Bush administration: 'We tortured Qahtani', page 1
Pages: <<  1    2  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 8 times
Topic started on 15-1-2009 @ 09:51 AM by Benevolent Heretic
Susan Crawford, a senior member of the Bush Administration and lifelong Republican, has stated that the United States tortured Mohammed al-Qahtani, "the 20th hijacker" suspect of the 9/11 attacks. Because it has been determined that he was tortured, it will be very difficult to prosecute him as any evidence obtained under torture is inadmissible.

The Guardian


US lawyers battling against torture and other abuses at Guantánamo Bay are braced for George Bush issuing last-minute pardons to protect those in his administration most closely implicated.

The lawyers' warning came after a senior member of the Bush administration, Susan Crawford, admitted for the first time that torture had been carried out. Until now, the Bush administration, in particular the vice-president, Dick Cheney, had denied the interrogation techniques at Guantánamo constituted torture.

Crawford, a Pentagon official who last year was put in charge of military commissions that decide whether detainees should be tried, told the Washington Post: "We tortured Qahtani. His treatment met the legal definition of torture. And that's why I did not refer the case [for prosecution]." She added: "The techniques they used were all authorised, but the manner in which they applied them was overly aggressive and too persistent."


This is one more mark against the practices in which the the US has been engaged at Guantanamo. Torture is ineffective, illegal and can prevent proper prosecution of actual criminals.

MSNBC

ABC News


reply posted on 15-1-2009 @ 11:11 AM by Uniceft17
reply to post by sos37


What does this have to do with the OP anyways??

We have lost our moral athourity with this one, How are we going to tell anyone not to torture our soldiers if we sit back and do the same thing.


reply posted on 15-1-2009 @ 11:11 AM by 44soulslayer
reply to post by sos37


Im no left wing apologist by any means... but I think its quite possible that torture is enough to turn innocent people to violence.

I mean imagine you are just a law abiding muslim, minding your own business. Suddenly a bunch of men in black come down on you, put a bag over your head and take you away to a prison. They then repeatedly torture you for information that you don't have and thus can't give. Finally they realise that you're innocent... but by that time they've subjected you to barbaric acts.

What do you do? I have no doubt that I would immediately go and join in arms with the enemy of the state that tortured me. Torture is as much psychological breakdown as it is about pain. That breakdown is incredibly dangerous, as when the individual is released back into the world they are likely to turn their attention and aggression against their captors. Its natural. Once they have nothing left, they have nothing to lose and will be running on pure rage and venom, eager to strike back in revenge.



reply posted on 15-1-2009 @ 11:18 AM by sos37
reply to post by 44soulslayer


So you're saying torture justifies terrorism? If that's true, then the converse is also true is it not? Terrorism justifies torture.

We know these men are terrorists and have acted in terrorist acts against the U.S., therefore torture is justified, according to your argument.


reply posted on 15-1-2009 @ 11:21 AM by sos37
Originally posted by Uniceft17
reply to post by sos37


What does this have to do with the OP anyways??

We have lost our moral athourity with this one, How are we going to tell anyone not to torture our soldiers if we sit back and do the same thing.


Look, I'm not saying torture is justified in all cases, but I certainly do not agree with Benevolent Heretic when she says that torture is "ineffective". It most certainly is not ineffective if done right. There is a lot of information to be had from captured terrorists that would keep the U.S. safe.

So if torture is the only means of extracting that information and keeping our citizens safe, are you arguing that we still should not do it and the casulaties that may result from the lack of information gained are just collateral damage?


reply posted on 15-1-2009 @ 11:26 AM by jam321
reply to post by Uniceft17


How are we going to tell anyone not to torture our soldiers if we sit back and do the same thing.


Asking someone else not to torture our soldiers isn't going to stop them from doing so. I guarantee you that if someone took one of your love ones and you believe a certain person has knowledge of where that love one is, I bet you would torture him/her till they told you where that love one is. Morality isn't always black and white.


reply posted on 15-1-2009 @ 11:31 AM by apacheman
Originally posted by sos37
Oh and then we have links like this that remind us that maybe the detainees in Guantanamo weren't so innocent after all:

Pentagon: 61 ex-Guantanamo inmates return to terrorism
news.yahoo.com...


Actually the story claimed that 18 returned to terrorism and 43 were suspected of doing so.

First, if they were released due to lack of evidence, how can the claim be made that they "returned" to terrorism? Second, if someone snatched you off the street, held you illegally for a number of years, torturing you whenever they felt like it, wouldn't that tend to make a terrorist, rather more properly, an enemy of you?. I'm pretty sure I'd be highly annoyed, and would consider myself at war with such people, fully justified to return the favor in any way I could.

Bush, Cheney, Rice, Tenet and loads of CIA types (trust me, they're thugs and criminals for the most part, in the job for the thrill of playing in the shadows, with a long history of indulging in murder, torture and playing fast and loose with banking laws, drug laws, and any kind of decent morality: I've had direct experience, close enough to take the warnings seriously) are war criminals and traitors who have violated the Constitution so many times that executing them is simply too easy. They should all be prosecuted, waterboarding as necessary to get their "confession", then they can join Saddam on the gallows, except that that isn't nearly enough punishment for their crimes. Perhaps dumping the lot of them naked into the hands of their worst enemies might do it, but I fear they'd still be killed too quickly.

Sorry if my opinion seems extreme, I'm also a combat veteran who swore an oath to protect and uphold the Constitution: the past eight years have been deeply insulting to what we fought for (I'm not saying the wars I fought in were justified or right, but the principles that most thought they were fighting for were true and worth upholding) and those who gave their lives to protect an idea. The business/political class of this country have become traitors to the Constitution for the most venal of reasons: mere money.

Bah! words fail me.


reply posted on 15-1-2009 @ 11:41 AM by BlueRaja
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


Actually Attorney General nominee Eric Holder is the one using the word torture, if you're interested in being accurate. The debate has been whether or not waterboarding is torture. One group said no, one said yes.
The new group will be taking charge.

Pages: <<  1    2  >>    ^^TOP^^




Newest topics getting replies, in real-time:

Anonymous hacks CIA
  Breaking Alternative News, Posted 13 hours ago, 107 replies
Free Psychic Readings
  General Chit Chat, Posted 9 hours ago, 88 replies
Hollow Earth Theory New Evidence.
  General Conspiracies, Posted 7 hours ago, 61 replies
Free will
  Philosophy and Metaphysics, Posted 11 hours ago, 48 replies