It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: Bedlam
a reply to: WeAreAWAKE
Not so much. Torture can be anything that inflicts intense stress to elicit information.
If I held your face in the toilet until you lost consciousness, then slap you awake only to do it again, repeatedly, that might not be as painful as drilling a hole in your patella but it's still torture.
A lot of questionably legal interrogation techniques are like this. Putting an unloaded pistol to your head and pulling the trigger when I've led you to believe it might go off is one. The helicopter treatment is another. Different from having a soldering iron shoved up your butt but nonetheless effective. They also have the benefit of not leaving obvious marks.
As a question to you, if three or four guys hold you down and hold your nose and mouth shut, in about three minutes, will you call that torture? Even if they're really gentle as they suffocate you?
To say the killing of Osama bin Laden created a patriotic euphoria would be a gross understatement. Spontaneous celebrations broke out across the nation. The image of thousands chanting “U-S-A” from Ground Zero was simply awe-inspiring. It was a great day for America.
According to CIA officials, that achievement was made possible in large part because their enhanced interrogation methods extracted information about the al-Qaeda courier who led the U.S. to bin Laden. If that’s not the definition of “success,” nothing is.
Yet, despite that, the United States is still not fully committed to winning the War on Terror, since we continue to debate whether waterboarding and other “enhanced interrogation techniques” should be used on terrorists hell-bent on destroying us.
Read more at www.phillymag.com...
Jose Rodriguez has no regrets about using the "enhanced interrogation techniques" - methods that some consider torture -- on al Qaeda detainees questioned after 9/11 and denies charges they didn't work. The former head of the CIA's Clandestine Service talks to Lesley Stahl about those methods, including waterboarding, for the first time and defends their use - even comparing them to the current policy of killing al Qaeda leaders with drone strikes. The Rodriguez interview will be broadcast on 60 Minutes Sunday, April 29 at 7 p.m. ET/PT.
Rodriguez says everything his interrogators did to top-level terrorists like Khalid Sheik Mohammed and Abu Zubaydah was legal and effective. "We made some al Qaeda terrorists with American blood on their hands uncomfortable for a few days," he tells Stahl. "I am very secure in what we did and am very confident that what we did saved American lives," says Rodriguez, who has written a book on the subject called "Hard Measures."
Lesley Stahl discusses her "60 Minutes" report
Pressed by Stahl about charges that Zubaydah, who was waterboarded and sleep deprived, gave false information that wasted U.S. resources, Rodriguez replies, "Bull****!, He gave us a roadmap that allowed us to capture a bunch of al Qaeda senior leaders," says the ex-spy.
Rodriguez says the interrogation program, which also included stress positions, nudity and "insult slaps," was "about instilling a sense of hopelessness...despair...so that he [the detainee] would conclude on his own that he was better off cooperating with us." He says that even Khalid Sheik Mohammed, whom he termed "the toughest detainee we had," eventually gave up information.
Former CIA Directors George Tenet and Porter Goss contend that harsh techniques helped deliver valuable intelligence. Leon Panetta said waterboarding is “torture,” and the methods produced clues that led to Osama bin Laden. Democratic committee staffers combed through 6.3 million documents, Feinstein noted. The GOP minority report countered that the Democrats’ staff never interviewed CIA officials, even after a federal probe had been closed. My issue with the Feinstein report was that it cost $40 million and years of staff work to try to prove something I do not believe can be proved, i.e., that the CIA could have found the information through other means.
originally posted by: matafuchs
Sorry, if a combatant terrorist is captured and there is reason to believe his intel can stop future attacks...waterboard, chemicals...I do not care. He gave his life to kill for a purpose and our countrymen need to know why, where and who... at any cost.
originally posted by: GuacBowlMerchant
a reply to: Krazysh0t
Who is becoming a monster? Fighting to protect people from monsters is absolutely the right thing to do. No one forced them to be terrorists or bomb pearl harbor or whatever. It's not something you want to do but it's something you have to do.
originally posted by: WeAreAWAKE
a reply to: crazyewok
I understand and won't argue your points. They are well made. But about the Constitution which I actually do support as you pointed out. The Constitution applies to American citizens...at least in my opinion. Terrorists, war criminals, illegal invaders, etc. aren't protected by the Constitution of the United States of America. "WE the people of the United States".
originally posted by: GuacBowlMerchant
a reply to: Eilasvaleleyn
He who nuked Japan won the war. When you win you can worry about morality. In my mind there is nothing more moral then stopping evil people do evil things and you can't do that by asking them nicely to stop hurting people.