Senators Clash With Nominee About Torture

[Urbane Guerrilla]

Originally Posted by tw

Welcome to "Making of a Quagmire - 2003" where our own leaders will even intentionally confuse all into a common enemy for propaganda purposes. Two greatest enemies - Saddam and bin Laden - are accused by Goerge Jr of conspiring to create 11 September. Obviously not true. Poltical lies are more important than honestly identifying 'real' and 'mythical' enemies.

Tw, there is only one Cellarite who believes George Bush made any such accusation. You. You know, the kooky peddler of half truths at most? Indeed, you're righter than you know in your next sentence -- but we know this kind of lie is what's important to you, that you may exercise your penchant for tilting at straw-men of your own constructing. You alone. By yourself. Utterly isolated in your inanition and generally laughed at. Were you a scholar of social matters you would know you couldn't even say George Jr., for that requires a name be reproduced in toto. Bush the younger -- that would have been something you could have used to far better effect, but oh, no. You don't. I suspect you simply can't. That's why I'm so much better a man than you'll ever be -- I don't suffer from the neurosis that plagues you, quite aside from your rigidly antipatriot mindset.

Saddam and Osama were hardly enemies at all, despite this being a leftist shibboleth to which you fanatically adhere in the face of the evidence -- both parties were quite willing to explore a relationship and documentation exists on this point. That it did not come to any great fruition except for a nice hospital stay for al-Zarqawi seems chiefly because we intervened in 2003 and not, say, 2005.

As long as you remain as you are, tw, you are doomed not merely to dwell on the wrong side of history -- you shall personify it.

Wanna have a stab at "honestly identifying" real enemies? Of the foreign variety only, please. (Watch him ignore an opportunity to be constructive.)

[queequeger]

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

Tw, there is only one Cellarite who believes George Bush made any such accusation. You. You know, the kooky peddler of half truths at most? Indeed, you're righter than you know in your next sentence -- but we know this kind of lie is what's important to you, that you may exercise your penchant for tilting at straw-men of your own constructing. You alone. By yourself. Utterly isolated in your inanition and generally laughed at. Were you a scholar of social matters you would know you couldn't even say George Jr., for that requires a name be reproduced in toto. Bush the younger -- that would have been something you could have used to far better effect, but oh, no. You don't. I suspect you simply can't. That's why I'm so much better a man than you'll ever be -- I don't suffer from the neurosis that plagues you, quite aside from your rigidly antipatriot mindset.

Saddam and Osama were hardly enemies at all, despite this being a leftist shibboleth to which you fanatically adhere in the face of the evidence -- both parties were quite willing to explore a relationship and documentation exists on this point. That it did not come to any great fruition except for a nice hospital stay for al-Zarqawi seems chiefly because we intervened in 2003 and not, say, 2005.

As long as you remain as you are, tw, you are doomed not merely to dwell on the wrong side of history -- you shall personify it.

Wanna have a stab at "honestly identifying" real enemies? Of the foreign variety only, please. (Watch him ignore an opportunity to be constructive.)

You're right, bush never said the words 'Iraq is working with al-Qa'ida.' But he and his friends DID say the following:

A) The war on terror is a threat to our existence.
B) Al-Qa'ida is the terrorist group that is leading the pack.
C) We have to go into Iraq to make it safe from terrorism.

Anyone would connect the dots to think Saddam was working with al-Qa'ida. Then when GW said in a tisy of contempt that he never implied the two were working together. That's funny, an entire country THOUGHT that's what you meant. How stupid of us ALL to get it wrong. I have no doubt that this was engineered to give credence to the whole idea. They do this sort of thing all the time.

And no, al-Qa'ida was not working with the Iraqi government. Saddam hated terrorists, he saw them as a threat that is to volatile to control (funny, he seems to be right about that. If only WE'D figure that out). In fact all this crap about Zarqawi being so beloved by His Lunacy is absurd. They talked with one another, but there was no working relationship whatsoever. Saddam tried on many occasions to blow his ass up, in fact.

Think about it like this: why the hell would Saddam Hussein want to inflame tensions with the US? He didn't give a damn, the only annoyance he had was the no fly zones. It was in no way in his interest to piss the US off into invading. That's probably why he got rid of all his chemical weapons between the late nineties and 2003. He balked us to show strength, not to get us to attack.

[tw]

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

Tw, there is only one Cellarite who believes George Bush made any such accusation.

You are correct. George Jr did not *specifically* say Saddam conspired for 11 September. He insisted to Richard Clark on 12 September that Saddam must have been complicit. The people that George Jr praises as closest allies - ie Ahmad Chalabi - said Saddam was complicit even in the 1993 WTC attack. Wolfovich would routinely declare both before and after 11 September, "I just don't understand why we are beginning by talking about this one man, bin Laden." The threat was always redirected at Saddam. Some White House theories even proclaimed two Ramzi Yousefs; the second created and trained by Iraqis just to attack Americans. Even the Abu Nidal death in Iraq was really part of Saddam's world wide terrorism campaign - that only existed in White House fantasies.

George Jr gave a 2003 State of the Union address where 11 September, Saddam, and bin Laden were all interlaced in the same paragraph. It was no accident as Urbane Guerrilla always forgets. George Jr never said specifically that Saddam was complicit. He just said enough so that wacko extremists would believe it. George Jr was echoing opinions of his major policy makers - especially Wolfovich, Feith, and Cheney - that Saddam must have been complicit; therefore he was. Also stated was that 11 September could not happen without support at a national level - another specific reference to blame Saddam.

George Jr said enough so that wacko extremists would believe Saddam was involved in the 11 September attacks. It is only silly semantics that he did not specifically say it. George Jr did everything necessary to create that myth. As his own Sec of the Treasury stated in his book, George Jr stated up front that he wanted excuses to attack Saddam.

I am rather surprised Urban Guerrilla admits, "Saddam and Osama were hardly enemies at all". Of course. Saddam was doing everything possible to restore his American ally status. But that is not in the confused and partisan rhetoric from George Jr. Bottom line conclusion is therefore correct: Saddam and bin Laden - are accused by George Jr of conspiring to create 11 September. He just did not say so directly. It’s called propaganda - how to manipulate weaker minds - how even Hitler justified threats and occupation of Czechoslovakia.

Meanwhile Urban Guerrilla confuses the issue. Fact remains that the 2003 NIE summary was rewritten to make claims that did not exist even in the classified NIE document. UT is citing another NIE summary as proof that Al Qaeda is the major enemy in what is really only a civil war. This world wide Al Qaeda conspiracy does not exist. But it does exist where myths were also promoted of Saddam and bin Laden as co-conspirators. None of those myths would exist without George Jr and his administration pushing them.

Anything from the George Jr administration is a lie until first proven otherwise. His credibility (and those who support the mental midget) are that poor.

A war cannot be won if the enemy is not first defined. That is called "Making of a Quagmire" or "A Bright and Shining Lie". Since a political agenda is more important, then this administration will not even admit that it created “Mission Accomplished” – an Iraqi civil war. Instead we have this all but mythical monster enemy called Al Qaeda. Since the political agenda is more important, then this administration will do everything possible so that the war is not lost under his watch. How strange. Nixon wanted and did the same thing including myths that Nam was actually war with Russia and China. At what point do we first move to the truth so that a war can be won? That NIE comes from the same people who even (lied) rewrote a previous NIE summary to promote a political agenda.

[Urbane Guerrilla]

Originally Posted by queequeger

You're right, bush never said the words 'Iraq is working with al-Qa'ida.' But he and his friends DID say the following:

A) The war on terror is a threat to our existence.

Well, I know what you meant, though it isn't what you said.

B) Al-Qa'ida is the terrorist group that is leading the pack.
C) We have to go into Iraq to make it safe from terrorism.

What we're really engaged in, whether we say it or not, is an effort to draw a country out of the Non-Integrating Gap, and conduct it into an era of developing global connectivity. Dictatorships and undemocratic social orders tend to put nations under isolating bell jars.

Anyone would connect the dots to think Saddam was working with al-Qa'ida. Then when GW said in a tisy [sic] of contempt that he never implied the two were working together. That's funny, an entire country THOUGHT that's what you meant. How stupid of us ALL to get it wrong. I have no doubt that this was engineered to give credence to the whole idea. They do this sort of thing all the time.

I doubt you could read any measure of contempt into his remarks -- he's too much the experienced politician. It doesn't require the example of the President I like so much I voted for him twice to bring up contempt for those opposed to this war in any case: they are so wrongheaded they champion undemocratic fascism over any description of democracy, which is simply perverted and perverse, and only engaged in by people who should be ashamed of themselves, ashamed enough to undergo a drastic revision of their entire philosophy of life in order to escape a quite legitimate charge of fascist sympathies.

And no, al-Qa'ida was not working with the Iraqi government. Saddam hated terrorists, he saw them as a threat that is to volatile to control (funny, he seems to be right about that. If only WE'D figure that out). In fact all this crap about Zarqawi being so beloved by His Lunacy is absurd. They talked with one another, but there was no working relationship whatsoever. Saddam tried on many occasions to blow his ass up, in fact.

And then made it up to him with major leg surgery?

Think about it like this: why the hell would Saddam Hussein want to inflame tensions with the US? He didn't give a damn, the only annoyance he had was the no fly zones. It was in no way in his interest to piss the US off into invading. That's probably why he got rid of all his chemical weapons between the late nineties and 2003. He balked us to show strength, not to get us to attack.

Why? Basically because dictators are, sooner or later, stupid. Occupational hazard. Saddam was no strategist, nor general, nor chessplayer. He didn't figure his interests rightly.

Get rid? Mmmmaybe. Saddam's Bomb Maker details how WMD projects were not suspended but put into abeyance in a biding of time. Not too dissimilar to the likeliest action of a certain neighboring country with four letters in its name. And there's still that mystery convoy of heavy truckloads of something from Baghdad to Syria in April '03. Any of our people who know what that was aren't talking. And don't forget the large amount of twinned-agent Sarin the Jordanians intercepted being trucked from Syria (not a known producer of such weaponry, but I understand Iraq was) to Amman, in aid of Allah knows what.

Heh heh. And that tactic bit him right in the ass, didn't it? Couldn't happen to a lovelier nor more deserving fellow. Again, getting stupid is an occupational hazard of dictators -- and their dictatorships. That's why I'm such a determined partisan of democracy, and of course why I'm annoyed so few of my opposition here can claim the same.

[Undertoad]

Anyone would connect the dots to think Saddam was working with al-Qa'ida. Then when GW said in a tisy of contempt that he never implied the two were working together. That's funny, an entire country THOUGHT that's what you meant. How stupid of us ALL to get it wrong. I have no doubt that this was engineered to give credence to the whole idea. They do this sort of thing all the time.

I can't buy any argument that starts with the premise that this administration employs genius-level subtle communication.

Saddam hated terrorists, he saw them as a threat that is to volatile to control

Except for: the $25,000 each to Palestinian bomber families; the connection to the 1993 World Trade Center bombing; support of MEK; monetary support to Abu Sayyaf in the Philippines; the housing of the Abu Nidal Organization; and the training facility at Salman Pak.

There is no need to torture, we have won.
Has everyone forgotten that the mission has been accomplished?
Hell, we had a big ol' party on an aircraft carrier to announce it!
They are just there puttering around now... time to come home.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by queequeger

I *did* read it, it's required if you want to know what's NOT true. Look, if we wanted to make it look like the Badr corps controlled the entire southern third of the country, we could. Not going into specifics (which is annoying as hell, for all parties involved) the intelligence business is kind of fluid, in that you get a lot of contradictory evidence. You can see this from any sensationalist or newsworthy attack, everybody and their brother claims to have done it.

The problem is, when al-Qa'ida claims every damned attack in Iraq, we could technically attribute it to them. On a tactical level, we would NEVER assume that someone who claims responsibility IS the actor without extra or collateral info. But, on a strategic level, the lists are given in a way that just about any conclusion can be made if you look for it. While tw here is over reaching about deliberate large scale changes by an administration, picture this:

Your boss tells you, find all the attacks on our troops in the last year, and tell me who did them. When you've got 100 incidents, 60 of which are CLAIMED by AQI, that's the number you give, with a little caveat saying "sorta.' It goes further and further up the chain and in each little report it gets edited re-edited, comments get added and deleted, etc. The problem is, when you're LOOKING for attacks made by al-Qa'ida four steps up the chain, you'll find a lot more than are actually there. So when each person in the chain is looking for AQI attacks, the number gets inflated and inflated.

It's a big problem with big intelligence, but rumor has it (I wouldn't know personally) that it got really bad *about* when Rumsfeld got the keys to the pentagon. Apparently he would go from person to person until someone found the supporting evidence he wanted and give THAT person a promotion. So, every general went from person to person, every colonel did the same, so on and so forth.

Once again I'd like to point out that AQI are bad dudes who've done some major things (like the mosque in Samarra), they do help to destabilize the country, and they do have ties to the 'big' al-Qa'ida. They're just not NEARLY as major as they're made out to be.

While I am not MI and never have been, I did work for 1/4 of my 20 with an organization which utilized their assets on a regular basis. The tenet of MI is, "The first report is always suspect." I must say that I have experienced everything you just stated, I saw it first hand and more so as I moved up the chain. Thanks for your service, you guys do great work.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z4UkEX3Y9R0


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oQ6Uk9swcAo


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=70sgV-Wynp0

[TheMercenary]

Can't see any youtube vids. What are they?

A French man who was subjected to water-boarding describing it.
It is torture, only torture and if we employ it we are no better than terrorists.

[TheMercenary]

http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/...0.php#comments

[TheMercenary]

I know waterboarding is torture - because I did it myself

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

By MALCOLM NANCE

Wednesday, October 31st 2007, 10:52 PM



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Print
Email
Suggest a Story
Be Our Guest

Last week, attorney general nominee Judge Michael Mukasey dodged the question of whether waterboarding terror suspects is necessarily torture. Americans can disagree as to whether or not this should disqualify him for the top job in the Justice Department. But they should be under no illusions about what waterboarding is.

As a former master instructor and chief of training at the U.S. Navy Survival, Evasion, Resistance and Escape School (SERE) in San Diego, I know the waterboard personally and intimately. Our staff was required to undergo the waterboard at its fullest. I was no exception.

I have personally led, witnessed and supervised waterboarding of hundreds of people. It has been reported that both the Army and Navy SERE school's interrogation manuals were used to form the interrogation techniques employed by the Army and the CIA for its terror suspects. What is less frequently reported is that our training was designed to show how an evil totalitarian enemy would use torture at the slightest whim.

Having been subjected to this technique, I can say: It is risky but not entirely dangerous when applied in training for a very short period. However, when performed on an unsuspecting prisoner, waterboarding is a torture technique - without a doubt. There is no way to sugarcoat it.

In the media, waterboarding is called "simulated drowning," but that's a misnomer. It does not simulate drowning, as the lungs are actually filling with water. There is no way to simulate that. The victim is drowning.

Unless you have been strapped down to the board, have endured the agonizing feeling of the water overpowering your gag reflex, and then feel your throat open and allow pint after pint of water to involuntarily fill your lungs, you will not know the meaning of the word.

How much of this the victim is to endure depends on the desired result (in the form of answers to questions shouted into the victim's face) and the obstinacy of the subject. A team doctor watches the quantity of water that is ingested and for the physiological signs that show when the drowning effect goes from painful psychological experience, to horrific suffocating punishment to the final death spiral.

Waterboarding is slow-motion suffocation with enough time to contemplate the inevitability of blackout and expiration. Usually the person goes into hysterics on the board. For the uninitiated, it is horrifying to watch. If it goes wrong, it can lead straight to terminal hypoxia - meaning, the loss of all oxygen to the cells.

The lack of physical scarring allows the victim to recover and be threatened with its use again and again. Call it "Chinese water torture," "the barrel," or "the waterfall." It is all the same.

One has to overcome basic human decency to endure causing the effects. The brutality would force you into a personal moral dilemma between humanity and hatred. It would leave you questioning the meaning of what it is to be an American.

Is there a place for the waterboard? Yes. It must go back to the realm of training our operatives, soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines - to prepare for its uncontrolled use by our future enemies. Brutal interrogation, flash murder and extreme humiliation of Americans may now be guaranteed because we have mindlessly, but happily, broken the seal on the Pandora's box of indignity, cruelty and hatred in the name ofprotecting America.

Torture advocates hide behind the argument that an open discussion about specific American interrogation techniques will aid the enemy. Yet convicted Al Qaeda members and innocent captives who were released to their host nations have already debriefed the world through hundreds of interviews, movies and documentaries on exactly what methods they were subjected to and how they endured.

Our own missteps have already created a cadre of highly experienced lecturers for Al Qaeda's own virtual school for terrorists.

I agree with Sen. John McCain. Waterboarding should never be used as an interrogation tool. It is beneath our values.

Nance is a counterterrorism consultant for the government's special operations, homeland security and intelligence agencies. A longer version of this essay appeared on www.smallwarsjournal.com/blog.

http://www.nydailynews.com/opinions/...__because.html

The full text of the article above is here:
http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/200...torture-perio/

[TheMercenary]

NPR interview with Mr. Nance:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...oryId=15844677

[TheMercenary]

Exhaustive historical account of waterboarding to include historical interviews from POW's:

http://www.pegc.us/archive/Articles/...t_20061016.pdf

[xoxoxoBruce]

Unless you have been strapped down to the board, have endured the agonizing feeling of the water overpowering your gag reflex, and then feel your throat open and allow pint after pint of water to involuntarily fill your lungs, you will not know the meaning of the word.

This is horseshit. The human body will not allow, pint after pint, to enter the lungs.

If water enters the airways of a conscious victim the victim will try to cough up the water or swallow it thus inhaling more water involuntarily. Upon water entering the airways, both conscious and unconscious victims experience laryngospasm, that is the larynx or the vocal cords in the throat constrict and seal the air tube. This prevents water from entering the lungs. Because of this laryngospasm, water enters the stomach in the initial phase of drowning and very little water enters the lungs. Unfortunately, this can interfere with air entering the lungs, too. In most victims, the laryngospasm relaxes some time after unconsciousness and water can enter the lungs causing a "wet drowning". However, about 10-15% of victims maintain this seal until cardiac arrest, this is called "dry drowning" as no water enters the lungs. In forensic pathology water in the lungs indicates that the victim was still alive at the point of submersion; the absence of water in the lungs may be either a dry drowning or indicates a death before submersion.