke" scenario is just plain stupidity in action. Didn't happen- never will- it is just hollywood takin' over the brain of the ignorant.

You keep saying the oversight did not work and yet you have never ever posted squat to prove this. The people who saw the techniques esp. the ones with “oversight” authority were not prevented form doing their job – they just had no issues with the methods – including waterboarding.

If you think this is not correct – do something atypical for you – POST something to verify your statement.

I would direct you to the thread "is waterboarding legal"- the objections of the female lawmaker was gagged and there was nothing done with her objections.

A toothless commitee that can not make thier statements public or arrest wrongdoing is no oversite at all.

No matter how many times you said it on that thread as well Ted- there was no oversite, because the commitee had no power, whatsoever, to stop the practice.

To know something but not be able to change it any way does not consist of "oversite"- oversight would be when the oversee-ers can trump the pres and whoever else to go after wrongdoers- there is no mechanism in place for ANY oversight at this point- because there is no remedy for redress or "to make whole"- until we can arrest CIA agents in the field for wrongdoing, and make thier actions public- there is no oversight at all.

She wasn’t “gagged” – she submitted a letter and apparently it was dealt with because no other objections were noted and the practice went forward. NOTHING I have ever read says that of the 30 briefings including the oversight people – ANYONE tried to stop the practice by using the full oversight procedure. CIA is the most “overseen” agency and you cannot tell me they were “gagged” .




Ludicrous nonsense supported by nothing on your side – of course. Show us something from anyone that says “I wanted to stop it but was told I could not do it”.

You know of course that if this Fairy Tale ever DID happen the ever so fair NYT would be all over it like a blanket. Never happened.

AS the question was asked of you on the other thread- what teeth does this oversight commitee have? Can they speak out publically? Do they have the power to subpoena and sentance or charge those that they oversee? What is the nature of thier power as an oversight commitee?

How is the second sentence relevant to the issue at hand. Were you being sarcastic? So, you're saying that the legislation doesn't effectively ban waterboarding?



Does the legislation say that the FBI and CIA need to follow the Army Field Manual instructions for chain of command? Or does it say that it needs to use interrogation techniques from the Field Manual?



Okay... so the Army Field Manual was public for over a year when McCain made his statements during the Republican debate. It has now been a year and a half since the Manual was released... is it less effective now than the day after it was released?

*edited for clarity and to remove what might be considered a belittling remark.*