CIA admits it misled Congress... - Page 5

On July 10 2009 18:00 Ota Solgryn wrote:


Waterboarding is real torture. The worst part about torture is the psycological scars. People getting tortured can never live a normal life again because they are messed up in their heads. Exactly this also applies to waterboarding. Yes its true, you wont die or loose an arm or something, but you sure will have mental issues afterwards.

On July 10 2009 18:35 Velr wrote:
Uhm...

Being happy when your car gets towed... And you think thats normal?

No, torture has not to fuck up your life forever, but it has a high chance of chanigng your behavior for the rest of your live...

On July 10 2009 18:35 Velr wrote:
Uhm...

Being happy when your car gets towed... And you think thats normal?

No, torture has not to fuck up your life forever, but it has a high chance of chanigng your behavior for the rest of your live...

On July 10 2009 17:33 Clasic wrote:


You think Bin Laden did this just for the fun of it? Because he hates the US for no reason?
lol..
It was in between the Afghan/Russian war were the US started wanting to " help " and get involved as usual..
and most of the people said " get out of our country we can handle our own problems " and of course.. the US doesn't listen and now we have the " War Against Terror " which is failing hard, just like every other US war.

On July 10 2009 21:37 Amber[LighT] wrote:



Wow I'm glad you summed that up into one sentence so nicely. Who can argue that fact...

On July 10 2009 18:28 Clasic wrote:


My dad is friends with a guy who got tortured.. and the " psychological scars " part isn't true in a lot of cases actually.. like.. the person I know got a huge scar from when they ripped the rope or w/e he was tied with from his arms and they did that on purpose..
He has red scars all over his neck and his face turns red a lot because of the torture.. I'm not really sure.

But this man is the happiest guy I know.. like, his car can be towed right infront of his face and he will still be happy.

Just because you have gotten tortured doesn't mean the rest of your life will be fucked forever..

On July 11 2009 03:15 Mandalor wrote:


wow so you know one person that got tortured and think everybody lives that way after they were tortured? Actually, I know a person whose entire family got killed in concentration camps during WWII and he's one of the happiest persons I know. If I used your logic here, the holocaust probably wasn't so bad for the jews...

On July 09 2009 19:43 Aegraen wrote:
This debate about waterboarding and it's effectiveness will go on forever. Talking nice to people is no more effective than waterboarding, and in many cases isn't as effective.

Secondly, we've gone over this many times before, in the Geneva Conventions 'mercenaries' which is what the insurgents are, have no rights under the Geneva Conventions.

Not too long ago, in the Condoleezza thread, in a pair of posts made by Physician once wrote (and were never answered by Aegraen)
U.S. Constitution, Amendment VIII:
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.


U.S. Constitution, Amendment V:
"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."


Three major treaties that the United States has signed and unambiguously ratified prohibit the United States from subjecting prisoners in the War on Terror to this kind of treatment. First,
Common Article 3 of the Geneva Convention Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War, which the Senate unanimously ratified in 1955, prohibits the parties to the treaty from acts upon prisoners including “violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture; . . . outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment.”[18]

Second, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which the Senate ratified in 1992, states that “[n]o one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.”[19] Third, the United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment, which the Senate ratified in 1994, provides that “[e]ach State Party shall take effective legislative, administrative, judicial or other measures to prevent acts of torture in any territory under its jurisdiction,”[20] and that “[e]ach State Party shall undertake to prevent in any territory under its jurisdiction other acts of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment which do not amount to torture . . . .”[21]

The United States has enacted statutes prohibiting torture and cruel or inhuman treatment. It is these statutes which make waterboarding illegal.[22] The four principal statutes which Congress has adopted to implement the provisions of the foregoing treaties are the Torture Act,[23] the War Crimes Act,[24],and the laws entitled “Prohibition on Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment of Persons Under Custody or Control of the United States Government”[25] and “Additional Prohibition on Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.”[26] The first two statutes are criminal laws while the latter two statutes extend civil rights to any person in the custody of the United States anywhere in the world.

The Torture Act makes it a felony for any person, acting under color of law, to commit an act of torture upon any person within the defendant’s custody or control outside the United States.[27] Torture is defined as the intentional infliction of “severe physical or mental pain or suffering” upon a person within the defendant’s custody or control.[28] To be “severe,” any mental pain or suffering resulting from torture must be “prolonged.”[29] Under this law, torture is punishable by up to twenty years imprisonment unless the victim dies as a result of the torture, in which case the penalty is death or life in prison.[30]

The War Crimes Act differs from the Torture Act in several respects. It applies to acts committed inside or outside the United States, not simply to acts committed outside the United States.[31] Second, it prohibits actions by any American citizen or any member of the armed forces of the United States, not simply to persons acting under color of law.[32] Third, violations of the War Crimes Act that do not result in death of the victim are punishable by life in prison,
not simply for a term of twenty years.[33] Finally, when it was enacted in 1996, the War Crimes Act did not mention torture or any other specific conduct like the Torture Act does, but rather contained a very broad definition of the offense. The original statute provided
that “war crimes” included any “grave breach” of the Geneva Conventions.[34] In 2006, in the Military Commissions Act, Congress defined the term “grave breach” of Common Article 3 of the Geneva Convention to include “torture” as well as “cruel or inhuman treatment” of prisoners.[35] As in the Torture Act, the War Crimes Act (as amended by the Military Commissions Act of 2006) defines “torture” as the intentional infliction of “severe physical or mental pain or
suffering.”[36] Cruel or inhuman treatment is defined as “serious physical or mental pain or suffering,” and also includes “serious physical abuse.”[37] The law defines “serious physical pain or suffering” as including “extreme physical pain.”[38] All of these clarifications of the term “grave breaches” of Common Article 3 were made retroactive to 1997.[39] The 2006 Act replaced the requirement that mental harm be “prolonged” with a more broad definition that mental harm be merely “serious and non-transitory.”[40]

The third federal statute that prohibits waterboarding is entitled “Prohibition on Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment of Persons under Custody or Control of the United States Government.”[41] This law was enacted in 2005 as part of the Detainee Treatment Act,[42] and in 2006 it was supplemented in the Military Commissions Act by a statutory provision entitled “Additional Prohibition on Cruel Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.”[43] These civil rights laws very simply state that no person under the physical control of the United States anywhere in the world may be subjected to any “cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment,”[44] and they each define “cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment” to
be any treatment or punishment which would violate the Fifth, Eighth, or Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States.[45] These civil rights laws award the same rights to all prisoners who are in the custody of the United States anywhere in the world as citizens
of the United States are entitled to under the Constitution. This means that if it is unconstitutional to subject prisoners in the United States to waterboarding, then it is illegal to commit this act
against prisoners in the War on Terror, wherever they are being detained.

legal references enumerated can be found at:
http://lawreview.wustl.edu/slip-opinions/waterboarding-is-illegal/

+ Show Spoiler +

The article wrote:
[T]he Supreme Court ruled today that detainees held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, have a constitutional right to challenge their detentions in federal court and that congressional legislation has failed to provide a reasonable substitute for such a hearing.

Aegraen continues...
None of you should be talking about how intelligence apparatus work.
You all have not a single clue.

If you can legitimately answer me these questions, then you may have
some semblance of relevancy and creedence.

What is OSINT?

What is SIGINT?

What is IMINT?

What is COMINT?

What is ELINT?

When would you employ these methods and how effective would each be against say North Korea vs Al'Qaeda in the mountains of Pakistan?

Do you know what a dead drop is?

I think I am the only person on these boards who actually works and studies in an intelligence capacity. The amount of ignorance displayed about actual intelligence work on this board is astonishing.

To those questioning whether they are combatants or not, and how do we know? Well, it's quite simple when US soldier's are getting shot at and they then take them into custody (Pro tip: The Army has to go by the Army Field Interrogation Manual, which is pretty much a
joke) and they then let the intelligence apparatus' take over.

Lastly, we can debate the merits of waterboarding all you want whether on morality (Which, there is none in a time of war. If you think the US has held a higher moral of standard in times of war I would think twice. A little research would show you are wrong, case in
point: D-Day WWII. No prisoners.) , or effectiveness. Why do you think the US let the Japanese and German scientists get off so easily after WWII? They committed untold atrocities, but the US so valued their research and it indeed proved to be useful. While disgusting as it is,
when you are faced with life and death morality tends to get thrown out the window.

Once upon a time Physician illustrated why it's a bad idea
to torture
- if we engage in this practice ourselves, we invite our enemies to
treat our captured soldiers likewise
- if our government adopts the position that waterboarding is legal,
then we will have given up the right to prosecute our enemies for
subjecting our soldiers to this treatment.
- if in the event that we were to obtain information from a prisoner
by means of waterboarding, it would be virtually impossible to
prosecute the prisoner because coerced confessions and any evidence
obtained by means of a coerced confession are constitutionally
inadmissible, despite provisions of the Detainee Treatment Act and the
Military Commissions Act which purport to preserve the admissibility
of coerced confessions.

Aegraen continues...
I only appear to be inflammatory when I'm surrounded by those on the left of the political aisle. Those over at Redstate, Michelle Malkin, HotAir, and those within the IC understand what it takes in a time of WAR to use every tool at our disposal to keep America safe.

We wouldn't have had to go through this prolonged Iraq situation, if Clinton had acted upon the INTELLIGENCE he received when Saudi Arabia had Bin Laden on a platter ready for us on multiple occasions.

It's abundantly clear that no one understands how the IC works, which is to be expected, there aren't that many of us. It is quite hilarious to see some absurd comments come out, but then again I guess that is the general thought of the civilian population when they have no idea how the Intelligence apparatus' work. Ignorance begets ignorance I suppose.

On July 11 2009 04:30 Clasic wrote:

What I'm trying to say is that their isn't that much physiological damage done... god damn.. of course it all depends on person to person..

On July 10 2009 17:33 Clasic wrote:


You think Bin Laden did this just for the fun of it? Because he hates the US for no reason?
lol..
It was in between the Afghan/Russian war were the US started wanting to " help " and get involved as usual..
and most of the people said " get out of our country we can handle our own problems " and of course.. the US doesn't listen and now we have the " War Against Terror " which is failing hard, just like every other US war.