PDA

View Full Version : Justice Department to declare waterboarding illegal


Trish
02-14-2008, 01:44 PM
It's about time there was an "official" legal definition. Now maybe some of the heated argument about waterboarding can be laid to rest with everyone on the same page.

Feb. 14, 2008, 3:21AM
Justice Department to declare waterboarding illegal

By LAURIE KELLMAN
Associated Press


WASHINGTON — A senior Justice Department official says laws and other limits enacted since three terrorism suspects were waterboarded has eliminated the technique from what is now legally allowed, going a step beyond what CIA Director Michael Hayden has said.

"The set of interrogation methods authorized for current use is narrower than before, and it does not today include waterboarding," Steven G. Bradbury, acting head of the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel, says in remarks prepared for his appearance today before the House Judiciary Constitution subcommittee.

"There has been no determination by the Justice Department that the use of waterboarding, under any circumstances, would be lawful under current law," he said. It is the first time the department has expressed such an opinion publicly.

Bradbury in 2005 signed two secret legal memos that authorized the CIA to use head slaps, freezing temperatures and waterboarding when questioning terror detainees. Because of that, Senate Democrats have opposed his nomination by President Bush to formally head the legal counsel's office.

Bradbury's testimony comes as majority Democrats in Congress try to clamp down on interrogation methods that can be used on terrorism suspects.

Congress on Wednesday moved to prohibit the CIA from using waterboarding and other harsh tactics, despite Bush's threat to veto any measure that limits the agency's interrogation techniques.

The prohibition was contained in a bill authorizing intelligence activities for the current year, which the Senate approved on a 51-45 vote. It would restrict the CIA to the 19 interrogation techniques outlined in the Army field manual. That manual prohibits waterboarding, a method that makes an interrogation subject feel he is drowning.

The House had approved the measure in December. Wednesday's Senate vote set up a confrontation with the White House, where Bush has promised to veto any bill that restricts CIA questioning.

The legislation bars the CIA from using waterboarding, sensory deprivation or other harsh coercive methods to break a prisoner who refuses to answer questions. Those practices were banned by the military in 2006.

Bradbury's comments go a step further than Hayden's last week. In testimony before the House Intelligence Committee, the CIA director acknowledged for the first time publicly that the CIA has used waterboarding against three prisoners.

Hayden said current law and court decisions, including the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005, cast doubt on whether waterboarding would be legal now. Hayden prohibited its use in CIA interrogations in 2006; it has not been used since 2003, he said.

The Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 prohibited cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment for all detainees in U.S. custody, including CIA prisoners.

Waterboarding is still officially in the CIA tool kit but it requires the consent of the attorney general and president on a case-by-case basis.
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/5540782.html

apdst
02-14-2008, 01:45 PM
Looks like CIA will just have to do a better job of keeping it a secret.

Cobra
02-14-2008, 02:04 PM
Because of course they are and should be above the law aye apdst.

In other news McCain voted against the, stop waterboarding bill in congress after first pushing it. Anything to win conservative votes I guess.

apdst
02-14-2008, 02:12 PM
Because of course they are and should be above the law aye apdst.

No, because sometimes you do whatcha gotta do to win. Do you think we won WW2 by worrying about PR? Hell no!

Cobra
02-14-2008, 02:16 PM
This ain't WW2 and we wont have leg to stand on in this "war" if we use torture while spouting off about human rights and sink to the level of terrorists.

Do what you got to do to win = fuck the laws, we'll break them to "win".

apdst
02-14-2008, 02:25 PM
This ain't WW2 and we wont have leg to stand on in this "war" if we use torture while spouting off about human rights and sink to the level of terrorists.

Again, it ain't about PR. It's about winning. If we waterboard a prisoner, get some vital, real time info out of him and wind up saving no telling how many American lives, then I'm all for it.

As long as the so called, "patriots", in the government don't leak the info about us leaning on a prisoner, a little, then we can have our PR and our info, too.

Elrathin
02-14-2008, 02:30 PM
If we waterboard a prisoner, get some vital, real time info out of him and wind up saving no telling how many American lives, then I'm all for it.


And what if no vital information is given from it? What if the prisoner simply doesn't know are you for it then?

The problem with using torture techniques is people always assume that it will garner vital information. Most of the time it doesn't.

apdst
02-14-2008, 02:31 PM
And what if no vital information is given from it?

Oh well, better luck next time.

Elrathin
02-14-2008, 02:32 PM
Oh well, better luck next time.


So you are perfectly ok then with our troops being waterboarded if they are captured right?

apdst
02-14-2008, 02:32 PM
The problem with using torture techniques is people always assume that it will garner vital information. Most of the time it doesn't.

Again, if torture was as unreliable as you claim, the practice wouldn't be several thousand years old.

Elrathin
02-14-2008, 02:35 PM
Again, if torture was as unreliable as you claim, the practice wouldn't be several thousand years old.


Well I can prove how ineffective it is, I can make you claim you were part of 9/11 after I got done with you. Does that mean the information is right? Nope.

apdst
02-14-2008, 02:36 PM
So you are perfectly ok then with our troops being waterboarded if they are captured right?

It WILL happen, anyway.

If you're in a firefight, are you ok with your men getting killed, since we are killing the enemy? Obviuously, you would accept that as the reality of combat, but it wouldn't be ok.

just a grunt
02-14-2008, 02:48 PM
Again, if torture was as unreliable as you claim, the practice wouldn't be several thousand years old.


Well I can prove how ineffective it is, I can make you claim you were part of 9/11 after I got done with you. Does that mean the information is right? Nope.


Poor example. Questioning is not done in a closed end manner, ie with an end in mind. What you are citing is use of coercion to gain a confession to an alleged act, not to gain information.

The questioning is done open ended. Info from one non-uniformed combatant is not the only source of intel. It is added to what is learned through other means.[hr]

Oh well, better luck next time.


So you are perfectly ok then with our troops being waterboarded if they are captured right?


Inferred in your question is that there is some protection if US does not coerce info from opposition. Seventy years of history demonstrates that is not the case.

apdst
02-14-2008, 02:57 PM
The questioning is done open ended. Info from one non-uniformed combatant is not the only source of intel. It is added to what is learned through other means.

That's a great point, that alotta people are missing.

The thing that people don't get, is that you don't just take the info and run with it. You squeeze some info out of a prisoner, then you confirm it. If it turns out to be BS, you go back to the prisoner and torture him for lieing to you. Before long he realizes that he better tell the truth, or he going to very miserable.

Elrathin
02-14-2008, 03:17 PM
Before long he realizes that he better tell the truth, or he going to very miserable.


And if he doesn't know anything he'll tell you whatever you want to hear. Hence the ineffectiveness of it.

But hey, if you want to be FOR torture be my guest. I would rather America stand against torture instead of becoming like the enemy. I personally hate terrorists and their means and I will do everything I can to make sure this country is nothing like them.

apdst
02-14-2008, 03:31 PM
And if he doesn't know anything he'll tell you whatever you want to hear. Hence the ineffectiveness of it.

And when you coaberate what he's told you, you will find out that he lied, or that he doesn't know anything. The difference will be, that you will KNOW that he lied, or that he doesn't know anything. You won't have to guess at it, while he enjoys is four star accomadations.

I personally hate terrorists and their means and I will do everything I can to make sure this country is nothing like them.

That's great! Tell ya what; you worry about PR and let the rest of us worry about winning the war. At the end of the day, the PR won't mean shit, if we lose.

Elrathin
02-14-2008, 03:33 PM
At the end of the day, the PR won't mean sh1t, if we lose.


If we become the enemy while fighting the enemy we already lost.

apdst
02-14-2008, 03:38 PM
If we become the enemy while fighting the enemy we already lost.

When you were in The Army, you didn't drop the hammer on the enemy, because you didn't want to be like him? Kinda self defeating. Dont'cha think?

Elrathin
02-14-2008, 03:55 PM
When you were in The Army, you didn't drop the hammer on the enemy, because you didn't want to be like him? Kinda self defeating. Dont'cha think?


When you're fighting the enemy, do you just shoot anything that moves? Or are there rules of engagement? I don't recall torture to be in those rules of engagement do you?