PDA

View Full Version : Judge Admits that Terror Wannabe was Tortured at GITMO



Nickdfresh
01-14-2009, 10:40 AM
Pentagon official says 9/11 suspect was tortured

4 hours ago

WASHINGTON (AP) — A Pentagon official acknowledged in an interview published Wednesday that the United States tortured Mohammed al-Qahtani, a Saudi man who allegedly had hoped to become the "20th hijacker" in the Sept. 11 attacks.

"We tortured Qahtani," said Susan J. Crawford, a retired judge who was appointed convening authority of military commissions in February 2007. Crawford was interviewed by The Washington Post's Bob Woodward.

Al-Qahtani was one of six men charged by the military in February 2008 with murder and war crimes for their alleged roles in the 2001 attacks. But in May, Crawford decided to dismiss the charges against al-Qahtani, who was being held at the U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

His Pentagon-appointed attorney, Army Lt. Col. Bryan Broyles, suggested at the time that his client's harsh interrogation, authorized by the defense secretary, Donald H. Rumsfeld, could have influenced the decision.

"In any instance in which the United States wishes to impose the death penalty, my opinion is that such a case requires clean hands on the part of the U.S.," Broyles told The Associated Press in May.

U.S. authorities had acknowledged that al-Qahtani was subjected to waterboarding by CIA interrogators and that he was treated harshly at Guantanamo.

Al-Qahtani in October 2006 recanted a confession he said he made after he was tortured and humiliated at Guantanamo.

The alleged torture, which he detailed in a written statement, included being beaten, restrained for long periods in uncomfortable positions, threatened with dogs, exposed to loud music and freezing temperatures and stripped nude in front of female personnel.

In the interview published by the Post on Wednesday, Crawford said: "His treatment met the legal definition of torture. And that is why I did not refer the case" for prosecution.

Hosted by Google (http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hdx1pdytfD7MvVJHNgeYH88HpcEwD95MSR880)

Copyright © 2009 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.

Seshmeister
01-14-2009, 11:15 AM
So torture gives you shit inaccurate BS intelligence and even if they are guilty you can't prosecute them.

LoungeMachine
01-14-2009, 12:27 PM
So torture gives you shit inaccurate BS intelligence and even if they are guilty you can't prosecute them.

But it's so much fun.

:gulp:

chefcraig
01-14-2009, 12:37 PM
Coincidentally, this comes on the heels of the season premier of "24", in which Jack Bauer made a similar confession in a senate hearing. If you believe in coincidences...

Blackflag
01-14-2009, 12:51 PM
Then they come back and list things that aren't really torture...threatening with dogs, being cold, beating (possibly)... I agree this is all bullshit, but if she's going to make the allegation of torture, she should be specific.

FORD
01-14-2009, 05:12 PM
I thought Zack Mousaui was the "20th hijacker"? :confused:

Or is this like "#2 man in Al Qaeda" and they just make up a new guy whenever it's convenient?

Blackflag
01-14-2009, 05:22 PM
I thought Zack Mousaui was the "20th hijacker"? :confused:

Or is this like "#2 man in Al Qaeda" and they just make up a new guy whenever it's convenient?

Ha ha, good catch.

Nickdfresh
01-14-2009, 06:27 PM
Then they come back and list things that aren't really torture...threatening with dogs, being cold, beating (possibly)... I agree this is all bullshit, but if she's going to make the allegation of torture, she should be specific.

Um, by all accounts waterboarding is absolutely torture...

And I might add that constant bombardment with physical and mental duress, such as leaving people in freezing cells, would amount to torture over a long period...

Seshmeister
01-14-2009, 06:30 PM
I wish all these naysayers could join Hitchens and try it.

I think he managed about 2 seconds waterboarding...

GAR
01-14-2009, 06:31 PM
But it's so much fun.

Not if they're still breathing.. I beg to differ.

LoungeMachine
01-14-2009, 06:35 PM
Not if they're still breathing.. I beg to differ.

The fact sarcasm flies over your head will surprise no one....

:gulp:

GAR
01-14-2009, 06:40 PM
The flies surrounding your head command you to kill yourself and the only way to silence these Voices is to eat them.

Blackflag
01-14-2009, 06:56 PM
Um, by all accounts waterboarding is absolutely torture...


Um, neither the judge nor Qahtani is alleging waterboarding.

Nickdfresh
01-14-2009, 07:05 PM
Um, neither the judge nor Qahtani is alleging waterboarding.


Um, I didn't say she specifically did. She didn't have too as others stated he was..

But brutality (beatings) and subjection to long term coercive techniques are also torture by all any real definition...

Nickdfresh
01-14-2009, 07:15 PM
Detainee Tortured, Says U.S. Official
Trial Overseer Cites 'Abusive' Methods Against 9/11 Suspect

By Bob Woodward
Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/13/AR2009011303372.html?hpid%3Dtopnews&sub=AR) Staff Writer
Wednesday, January 14, 2009; A01

The top Bush administration official in charge of deciding whether to bring Guantanamo Bay detainees to trial has concluded that the U.S. military tortured a Saudi national who allegedly planned to participate in the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, interrogating him with techniques that included sustained isolation, sleep deprivation, nudity and prolonged exposure to cold, leaving him in a "life-threatening condition."

"We tortured [Mohammed al-]Qahtani," said Susan J. Crawford, in her first interview since being named convening authority of military commissions by Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates in February 2007. "His treatment met the legal definition of torture. And that's why I did not refer the case" for prosecution.

Crawford, a retired judge who served as general counsel for the Army during the Reagan administration and as Pentagon inspector general when Dick Cheney was secretary of defense, is the first senior Bush administration official responsible for reviewing practices at Guantanamo to publicly state that a detainee was tortured.

Crawford, 61, said the combination of the interrogation techniques, their duration and the impact on Qahtani's health led to her conclusion. "The techniques they used were all authorized, but the manner in which they applied them was overly aggressive and too persistent. . . . You think of torture, you think of some horrendous physical act done to an individual. This was not any one particular act; this was just a combination of things that had a medical impact on him, that hurt his health. It was abusive and uncalled for. And coercive. Clearly coercive. It was that medical impact that pushed me over the edge" to call it torture, she said.

Military prosecutors said in November that they would seek to refile charges against Qahtani, 30, based on subsequent interrogations that did not employ harsh techniques. But Crawford, who dismissed war crimes charges against him in May 2008, said in the interview that she would not allow the prosecution to go forward.

Qahtani was denied entry into the United States a month before the Sept. 11 attacks and was allegedly planning to be the plot's 20th hijacker. He was later captured in Afghanistan and transported to Guantanamo in January 2002. His interrogation took place over 50 days from November 2002 to January 2003, though he was held in isolation until April 2003.

"For 160 days his only contact was with the interrogators," said Crawford, who personally reviewed Qahtani's interrogation records and other military documents. "Forty-eight of 54 consecutive days of 18-to-20-hour interrogations. Standing naked in front of a female agent. Subject to strip searches. And insults to his mother and sister."

At one point he was threatened with a military working dog named Zeus, according to a military report. Qahtani "was forced to wear a woman's bra and had a thong placed on his head during the course of his interrogation" and "was told that his mother and sister were whores." With a leash tied to his chains, he was led around the room "and forced to perform a series of dog tricks," the report shows.

The interrogation, portions of which have been previously described by other news organizations, including The Washington Post, was so intense that Qahtani had to be hospitalized twice at Guantanamo with bradycardia, a condition in which the heart rate falls below 60 beats a minute and which in extreme cases can lead to heart failure and death. At one point Qahtani's heart rate dropped to 35 beats per minute, the record shows.

The Qahtani case underscores the challenges facing the incoming Obama administration as it seeks to close the controversial detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, including the dilemmas posed by individuals considered too dangerous to release but whose legal status is uncertain. FBI "clean teams," which gather evidence without using information gained during controversial interrogations, have established that Qahtani intended to join the 2001 hijackers. Mohamed Atta, the plot's leader, who died steering American Airlines Flight 11 into the World Trade Center, went to the Orlando airport to meet Qahtani on Aug. 4, 2001, but the young Saudi was denied entry by a suspicious immigration inspector.

"There's no doubt in my mind he would've been on one of those planes had he gained access to the country in August 2001," Crawford said of Qahtani, who remains detained at Guantanamo. "He's a muscle hijacker. . . . He's a very dangerous man. What do you do with him now if you don't charge him and try him? I would be hesitant to say, 'Let him go.' "

That, she said, is a decision that President-elect Barack Obama will have to make. Obama repeated Sunday that he intends to close the Guantanamo center but acknowledged the challenges involved. "It is more difficult than I think a lot of people realize," Obama said on ABC's "This Week," "and we are going to get it done, but part of the challenge that you have is that you have a bunch of folks that have been detained, many of whom may be very dangerous, who have not been put on trial or have not gone through some adjudication. And some of the evidence against them may be tainted, even though it's true."

President Bush and Vice President Cheney have said that interrogations never involved torture. "The United States does not torture. It's against our laws, and it's against our values," Bush asserted on Sept. 6, 2006, when 14 high-value detainees were transferred to Guantanamo from secret CIA prisons. And in a interview last week with the Weekly Standard, Cheney said, "And I think on the left wing of the Democratic Party, there are some people who believe that we really tortured."

"I sympathize with the intelligence gatherers in those days after 9/11, not knowing what was coming next and trying to gain information to keep us safe," said Crawford, a lifelong Republican. "But there still has to be a line that we should not cross. And unfortunately what this has done, I think, has tainted everything going forward."

"The Department has always taken allegations of abuse seriously," Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell said in an e-mail. "We have conducted more than a dozen investigations and reviews of our detention operations, including specifically the interrogation of Mohammed Al Qahtani, the alleged 20th hijacker. They concluded the interrogation methods used at GTMO, including the special techniques used on Qahtani in 2002, were lawful. However, subsequent to those reviews, the Department adopted new and more restrictive policies and procedures for interrogation and detention operations. Some of the aggressive questioning techniques used on Al Qahtani, although permissible at the time, are no longer allowed in the updated Army field manual."

After the Supreme Court ruled in the 2006 Hamdan v. Rumsfeld case that the original military commission system for Guantanamo Bay violated the Constitution and the Geneva Conventions, Congress rewrote the rules and passed the Military Commissions Act, creating a new structure for trials by commissions. The act bans torture but permits "coercive" testimony.

Crawford said she believes that coerced testimony should not be allowed. "You don't allow it in a regular court," said Crawford, who served as a judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces from 1991 to 2006.

Under the act, Crawford is a neutral official overseeing charges, trials and sentencing, with ultimate decision-making power over all cases coming before the military commissions.

In May 2008, Crawford ordered the war-crimes charges against Qahtani dropped but did not state publicly that the harsh interrogations were the reason. "It did shock me," Crawford said. "I was upset by it. I was embarrassed by it. If we tolerate this and allow it, then how can we object when our servicemen and women, or others in foreign service, are captured and subjected to the same techniques? How can we complain? Where is our moral authority to complain? Well, we may have lost it."

The harsh techniques used against Qahtani, she said, were approved by then-Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld. "A lot of this happened on his watch," she said. Last month, a Senate Armed Services Committee report concluded that "Rumsfeld's authorization of aggressive interrogation techniques for use at Guantanamo Bay was a direct cause of detainee abuse there." The committee found the interrogation techniques harsh and abusive but stopped short of calling them torture.

An aide to the former defense secretary accused the committee chairman, Carl M. Levin (D-Mich.), of pursuing a politically motivated "false narrative" that is "unencumbered by the preponderance of the facts."

In June 2005, Time magazine obtained 83 pages of Qahtani's interrogation log and published excerpts that showed some of the extreme abuse. The report of a military investigation released the same year concluded that Qahtani's interrogations were "degrading and abusive."

Crawford said she does not know whether five other detainees accused of participating in the Sept. 11 plot, including alleged mastermind Khalid Sheik Mohammed, were tortured. "I assume torture," she said, noting that CIA Director Michael V. Hayden has said publicly that Mohammed was one of three detainees waterboarded by the CIA. Crawford declined to say whether she considers waterboarding, a technique that simulates drowning, to be torture.

The five detainees face capital murder charges, and Crawford said she let the charges go forward because the FBI satisfied her that they gathered information without using harsh techniques. She noted that Mohammed has acknowledged his Sept. 11 role in court, whereas Qahtani has recanted his self-incriminating statements to the FBI.

"There is no doubt he was tortured," Gitanjali S. Gutierrez, Qahtani's civilian attorney, said this week. "He has loss of concentration and memory loss, and he suffers from paranoia. . . . He wants just to get back to Saudi Arabia, get married and have a family." She said Qahtani "adamantly denies he planned to join the 9/11 attack. . . . He has no connections to extremists." Gutierrez said she believes Saudi Arabia has an effective rehabilitation program and Qahtani ought to be returned there.

When she came in as convening authority in 2007, Crawford said, "the prosecution was unprepared" to bring cases to trial. Even after four years working possible cases, "they were lacking in experience and judgment and leadership," she said. "A prosecutor has an ethical obligation to review all the evidence before making a charging decision. And they didn't have access to all the evidence, including medical records, interrogation logs, and they were making charging decisions without looking at everything."

She noted that prosecutors are required to determine whether any evidence possessed by the government could be exculpatory; if it is, they must turn it over to defense lawyers. It took more than a year, she said -- and the intervention of Deputy Defense Secretary Gordon England -- to ensure they had access to all the information, much of it classified.

Crawford said detainee interrogation practices are a blot on the reputation of the United States and its military judicial system. "There's an assumption out there that everybody was tortured. And everybody wasn't tortured. But unfortunately perception is reality." The system she oversees probably can't function now, she said. "Certainly in the public's mind, or politically speaking, and certainly in the international community" it may be forever tainted. "It may be too late."

She said Bush was right to create a system to try unlawful enemy combatants captured in the war on terrorism. The implementation, however, was flawed, she said. "I think he hurt his own effort. . . . I think someone should acknowledge that mistakes were made and that they hurt the effort and take responsibility for it."

"We learn as children it's easier to ask for forgiveness than it is for permission," Crawford said. "I think the buck stops in the Oval Office."

Researchers Julie Tate and Evelyn Duffy contributed to this report.

Blackflag
01-15-2009, 12:03 AM
Um, I didn't say she specifically did. She didn't have too as others stated he was..

Um, what others said Qahtani was waterboarded?

Seshmeister
01-15-2009, 12:23 AM
[B]Detainee Tortured, Says "For 160 days his only contact was with the interrogators," said Crawford, who personally reviewed Qahtani's interrogation records and other military documents. "Forty-eight of 54 consecutive days of 18-to-20-hour interrogations. Standing naked in front of a female agent. Subject to strip searches. And insults to his mother and sister."

At one point he was threatened with a military working dog named Zeus, according to a military report. Qahtani "was forced to wear a woman's bra and had a thong placed on his head during the course of his interrogation" and "was told that his mother and sister were whores." With a leash tied to his chains, he was led around the room "and forced to perform a series of dog tricks," the report shows.

The interrogation, portions of which have been previously described by other news organizations, including The Washington Post, was so intense that Qahtani had to be hospitalized twice at Guantanamo with bradycardia, a condition in which the heart rate falls below 60 beats a minute and which in extreme cases can lead to heart failure and death. At one point Qahtani's heart rate dropped to 35 beats per minute, the record shows.


It's torture plain and simple. Some people don't seem to be able to understand the huge difference time makes in all of this. Everything becomes torture if you are made to do it for long enough, even standing up.

Dr. Love
01-15-2009, 12:28 AM
I'm not sure how putting them nude in front of female personnel would be torturous. Are the women ugly or something?

Blackflag
01-15-2009, 12:34 AM
It's torture plain and simple. Some people don't seem to be able to understand the huge difference time makes in all of this. Everything becomes torture if you are made to do it for long enough, even standing up.

Yes and no. Getting punched in the face for 54 days is torture. "Insults to his mother and sister" for 54 days is not. That's why I'm saying - if she's going to scream torture - she should say specifically what she saw and let us make up our own mind.

:mad2:

Seshmeister
01-15-2009, 12:41 AM
Forty-eight of 54 consecutive days 18-20 hours interrogation?

Nickdfresh
01-15-2009, 12:49 AM
Um, what others said Qahtani was waterboarded?

Um, "US officials" did. You can fucking fact check the article anytime...

Blackflag
01-15-2009, 12:58 AM
Um, "US officials" did. You can fucking fact check the article anytime...

So can you, d-bag. It's your article.

Nickdfresh
01-15-2009, 01:08 AM
Yes and no. Getting punched in the face for 54 days is torture. "Insults to his mother and sister" for 54 days is not. That's why I'm saying - if she's going to scream torture - she should say specifically what she saw and let us make up our own mind.

:mad2:

Um, psychologically breaking someone down over two months is torture...

And if you read the long article, you'll see medically validated proof that his health declined over the time as they pushed him to the brink, presumably without really learning anything useful in the "War on terra," since no major, real terror cells were ever discovered post-911 with any actual ties to Al Qaida in the US with any proof of having the organization or equipment to carry out their supposed plots..

Aren't you such a thick one? You're pissing yourself over British police being able to scan computers - but you don't seem to concerned over the US gov't labeling someone a "terrorist," then stripping him of all rights, due process, and illegally holding him indefinitely without trial and subjecting him to things we very clearly labeled "torture" when they were applied to US POWs during the Korean War and Vietnam. In fact, where do you think we got these techniques?

The last sentence is not an exaggeration in the least actually. You see, these techniques of long term psychological torment coupled with physical mistreatment that may be seemingly innocuous when recited individually -conducted long term and over time in conjunction with others- were found to be very effective against captured US military personnel for shallow things involving propaganda such as signing ridiculous "confessions." In fact, much of this was derived from the experiences of said vets and studies conducted in an effort to train special operations personnel and pilots during "SERE (survival and evasion) Training." But very ironically, the current Admin about to be douched from power actually commissioned studies on how to integrate communist totalitarian interrogation techniques used on captives and made them SOP for US forces. Of course, there's little evidence that the commies ever learned anything of any significance from such torture and it was good for little more than getting "confessions"..

But maybe you can take some Abu Ghraib pics and say they were just fraternity pranks like the other right wing apologist douchebags around here?

Nickdfresh
01-15-2009, 01:10 AM
So can you, d-bag. It's your article.


I'm not the one questioning it, fuckstump.

I didn't know it was this difficult...

hideyoursheep
01-15-2009, 06:57 AM
The log, titled SECRET ORCON INTERROGATION LOG DETAINEE 063, offers a daily, detailed view of the interrogation techniques used to obtain confession from him from November 23, 2002, to January 11, 2003. These include the following:

Restraint on a swivel chair for long periods
Deprivation of sleep for long periods
Loud music and white noise played to prevent the detainee from sleeping
Various humiliations, such as training the detainee to act as a dog
Lowering the temperature in the room, then throwing water to the detainee's face
Forcing the detainee to pray to Osama Bin Laden
Various interrogation techniques described as "pride & ego down", "circumstantial evidence", "fear-up", or "Al Qaeda falling apart"
At no point during the interrogation log does al-Kahtani explicitly admit to being a member of Al Qaeda, although his stated reasons for travelling to the United States and Afghanistan - what the US interrogators refer to as his cover story - appear inconsistent. Furthermore, the entry for 2003-01-01 relates how al-Kahtani blames Osama bin Laden for deceiving the 19 9/11 hijackers ("his friends"):

2A0780 asked how one man, Bin Laden, convince [sic] 19 young men to kill themselves, (detainee was starting to fade he was going in and out of sleep.) The question was repeated, detainee stated that they were tricked, that he distorted the picture if [sic] front of them, 2A0780 asked detainee if this made him mad, detainee stated yes, (detainee did not realize that 2A780 [sic] had not started putting detainee into the picture) 2A0780 asked detainee if he was mad that his friends had been tricked, detainee said yes. 2A0780 asked detainee if his friends knew about the plan, detainee said no, 2A0780 asked if detainee knew about the plan, detainee stated that he didn't know. 2A0780 asked detainee if it made him mad that he killed his friends, detainee stated yes. 2A0780 asked detainee if he was glad that he didn’t die on the plane, detainee stated yes. 2A0780 asked detainee if his parents were happy that he didn’t die detainee stated yes. 2A0780 stated "he killed your friends" detainee stated yes.

hideyoursheep
01-15-2009, 07:26 AM
I don't know what to think of all this.

Yes, he was tortured. Mildly by his master's standards.

His only real crime is conspiracy to commit murder, since the ones who actually follow through end up dead.

But, isn't that what Bin Hidin is guilty of?

How much time, money and manpower have we used trying to not find him?

He's Charlie Manson to the tenth power.

I say cut this asshole loose - back into the wild with his asshole boss in the mountains.


Nobody, and I mean NOBODY, beter give Obama any shit if he decides to raise troop levels in Afghanistan in effort to kill that bastard.


That's where it began and that's where it has to end.

Not Iraq

Not Iran

Not Syria

It does not end until the Kabar cuts his slimy throat....wherever it might be at the time.

Blackflag
01-15-2009, 02:57 PM
Um, psychologically breaking someone down over two months is torture...

Since the definition of torture is legal, and not your opinion, why don't you give me a citation for that definition.



And if you read the long article, you'll see medically validated proof that his health declined over the time as they pushed him to the brink, presumably without really learning anything useful in the "War on terra," since no major, real terror cells were ever discovered post-911 with any actual ties to Al Qaida in the US with any proof of having the organization or equipment to carry out their supposed plots..

Aren't you such a thick one? You're pissing yourself over British police being able to scan computers - but you don't seem to concerned over the US gov't labeling someone a "terrorist," then stripping him of all rights, due process, and illegally holding him indefinitely without trial and subjecting him to things we very clearly labeled "torture" when they were applied to US POWs during the Korean War and Vietnam. In fact, where do you think we got these techniques?

The last sentence is not an exaggeration in the least actually. You see, these techniques of long term psychological torment coupled with physical mistreatment that may be seemingly innocuous when recited individually -conducted long term and over time in conjunction with others- were found to be very effective against captured US military personnel for shallow things involving propaganda such as signing ridiculous "confessions." In fact, much of this was derived from the experiences of said vets and studies conducted in an effort to train special operations personnel and pilots during "SERE (survival and evasion) Training." But very ironically, the current Admin about to be douched from power actually commissioned studies on how to integrate communist totalitarian interrogation techniques used on captives and made them SOP for US forces. Of course, there's little evidence that the commies ever learned anything of any significance from such torture and it was good for little more than getting "confessions"..

But maybe you can take some Abu Ghraib pics and say they were just fraternity pranks like the other right wing apologist douchebags around here?

Blah, blah, blah. All I'm saying is this: The lady comes out and says he was "tortured." Then she says she hasn't decided whether waterboarding is or is not torture. Therefore, by logic, she saw something more like torture than waterboarding.

So all I'm saying is - if she's going to make the allegation, she should say specifically what she saw. Did she see him beat with a hose? Or was he just pranced around nude? If she's going to be a whistleblower, why not give the people specifics? We're capable of making up our own minds.

Do you really disagree with my comment? Or are you just obsessed with picking fights?

GAR
01-15-2009, 03:41 PM
Forty-eight of 54 consecutive days 18-20 hours interrogation?

Thats alot of Slayer surround-sound time!

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/Sb-DTrMG4vs&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/Sb-DTrMG4vs&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

They should be thankful to Boosh Sayten.

binnie
01-15-2009, 03:53 PM
Whether the techniques described above legally count as 'torture' or not is not really the issue in my book - they are shocking treatments of a human being, regardless of what they may or may not have done. If the West really is 'superior' to the East then we shouldn't have to resort to such tactics.

If a clinical trial were organised whereby a set % of the people on this site where subjected to these techniques of interrogation, I'm betting that even the strongest of us would crack after two weeks and admit to anything - most of us wouldn't even last that long.

Nickdfresh
01-15-2009, 04:15 PM
Since the definition of torture is legal, and not your opinion, why don't you give me a citation for that definition.

It's only torture if it "causes organ failure." Is that your legal definition?

BTW, why would the "definition of torture" be legal? Is anyone being charged for torturing?

And since you're the one disagreeing with her, why don't you fucking provide a "legal definition of torture?"

Why do I have to prove something when:

a.) I'm not her council/PR director

b.) you're the one trying to disprove her statements?


Blah, blah, blah. All I'm saying is this: The lady comes out and says he was "tortured." Then she says she hasn't decided whether waterboarding is or is not torture. Therefore, by logic, she saw something more like torture than waterboarding.

It's called an opinion that she was forced to make in her position. And it is one based on the fact that any potential defense team would rip apart the prosecution's case as based on coerced information...

If you don't think he was tortured, then just fucking say so...

BTW, US troops during Vietnam era and Japanese War criminals from WWII were charged for using "waterboarding."

Is that legal enough for you?


So all I'm saying is - if she's going to make the allegation, she should say specifically what she saw. Did she see him beat with a hose? Or was he just pranced around nude? If she's going to be a whistleblower, why not give the people specifics? We're capable of making up our own minds.

Do you really disagree with my comment? Or are you just obsessed with picking fights?

I think she described her position very clearly. His physical health was damaged by his treatment of long term stress inducing malfeasance....

Of course, we've made this point like fucking twice now, and you continue to ignore the fact that he showed potentially life-threatening adversity to his health that was independently medically documented. But then, perhaps you're far closer to Bush and Cheney than you like to pretend...

Nickdfresh
01-15-2009, 04:25 PM
Whether the techniques described above legally count as 'torture' or not is not really the issue in my book - they are shocking treatments of a human being, regardless of what they may or may not have done. If the West really is 'superior' to the East then we shouldn't have to resort to such tactics.

If a clinical trial were organised whereby a set % of the people on this site where subjected to these techniques of interrogation, I'm betting that even the strongest of us would crack after two weeks and admit to anything - most of us wouldn't even last that long.

Of course!

But the techniques do constitute torture, because the whole is greater than the sum of the parts...

And his treatment defies all conventions as he is either a Enemy Prisoner of War, or he's a criminal to be tried in a US Court. Either case, the "enemy combatant" crap is the case of the US gov't trying to have its cake and eat it too - to avoid giving these guys any sort of due process while flouting the basic conventions that could put US troops at danger of being treated this way in future wars as the definition of "terrorist" here seems to be anyone handed over by the Northern Alliance who was:

1.) captured resisting on a battlefield which would make him a soldier

2.) on some Northern Alliance member's shitlist for owing him money/screwing his wife, etc....

binnie
01-15-2009, 04:33 PM
Of course!

But the techniques do constitute torture, because the whole is greater than the sum of the parts...

And his treatment defies all conventions as he is either a Enemy Prisoner of War, or he's a criminal to be tried in a US Court. Either case, the "enemy combatant" crap is the case of the US gov't trying to have its cake and eat it too - to avoid giving these guys any sort of due process while flouting the basic conventions that could put US troops at danger of being treated this way in future wars as the definition of "terrorist" here seems to be anyone handed over by the Northern Alliance who was:

1.) captured resisting on a battlefield which would make him a soldier

2.) on some Northern Alliance member's shitlist for owing him money/screwing his wife, etc....


Yup. I agree with you entirely Nick.

Put simply, legal process should be enough.

Blackflag
01-15-2009, 04:46 PM
it's only torture if it "causes organ failure." is that your legal definition?. . . You like to pretend...



since the definition of torture is legal, and not your opinion, why don't you give me a citation for that definition.



so all i'm saying is - if she's going to make the allegation, she should say specifically what she saw. . . .do you really disagree with my comment? Or are you just obsessed with picking fights?

.
.
.

Nickdfresh
01-15-2009, 05:06 PM
it's only torture if it "causes organ failure." is that your legal definition?. . . You like to pretend...



since the definition of torture is legal, and not your opinion, why don't you give me a citation for that definition.



so all i'm saying is - if she's going to make the allegation, she should say specifically what she saw. . . .do you really disagree with my comment? Or are you just obsessed with picking fights?


.
.
.

And since you're the one disagreeing with her (not me), why don't you fucking provide a "legal definition of torture?"

I think she described her position very clearly. His physical health was damaged by his treatment of long term stress inducing malfeasance....

Of course, we've made this point like fucking twice now, and you continue to ignore the fact that he showed potentially life-threatening adversity to his health that was independently medically documented. But then, perhaps you're far closer to Bush and Cheney than you like to pretend...

Blackflag
01-15-2009, 05:28 PM
[I]
And since you're the one disagreeing with her

Quote for me where I disagreed with her.

When you're done with that, answer the questions I asked you.

Nickdfresh
01-15-2009, 07:59 PM
Quote for me where I disagreed with her.

No. Explain what your fucking problem with her is again...


When you're done with that, answer the questions I asked you.

When you answer the questions I asked you...

FORD
01-15-2009, 10:37 PM
I'm not sure how putting them nude in front of female personnel would be torturous. Are the women ugly or something?

Religious reasons, no doubt. Islamic fundies don't believe you should ever be naked, and definitely not in front of a woman. I'm not sure whether the Geneva Conventions specifically prohibit mocking their beliefs in this manner, but common sense would say that forcing someone to commit "blasphemy" against their own faith probably isn't going to make them any more willing to cooperate with you.

binnie
01-16-2009, 04:01 AM
Religious reasons, no doubt. Islamic fundies don't believe you should ever be naked, and definitely not in front of a woman. .

Indeed - it is deemed a sign of great shame to be naked in front of another human being (other than wife/husband).

Making them be naked is kind of like making a Jew eat pork.

Nickdfresh
01-16-2009, 09:28 AM
And for anyone wondering where this all comes from -that is using the psyche of sexual humiliation of Arab men using shaming techniques- can see these threads:

http://www.rotharmy.com/forums/showthread.php?t=34514

And the one on Seymour Hersh wrote on "Operation Copper Green": (http://www.rotharmy.com/forums/showthread.php?t=14802)

One of the questions that will be explored at any trial, however, is why a group of Army Reserve military policemen, most of them from small towns, tormented their prisoners as they did, in a manner that was especially humiliating for Iraqi men.

The notion that Arabs are particularly vulnerable to sexual humiliation became a talking point among pro-war Washington conservatives in the months before the March, 2003, invasion of Iraq. One book that was frequently cited was “The Arab Mind,” a study of Arab culture and psychology, first published in 1973, by Raphael Patai, a cultural anthropologist who taught at, among other universities, Columbia and Princeton, and who died in 1996. The book includes a twenty-five-page chapter on Arabs and sex, depicting sex as a taboo vested with shame and repression. “The segregation of the sexes, the veiling of the women . . . and all the other minute rules that govern and restrict contact between men and women, have the effect of making sex a prime mental preoccupation in the Arab world,” Patai wrote. Homosexual activity, “or any indication of homosexual leanings, as with all other expressions of sexuality, is never given any publicity. These are private affairs and remain in private.” The Patai book, an academic told me, was “the bible of the neocons on Arab behavior.” In their discussions, he said, two themes emerged—“one, that Arabs only understand force and, two, that the biggest weakness of Arabs is shame and humiliation.”

The government consultant said that there may have been a serious goal, in the beginning, behind the sexual humiliation and the posed photographs. It was thought that some prisoners would do anything—including spying on their associates—to avoid dissemination of the shameful photos to family and friends. The government consultant said, “I was told that the purpose of the photographs was to create an army of informants, people you could insert back in the population.” The idea was that they would be motivated by fear of exposure, and gather information about pending insurgency action, the consultant said. If so, it wasn’t effective; the insurgency continued to grow.

Blackflag
01-16-2009, 01:47 PM
If we're going to say that any emotional distress or embarassment amounts to "torture," then we just shouldn't question anybody about anything - including criminal investigations in the U.S. I mean, that's just as extreme as saying you have to nearly kill somebody for it to be torture.

Nickdfresh
01-16-2009, 04:37 PM
If we're going to say that any emotional distress or embarassment amounts to "torture," then we just shouldn't question anybody about anything - including criminal investigations in the U.S. I mean, that's just as extreme as saying you have to nearly kill somebody for it to be torture.



...

I think she described her position very clearly. His physical health was damaged by his treatment of long term stress inducing malfeasance....

Of course, we've made this point like fucking twice now, and you continue to ignore the fact that he showed potentially life-threatening adversity to his health that was independently medically documented. But then, perhaps you're far closer to Bush and Cheney than you like to pretend...

"Emotional?" Try physiological. Okay, we'll just repeat ourselves then...

Blackflag
01-16-2009, 06:43 PM
:stupid:

Dude, how can I make this any clearer to you? You're obsessed with picking a fight with me, to the point of putting words in my mouth and fabricating new words of your own. (:fucku2:). And, you don't have the simple logic required to argue. So let's cut to the chase and you stop addressing me. Go beat your wife instead, douchebag. Ha ha.

hideyoursheep
01-16-2009, 07:05 PM
If we're going to say that any emotional distress or embarassment amounts to "torture," then we just shouldn't question anybody about anything - including criminal investigations in the U.S. I mean, that's just as extreme as saying you have to nearly kill somebody for it to be torture.

You tourture yourself all the time.


Your posts are 'shameful' and embarrassing..

:moon:

Nickdfresh
01-16-2009, 07:06 PM
:stupid:

Dude, how can I make this any clearer to you? You're obsessed with picking a fight with me, to the point of putting words in my mouth and fabricating new words of your own.

I'm "obsessed with picking a fight with you?" Gee, the funny thing is that you keep asking me "questions" and are the one trying to make some wider point on what constitutes torture without ever committing yourself to the criteria you demand from others...

Silly me! It's all my fault...

But feel free to point out specifically which "words" I "put into your mouth." Which ones am I "fabricating" BTW? I think I am just using the quote function to counter your blatantly asinine redundancies. It's not my fault if you have a limited vocabulary. Did we forget that you are the one that routinely leaves out the post you're attempting to feebly address and selectively culls what you cannot answer?

You've made almost the exact same post at least three times now with a silly interpretation, completely ignoring relevant points by cleverly pretending they don't exist simply by not ever acknowledging much less addressing them.


(:fucku2:). And, you don't have the simple logic required to argue.

You nullified the concept of logic long ago by trying some silly ass "controlling the conversation" crap. But you cannot control it by ignoring key facets of it, especially when you get owned.

Your M.O. seems simply to be .."oops, I can't respond to that/I got owned on that point - so I'll just completely ignore it!"


So let's cut to the chase and you stop addressing me. Go beat your wife instead, douchebag. Ha ha.

Why don't you stop "addressing" me, queen asshole of the internets? You could have done that long ago. Hell, you didn't even have to make this sad post. I started this thread and your comments were certainly not solicited. You chose to make a flaming aswipe out of yourself. Not me. Your the one on some Socratic (actually Sophist) mission of epic fail and who cannot admit when he's wrong, not me...

"Beat my wife." Good one, Potsy! Why don't you go fuck a duck?

Blackflag
01-16-2009, 07:21 PM
That was a really long post. Tell you what - I'll read it later and get back to you.

In the meantime, just stop directing posts at me. It's as simple at that, douche. You can do that, can't you? Stop posting to me?

LoungeMachine
01-16-2009, 07:25 PM
That was a really long post. Tell you what - I'll read it later and get back to you.

In the meantime, just stop directing posts at me. It's as simple at that, douche. You can do that, can't you? Stop posting to me?

WTF ever.... get over yourself, BrokeBack.

Because someone "directs" a post at you, you're somehow required or compelled to read/respond to it? :rolleyes:

STFU.

You argue for the sake of argument all the fucking time.

If you're looking for quiet discourse, may I suggest www.rothfans.com

Change your tampon, sac up, ignore what you dont want to read/answer, and the world will continue to spin.

fag.

Blackflag
01-16-2009, 07:34 PM
WTF ever.... get over yourself, BrokeBack.
....

You don't think your boyfriend can defend himself without you butting in, homo? Apparently, you're right.

LoungeMachine
01-16-2009, 07:37 PM
You don't think your boyfriend can defend himself without you butting in, homo? Apparently, you're right.

LMAO

First, you ask him NOT to direct posts at you...

Now, you want him to "defend" himself. :lol: Which is it, Nancy?

Nice deflection, cunt.

I notice you cannot even accept the fact you're being a bleeding pustule right now.

Nickdfresh
01-16-2009, 07:40 PM
That was a really long post. Tell you what - I'll read it later and get back to you.

Just sound out the big words one syllable at a time.


In the meantime, just stop directing posts at me. It's as simple at that, douche. You can do that, can't you? Stop posting to me?

Someone's becoming internet tough guy!

LOL

http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y240/Nickdfresh/funny-5.jpg

Blackflag
01-16-2009, 07:41 PM
It's so cute when you run to the rescue like this. Do you think Nick finds it emasculating at all? Or do you think that's moot after already having his balls in your mouth? :eatit:

LoungeMachine
01-16-2009, 07:41 PM
He wants to spout his bullshit.....

But he wants to be left alone......

LMMFAO

:gulp:

Blackflag
01-16-2009, 07:42 PM
Just sound...

I knew you couldn't resist responding. How predictable. And you will again. That's what it's an obsession.

LoungeMachine
01-16-2009, 07:44 PM
It's so cute when you run to the rescue like this. Do you think Nick finds it emasculating at all? Or do you think that's moot after already having his balls in your mouth? :eatit:

You're in my forum, mensa.

I'll post anytime, to whomever I wish.

When I see you being a runny twat, I'll tell you.

Dont like it? Fuck all if I care.

Nick owns you without even trying, I'm simply telling you to knock off the "please dont direct posts to me anymore" cryfest.

It's a forum, you stupid twat. Not your personal bulletin board.

:gulp:

Nickdfresh
01-16-2009, 07:44 PM
It's so cute when you run to the rescue like this. Do you think Nick finds it emasculating at all? Or do you think that's moot after already having his balls in your mouth? :eatit:


Sometimes he takes care of my lite-work™.


Someone has to clean the birdcage stained with your runny posts of trite interweb nothings...

LoungeMachine
01-16-2009, 07:45 PM
I knew you couldn't resist responding. How predictable. And you will again. That's what it's an obsession.

Pot? Kettle.

Is there a mirror in your trailer?

Check it out sometime.

:gulp:

Blackflag
01-16-2009, 07:47 PM
You're in my forum, mensa.

I'll post anytime, to whomever I wish.

When I see you being a runny twat, I'll tell you.

Dont like it? Fuck all if I care.

Nick owns you without even trying, I'm simply telling you to knock off the "please dont direct posts to me anymore" cryfest.

It's a forum, you stupid twat. Not your personal bulletin board.

:gulp:

Fine, you win. Nick can keep obsessively posting to me, and I'll just ignore it. Does that make more sense than just telling the fool to screw off? Sure, whatever. I'll just ignore him like people ignore the stupid kid in the room.

Nickdfresh
01-16-2009, 07:48 PM
I knew you couldn't resist responding. How predictable. And you will again. That's what it's an obsession.

Wow. You really have several interesting fetishes. One is the urge to spout cliches about how someone owning the fuck out of you can't resist posting back...


I guess I lack your strength of not posting back...

Oh well...

Nickdfresh
01-16-2009, 07:51 PM
Fine, you win. Nick can keep obsessively posting to me, and I'll just ignore it. Does that make more sense than just telling the fool to screw off? Sure, whatever.

Oh no! The silent treatment!

I guess I won't have you to kick around anymore then, eh Nancy?


I'll just ignore him like people ignore the stupid kid in the room.

Is this why you feel the need to draw attention to yourself on the internets?

Sad.

LoungeMachine
01-16-2009, 07:54 PM
:lol:

Someone needs to get laid......

Are there no hookers left in Yakima not in lockup tonight?

:gulp:

Blackflag
01-16-2009, 07:54 PM
Oh, you're just resorting to "obstification" now... :D

LoungeMachine
01-16-2009, 07:56 PM
That's better.......

:gulp:

Nickdfresh
01-16-2009, 08:31 PM
I wish I had his inner-strength of not responding that BackPeddleFlag has.

Blackflag
01-16-2009, 08:34 PM
I wish I had his inner-strength of not responding that BackPeddleFlag has.

What do you say, genius? Are you obstificating?

Share some more of your intellect with us...I need a new word to mock you with, dickhead.

LoungeMachine
01-16-2009, 08:36 PM
What do you say, genius? Are you obstificating?

Share some more of your intellect with us...I need a new word to mock you with, dickhead.

Thought you wanted him to NOT respond.....

You're like a chick that way, you know?

Very female side of you.

:gulp:

hideyoursheep
01-16-2009, 09:22 PM
Yes, Too Wong Flag.

Embrace it.


Before it destroys you.

Nickdfresh
01-16-2009, 09:38 PM
What do you say, genius? Are you obstificating?

Share some more of your intellect with us...I need a new word to mock you with, dickhead.

Weak. This sucks even by your standards. Maybe you should take a break so you can think of some new material?

I'll send you a thesaurus later...


In the mean time, I found this footage of you from your younger days:

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/VbDxuPvbSdE&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/VbDxuPvbSdE&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>