TBird41
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
"Roy! I Love All 7'2" of you Roy!"
Posts: 8,740
|
Post by TBird41 on Feb 22, 2010 23:23:32 GMT -5
1. Unless you have a security clearance or some info beyond the NYT article, you simply have no idea right now where this tip came from. It could be completely independent of the Baradar capture (and any torture that he may have faced) given what is in the NYT article. I have a security clearance. I can neither confirm nor deny whether you or Rosslyn is correct.
|
|
|
Post by redskins12820 on Feb 23, 2010 0:01:24 GMT -5
It sure seems like they are closing in on Mullah Omar. Someone has to know what the heck that guy looks like. Congrats are in order for Pakistani intelligence and law enforcement, among others. I heard that it wasn't Pakistani intelligence, but rather the Mossad using Pakistani passports No way the Pakistanis got this good this fast after years of ineptitude.
|
|
The Stig
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 2,844
|
Post by The Stig on Feb 23, 2010 0:26:54 GMT -5
It sure seems like they are closing in on Mullah Omar. Someone has to know what the heck that guy looks like. Congrats are in order for Pakistani intelligence and law enforcement, among others. I heard that it wasn't Pakistani intelligence, but rather the Mossad using Pakistani passports No way the Pakistanis got this good this fast after years of ineptitude. The Pakistanis might not have had to get good. I have a feeling the ISI might have known where these guys were all along. There's a very distinct difference between the Afghan Taliban and the Pakistani Taliban. The Afghan Taliban are fighting Coalition and Afghan government forces in Afghanistan, and using Pakistan as a refuge/base. The Pakistani Taliban are fighting the Pakistani government. While the Pakistani Taliban and the Pakistani government are obviously enemies, it's not so clear-cut with the Afghan Taliban. Pakistan was the Afghan Taliban's best international friend before 2001, and the ISI supported them during and after their rise to power. Most agree that the ISI has kept up some form of contact with the Afghan Taliban since then. The nature/extent of this contact is unclear. It may just be some rogue elements of the ISI, it may be the Pakistani government trying to hedge its bets so they don't have a hostile neighbor if the Taliban regain power, and it may even be Pakistan covertly supporting the Afghan Taliban because they would rather have them in power instead of Karzai, because they see Karzai as too pro-Indian. What's clear is that, despite fervent Pakistani government denials, there is still some form of interaction between the ISI and the Afghan Taliban. When Hillary visited Pakistan and said that some people in the Pakistani government probably know where the top Afghan Taliban are, she got skewered for it, but she was probably right. So what's happening now? This is purely a guess on my part, and I have no evidence to back it up. I think the ISI didn't get any new info here, they simply acted on info they already had. Whether it was a case of the pre-existing info finally getting into the hands of somebody who was willing to act, or a case of somebody who had the info having a change of heart, I have no clue. I also have no idea what, if any, role the US had to play in this was. Again, this is pure speculation on my part. For all I know, I might have just made Tbird or somebody else with a security clearance puke on their keyboard. Either way, the big story here is that the ISI are finally taking concrete steps against the Afghan Taliban. As far as our struggle against the Taliban/Al Qaeda goes, that's the big story here, not any of those sideshows about Miranda warnings or whether this is Obama's war. With Baradar's capture I thought it might have just been good luck, but now that we have a trend it sure looks like there's been a major change at the ISI.
|
|
TBird41
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
"Roy! I Love All 7'2" of you Roy!"
Posts: 8,740
|
Post by TBird41 on Feb 23, 2010 1:20:12 GMT -5
I heard that it wasn't Pakistani intelligence, but rather the Mossad using Pakistani passports No way the Pakistanis got this good this fast after years of ineptitude. Again, this is pure speculation on my part. For all I know, I might have just made Tbird or somebody else with a security clearance puke on their keyboard. I can neither confirm nor deny whether I just puked all over my keyboard.
|
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on Feb 23, 2010 9:33:54 GMT -5
Question: Bando earlier posted "...torture is always morally wrong and never permitted". Does this morally wrong issue apply to Pakistanis? Or Afghans? Or, just to Americans?
|
|
HoyaNyr320
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,233
|
Post by HoyaNyr320 on Feb 23, 2010 10:37:22 GMT -5
Question: Bando earlier posted "...torture is always morally wrong and never permitted". Does this morally wrong issue apply to Pakistanis? Or Afghans? Or, just to Americans? It is ALWAYS morally wrong. Period. Applies to everyone.
|
|
The Stig
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 2,844
|
Post by The Stig on Feb 23, 2010 10:46:48 GMT -5
Question: Bando earlier posted "...torture is always morally wrong and never permitted". Does this morally wrong issue apply to Pakistanis? Or Afghans? Or, just to Americans? It's always morally wrong for everybody. Unfortunately, the US is the only country that us Americans have any sort of control over. I think the American people spoke pretty clearly in the last election when both parties nominated candidates who had taken very public stands against torture, and who considered waterboarding to be torture. Where we get into the double standards is the practical consequences. To quote a book that you might know, "A city that is set on a hill cannot be hidden." Afghanistan and Pakistan are not the city on the hill. We are, so we have to hold ourselves to a higher standard. Like it or not, the rest of the world is watching, and their opinions do matter, because it has a direct impact on our national security and the safety of our troops in the field. Petraeus was very clear about that in his recent Meet the Press interview. So in short, torture is wrong and dangerous for everybody. It's equally wrong for everybody, but it's more dangerous for the US.
|
|
SSHoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
"Forget it Jake, it's Chinatown."
Posts: 18,272
|
Post by SSHoya on Feb 23, 2010 11:24:23 GMT -5
|
|
SSHoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
"Forget it Jake, it's Chinatown."
Posts: 18,272
|
Post by SSHoya on Feb 23, 2010 11:33:43 GMT -5
|
|
Boz
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
123 Fireballs!
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Boz on Feb 23, 2010 12:27:52 GMT -5
This is all well and good, we can all say we are against torture. Hurrah!!!
I am also against Syracuse, Satan, and killing babies for food.
My issue is that I do not believe that waterboarding, as the US conducted this practice, constitutes torture.
Some people believe it is, other people believe it is not, but I have yet to see a really convincing argument about this particular practice from anyone. And no, talking about how people abused the use of water in the past is not a convincing argument. The US did not do anything like those practices. I won't say there is not a danger of someone crossing a line, sure there is, but we don't have any evidence that it happened. And I am pretty confident in saying that no one in the world conducts interrogations -- yes, even under the Bush administration -- with as many rules, restrictions and safeguards for the prisoner's well being than the US does.
So, yes, I am against torture of anyone by anyone. But I also happen to be OK using a harsh technique like waterboarding when the situation requires it.
And finally, no, I am not worried that if we waterboard terrorists, then terrorists will abuse our soldiers. Because terrorists don't care. They don't beat up our guys. Are you kidding? No, they cut off their heads or set them on fire and hang them from a bridge. And they'll do that whether we waterboard KSM or not (since they did, in fact, do this, and they did it before anyone in the world knew about waterboarding, I feel pretty safe in making this statement).
|
|
HoyaNyr320
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,233
|
Post by HoyaNyr320 on Feb 23, 2010 13:10:26 GMT -5
My issue is that I do not believe that waterboarding, as the US conducted this practice, constitutes torture. Boz, I think you are being a little disingenuous here. What is the purpose of sticking a cloth in a prisoner's mouth and pouring water on him to simulate drowning if it isn't to torture the individual into talking? It's not like prisoners come out of this practice saying "oh, that wasn't so bad - I'll have a little more of that water boarding please." The point is obviously to scare the individual into talking because they don't want to go through the torture again. If this somehow isn't torture, I'd be curious to hear your definition of torture.
|
|
SSHoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
"Forget it Jake, it's Chinatown."
Posts: 18,272
|
Post by SSHoya on Feb 23, 2010 13:12:39 GMT -5
Probably the John Yoo definition of torture -- risk of organ failure or death.
|
|
HoyaNyr320
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,233
|
Post by HoyaNyr320 on Feb 23, 2010 13:30:03 GMT -5
Probably the John Yoo definition of torture -- risk of organ failure or death. Ah... John Yoo. Quite a legal scholar. Conveniently forgot to discuss Youngstown Steel in his memo on Presidential power relating to the torture program... what a joke. That's a Rule 11 violation for lawyers practicing at the federal level that are not above the law. He should be disbarred.
|
|
The Stig
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 2,844
|
Post by The Stig on Feb 23, 2010 14:07:40 GMT -5
This is all well and good, we can all say we are against torture. Hurrah!!! I am also against Syracuse, Satan, and killing babies for food. My issue is that I do not believe that waterboarding, as the US conducted this practice, constitutes torture. Some people believe it is, other people believe it is not, but I have yet to see a really convincing argument about this particular practice from anyone. And no, talking about how people abused the use of water in the past is not a convincing argument. The US did not do anything like those practices. I won't say there is not a danger of someone crossing a line, sure there is, but we don't have any evidence that it happened. And I am pretty confident in saying that no one in the world conducts interrogations -- yes, even under the Bush administration -- with as many rules, restrictions and safeguards for the prisoner's well being than the US does. So, yes, I am against torture of anyone by anyone. But I also happen to be OK using a harsh technique like waterboarding when the situation requires it. And finally, no, I am not worried that if we waterboard terrorists, then terrorists will abuse our soldiers. Because terrorists don't care. They don't beat up our guys. Are you kidding? No, they cut off their heads or set them on fire and hang them from a bridge. And they'll do that whether we waterboard KSM or not (since they did, in fact, do this, and they did it before anyone in the world knew about waterboarding, I feel pretty safe in making this statement). I think you and easyed are talking about different things here. Earlier easyed explicitly said that torture (not just waterboarding) is morally justified in this case. My post was a response to those claims. The debate over whether waterboarding is torture is tangential at best to the argument over whether torture in general is morally justified.
|
|
|
Post by AustinHoya03 on Feb 23, 2010 14:33:52 GMT -5
|
|
Cambridge
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Canes Pugnaces
Posts: 5,301
|
Post by Cambridge on Feb 23, 2010 14:44:16 GMT -5
When Abdulmutallab was apprehended, we knew nothing except he tried to blow up an airliner with over a hundred people aboard. Was he the only terrorist that day trying to blow up an airplane or was he just the first of many? Who trained him and where? What other people were similarly trained and who were they? And many more unknowns. We needed this information as rapidly as possible to try to thwart any others set to follow immediately. Obtaining this information two or three months later is of little use so I don't care if Abdulmutallab is now talking. It did not help the immediate need. To obtain that information from the SOB I would have used any method available. If necessary I would have beaten him to a pulp to the extent he would have been begging to be waterboarded. If that was against some law, I'd accept that if it meant saving the lives of tens, hundreds or thousands of Americans. The sooner you academicians recognize this is war, not some graduate or law school seminar, the sooner we will be able to effectively fight and conquer the terrorists intent on killing Americans. Oh, and after Abdulmutallab was beaten to a pulp I'd continue beating him, sending him onto his virgins in a state they would reject him. Oh, and waterboarding is illegal only because President Obama said it was while the previous president said otherwise. That's why I used the term legal (political). I hope all recognize I have exaggerated a bit, but only a bit, in this response to put my point across that this is war, not some academic exercise. I fundamentally disagree Ed. The rule of law exists for the difficult times, not the easy ones. Laws that can be disregarded in times of crisis will always find themselves disregarded. That is the entire purpose of the Constitution.
|
|
SSHoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
"Forget it Jake, it's Chinatown."
Posts: 18,272
|
Post by SSHoya on Feb 23, 2010 14:52:41 GMT -5
|
|
Bando
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
I've got some regrets!
Posts: 2,431
|
Post by Bando on Feb 23, 2010 15:03:14 GMT -5
This is all well and good, we can all say we are against torture. Hurrah!!! I am also against Syracuse, Satan, and killing babies for food. My issue is that I do not believe that waterboarding, as the US conducted this practice, constitutes torture. Some people believe it is, other people believe it is not, but I have yet to see a really convincing argument about this particular practice from anyone. And no, talking about how people abused the use of water in the past is not a convincing argument. The US did not do anything like those practices. I won't say there is not a danger of someone crossing a line, sure there is, but we don't have any evidence that it happened. And I am pretty confident in saying that no one in the world conducts interrogations -- yes, even under the Bush administration -- with as many rules, restrictions and safeguards for the prisoner's well being than the US does. So, yes, I am against torture of anyone by anyone. But I also happen to be OK using a harsh technique like waterboarding when the situation requires it. And finally, no, I am not worried that if we waterboard terrorists, then terrorists will abuse our soldiers. Because terrorists don't care. They don't beat up our guys. Are you kidding? No, they cut off their heads or set them on fire and hang them from a bridge. And they'll do that whether we waterboard KSM or not (since they did, in fact, do this, and they did it before anyone in the world knew about waterboarding, I feel pretty safe in making this statement). The only form of torture you approve of is not actually torture? How convenient for you!
|
|
Boz
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
123 Fireballs!
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Boz on Feb 23, 2010 16:02:55 GMT -5
Dear Christopher Hitchens (who, as you all can imagine, I respect a great deal): It's not supposed to be pleasant. Similarly, to nyr, you have inserted the word torture, where coercion is probably more appropriate. Yes, the purpose is to get him to talk. It still does not mean it is torture. Do I mind that sometime we have to coerce information out of hardened terrorists? No, I don't, as long as that coercion is not something where we are inflicting significant physical or mental harm. There is no evidence that waterboarding does this. It inflicts significant duress and stress, yes. You know what else does that? Threatening someone with execution. Yet, we allow police officers across the country to do that every day if they are interrogating suspects in murder cases. Do our police officers routinely torture their suspects?
KSM seems perfectly healthy to me today, though, as do the Navy SEALs who I have met, all of whom have undergone the same treatment. This is not like breaking John McCain's arms, you know. Risk of organ failure and death? I would like some substantiation for that please. If you are actually subjecting someone to drowning, which is what the Japanese did, then yes, there is a very high risk of that. There is very little risk of any significant or permanent damage in the manner that the US practiced the interrogation technique.
And no, it is not "very convenient for me." You are not making a substantive argument bando. You are taking a matter of opinion and establishing it as fact (a favorite tactic of the left, I might add) but it doesn't mean you are right. It means you have an opinion that differs from mine. We have several of those.
|
|
|
Post by jerseyhoya34 on Feb 23, 2010 16:43:56 GMT -5
Here are some further comments from a professor of medicine as to the medical risks of waterboarding: www.scientificamerican.com/blog/60-second-science/post.cfm?id=does-waterboarding-have-long-term-p-2009-05-01I think Boz makes some valid comments, but I am not sure where the line is drawn. Is torture only that which certainly causes organ failure or death, like feeding a prisoner to the lions absent provision of what is believed to be intelligence? Do we know it only when we see it, like when a prisoner happens to die or loses a lung? Can 50 acts taken together constitute torture even though none of them was sufficient to cause organ failure or death (see finding of homicide in case of prisoner held by US in Afghanistan)? I think these are all questions that are not fleshed out in this thread anyway. I would think it would always be the case that some of these methods may not cause organ failure or death, like hooking someone up to a battery, some of the Abu Ghraib methods, and the like. Nonetheless, it seems like the line is drawn differently by the public generally and certainly our government.
|
|