who here wants us to win in iraq? who doesnt, so that the administration can change?

The informal fallacy of false dilemma—also known as false choice, false dichotomy, falsified dilemma, fallacy of the excluded middle, black and white thinking, false correlative, either/or fallacy, and bifurcation—involves a situation in which two alternative statements are held to be the only possible options, when in reality there exists one or more other options which have not been considered.

you're indulging in very simple, black and white thinking

This type thinking is being exhibited by those on this thread who are opposed to the torture of terrorists as well.

how much MORE blood and treasure must we shed to make a stand when our emboldened, richer enemies need to be stopped later?

I can not find the page I found it on, nonetheless, in the meanwhile,
regardless IF he was there or not, the procedure worked and vital
information was gained, you fail to mention that.

The former agent, who said he participated in the Abu Zubayda interrogation but not his waterboarding,
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/12/11/agent.tapes/index.html#cnnSTCText

A former CIA officer who participated in the capture and questioning of the first al-Qaeda terrorist suspect to be waterboarded said yesterday that the harsh technique provided an intelligence breakthrough that "probably saved lives," but that he now regards the tactic as torture. Kiriakou said he did not witness Abu Zubaida's waterboarding.http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/10/AR2007121002091_pf.html

Kiriakou wasn't present during Zubaydah's interrogation, and he said in the interviews that he learned the details from briefing documents. http://www.mcclatchydc.com/homepage/story/23517.html

Your search - "kiriakou witnessed waterboarding" - did not match any documents.

Under that duress, he began to speak of plots of every variety — against shopping malls, banks, supermarkets, water systems, nuclear plants, apartment buildings, the Brooklyn Bridge, the Statue of Liberty.http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/13880.html

Abu Zubaida who is being held in Guantanamo Bay has stated in legal documents that he told those torturing him whatever they wanted to hear in order to make the torture stop.http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/article3244719.ece

....According to CIA sources, he was water-boarded....He was beaten....He was repeatedly threatened....His medication was withheld. He was bombarded with deafening, continuous noise and harsh lights.

....Under this duress, Zubaydah told them that shopping malls were targeted by al Qaeda....Zubaydah said banks — yes, banks — were a priority....And also supermarkets — al Qaeda was planning to blow up crowded supermarkets, several at one time. People would stop shopping. The nation's economy would be crippled. And the water system — a target, too. Nuclear plants, naturally. And apartment buildings.

Sometime later, Zubaydah finally provided some actionable intelligence: the name of Jose Padilla and the news that "Mukhtar," a code name that had popped up multiple times on NSA sigint, was Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. But that information didn't come because Zubaydah had been tortured. It came only after a CIA interrogator slipped under Zubaydah's skin by convincing him, with the help of some ideas from the Koran, that Zubaydah was predestined to cooperate with themhttp://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2007_12/012675.php

well now it really comes out. the america haters vs the america lovers

The informal fallacy of false dilemma—also known as false choice, false dichotomy, falsified dilemma, fallacy of the excluded middle, black and white thinking, false correlative, either/or fallacy, and bifurcation—involves a situation in which two alternative statements are held to be the only possible options, when in reality there exists one or more other options which have not been considered.

but you do the cool thing and continue your america hating.

....the terrorists are being tortured according to the rules of war and military tribunals..

Principle II

The fact that internal law does not impose a penalty for an act which constitutes a crime under international law does not relieve the person who committed the act from responsibility under international law.

From a moral standpoint, if torture were to prove effective as a means of reducing terrorist activity then it could be argued that the use of torture is morally acceptable. The gist of the argument is that the moral harms of threatening and utilizing torture are outweighed by the moral consequences-namely a reduction in terrorist activity.

While this argument has a certain appeal, it faces three problems. First, it seems likely that adopting torture and the threat of torture as weapons would be morally harmful to the society in question. To see that this is likely, one needs to merely consider the nature of societies that have already embraced the use of torture. Second, the use of torture as a means of coercion and intimidation certainly seems to be a form of terrorism. As such, the reduction in one type of terrorism would be, ironically, offset by the increase in another. Third, terrorism is denounced as a moral evil and its alleged opponents, such as George Bush, seem to revel in claiming the moral high ground. However, a society that accepts the use of torture cannot claim the moral high ground-they are walking the same ground as the terrorists. Thus, it would seem that the use of torture is not morally acceptable.

http://www.philosophers.co.uk/cafe/provocations20.htm

By contrast, it is easy to find experienced U.S. officers who argue precisely the opposite. Meet, for example, retired Air Force Col. John Rothrock, who, as a young captain, headed a combat interrogation team in Vietnam. More than once he was faced with a ticking time-bomb scenario: a captured Vietcong guerrilla who knew of plans to kill Americans. What was done in such cases was "not nice," he says. "But we did not physically abuse them." Rothrock used psychology, the shock of capture and of the unexpected. Once, he let a prisoner see a wounded comrade die. Yet -- as he remembers saying to the "desperate and honorable officers" who wanted him to move faster -- "if I take a Bunsen burner to the guy's genitals, he's going to tell you just about anything," which would be pointless. Rothrock, who is no squishy liberal, says that he doesn't know "any professional intelligence officers of my generation who would think this is a good idea."

An up-to-date illustration of the colonel's point appeared in recently released FBI documents from the naval base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. These show, among other things, that some military intelligence officers wanted to use harsher interrogation methods than the FBI did. As a result, complained one inspector, "every time the FBI established a rapport with a detainee, the military would step in and the detainee would stop being cooperative." So much for the utility of torture.

Given the overwhelmingly negative evidence, the really interesting question is not whether torture works but why so many people in our society want to believe that it works. At the moment, there is a myth in circulation, a fable that goes something like this: Radical terrorists will take advantage of our fussy legality, so we may have to suspend it to beat them. Radical terrorists mock our namby-pamby prisons, so we must make them tougher. Radical terrorists are nasty, so to defeat them we have to be nastier.

Perhaps it's reassuring to tell ourselves tales about the new forms of "toughness" we need, or to talk about the special rules we will create to defeat this special enemy. Unfortunately, that toughness is self-deceptive and self-destructive. Ultimately it will be self-defeating as well.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A2302-2005Jan11.html

"every time the FBI established a rapport with a detainee, the military would step in and the detainee would stop being cooperative."

“Last evening I went to observe an interview of REDACTED with REDACTED. The adjoining room, observable from the monitoring booth, was occupied by 2 DHS investigators showing a detainee homosexual porn movies and using a strobe light in the room. We moved our interview to a different room. We’ve heard that DHS interrogators routinely identify themselves as FBI agents and then interrogate a detainee for 16-18 hours using tactics as described above and others (wrapping in Israeli flag, constant loud music, cranking the A/C down, etc.) The next time a real Agent tries to talk to that guy, you can imagine the result.”

- FBI description of interrogations at Guantánamo, released under the FOIA

http://www.aclu.org/intlhumanrights/gen/24249prs20060223.html

Several sworn statements of military intelligence personnel and a written “Chronology of Guard/Detainee Issues” also released today confirm that the Army began receiving reports of detainees being brutally beaten and abused in Afghanistan as early as January 2002. The documents show that abuse continued into 2004. A February 16, 2004 memorandum recording an interview of an American interrogator stationed in “Orgun-E Military Intelligence Detention Facility” in Afghanistan reveals that its “Standard Operating Procedure” included keeping detainees awake, standing and blindfolded without food for the first 24 hours. The interrogator also refers to standard practices of “OGA” (a common military reference to the CIA) that include the use of drugs and prolonged sensory deprivation. A February 12, 2004 memorandum records the use of a “Fear Up approach” involving “disrespect for the Koran,” insulting the detainee, having a room upstairs with spotlights and turning the music on very loud.

In a March 28, 2004 report released today, the Inspector General of the Combined/Joint Task Force 180 in Bagram found several problems with detainee operations in Afghanistan, including a lack of training and oversight on acceptable interrogation techniques.

http://www.aclu.org/intlhumanrights/gen/23442prs20060112.html

1/2/2007 - Documents obtained from the FBI detail 26 eyewitness accounts by agents of detainee abuse, 17 of which the Bureau apparently chose not to investigate further.

http://www.aclu.org/safefree/torture/torturefoia.html#

The ACLU also released an Information Paper entitled “Allegations of Detainee Abuse in Iraq and Afghanistan” dated April 2, 2004, two weeks before the world saw the pictures of torture at Abu Ghraib prison. The paper outlined the status of 62 investigations of detainee abuse and detainee deaths. Cases include assaults, punching, kicking and beatings, mock executions, sexual assault of a female detainee, threatening to kill an Iraqi child to “send a message to other Iraqis,” stripping detainees, beating them and shocking them with a blasting device, throwing rocks at handcuffed Iraqi children, choking detainees with knots of their scarves and interrogations at gunpoint.

The ACLU said the document makes clear that while President Bush and other officials assured the world that what occurred at Abu Ghraib was the work of “a few bad apples,” the government knew that abuse was happening in numerous facilities in Iraq and Afghanistan. Of the 62 cases being investigated at the time, at least 26 involved detainee deaths. Some of the cases had already gone through a court-martial proceeding. The abuses went beyond Abu Ghraib, and touched Camp Cropper, Camp Bucca and other detention centers in Mosul, Samarra, Baghdad, Tikrit, as well as Orgun-E in Afghanistan.

http://www.aclu.org/safefree/torture/25406prs20060502.html

Homicide

Forty-three detainees reportedly died as a result of homicide (37 in Iraq and 6 in Afghanistan). Homicide is defined by the Army's Criminal Investigation Division as "death resulting from the intentional (explicit or implied) or grossly reckless behavior of another person or persons." Homicide for the purposes of death classification is a neutral term that neither indicates nor implies criminal intent. Of the Iraq homicides, 22 detainees reportedly died of gunshot injuries. Fifteen of those were shot during riots or attempted escapes, and 2 expired in detention from gunshot injuries sustained during fire fights in the field prior to being taken into custody.

Among all homicides, at least 11 involved blunt trauma or asphyxiation. At least 3 homicide cases have resulted in murder charges and 3 resulted in voluntary manslaughter charges.

For the 12 homicide cases for which final autopsy reports are available, gunshot wounds accounted for 4 of the deaths. The remaining 8 homicides were due to: (1) pulmonary embolism due to blunt trauma; (2) blunt force injuries complicating coronary disease; (3) strangulation; (4) blunt force with rhabdomyolysis; (5) cortical brain contusion and subdural hematoma; (6) blunt force with compromised respiration; (7) asphyxia due to chest compression and smothering; and (8) asphyxia due to occlusion of the airway and blunt force injuries.

http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/547787_4

Died as a result of asphyxia (lack of oxygen to the brain) due to strangulation as evidenced by the recently fractured hyoid bone in the neck and soft tissue hemorrhage extending downward to the level of the right thyroid cartilage. Autopsy reveleaved bone fracture, rib fractures, contusions in mid abdomen, back and buttocks extending to the left flank, abrasions, lateral buttocks. Contusions, back of legs and knees; abrasions on knees, left fingers and encircling to left wrist. Lacerations and superficial cuts, right 4th and 5th fingers. Also, blunt force injuries, predominatnly recent contusions (bruises) on the torso and lower extremities. Abrasions on left wrist are consistent with use of restraints. No evidence of defense injuries or natural disease. Manner of death is homicide. DOD 003329 refers to this case as "strangulation, found outside isolation unit."

DOD003164 - DOD003170; DOD 003301
Whitehorse Detainment Facility, Nasiriyah, Iraq
6/6/2003

http://action.aclu.org/torturefoia/released/102405/

Kiriakou says that he did not waterboard Zubaydah but did question him.

Mr Kiriakou said he was carefully briefed on what had happened.

Kiriakou did not explain how he knew who approved the interrogation technique but said such approval comes from top officials. He did not witness or participate in the waterboarding, he said.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071211/ap_on_go_co/cia_videotapes

Convention Against Torture & Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. The Convention defines torture as:

. . . any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.

* Article 2 - No Exceptional Circumstances Warranting Torture
* Article 3 - No State Party shall expel, return (”refouler”) or extradite a person to another State where there are substantial grounds for believing that he would be in danger of being subjected to torture.
* Article 4 - Acts of Torture Are Criminal Offenses
* Article 10 - Education & Information Regarding Prohibition on Torture Provided in Training
* Article 16 - Each State to Prevent Acts of Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment

The United States ratified the Convention, but lodged a declaration that "... nothing in this Convention requires or authorizes legislation, or other action, by the United States of America prohibited by the Constitution of the United States as interpreted by the United States."The reason for this is that the United States Government lacks constitutional authority to enter into any treaty that violates any civil rights or other provisions within the Constitution of the United States. Torture is illegal within the United States and is illegal if practised by American military personnel anywhere at any time.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Convention_Against_Torture

(d) Even assuming that Hamden is a dangerous individual who would cause great harm or death to innocent civilians given the opportunity, the Executive nevertheless must comply with the prevailing rule of law in undertaking to try him and subject him to criminal punishment. P. 72.

2. The phrase "all the guarantees ... recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples" in Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions is not defined, but it must be understood to incorporate at least the barest of the trial protections recognized by customary international law. The procedures adopted to try Hamdan deviate from those governing courts-martial in ways not justified by practical need, and thus fail to afford the requisite guarantees. Moreover, various provisions of Commission Order No. 1 dispense with the principles, which are indisputably part of customary international law, that an accused must, absent disruptive conduct or consent, be present for his trial and must be privy to the evidence against him. Pp. 70-72.

4. The military commission at issue lacks the power to proceed because its structure and procedures violate both the UCMJ and the four Geneva Conventions signed in 1949. Pp. 49-72.

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

- US Constitution

1. inflict pain on somebody - to inflict extreme pain or physical punishment on somebody.

1. great or intense - highest in intensity or degree.

Which begs us to turn to Webster’s who defines the transitive verb torture

Declaration against Torture (the first instrument to provide a definition of torture):

1. For the purpose of this Declaration, torture means any act by which severe pain or
suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted by or at the instigation of
a public official on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person
information or confession, punishing him for an act he has committed or is suspected of
having committed, or intimidating him or other persons. It does not include pain or
suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to, lawful sanctions to the extent
consistent with the Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners.

2. Torture constitutes an aggravated and deliberate form of cruel, inhuman or
degrading treatment or punishment.

The three pillars evidently are:
1. the relative intensity of pain or suffering inflicted: it must not only be severe, it must also be an aggravated form of already prohibited (albeit undefined) cruel, inhuman or
degrading treatment or punishment;
2. the purposive element: obtaining information, confession, etc.;
3. the status of the perpetrator: a public official must inflict or instigate the infliction of the pain or suffering.

UN doc. S/25704 (1993), Annex, as approved by SC res. 827(1993), 25 May 1993

This may be compared with the definition of torture contained in article 7(2)(e) of the 1998 Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC):

‘Torture’ means the intentional infliction of severe pain or suffering, whether physical
or mental, upon a person in the custody or under the control of the accused; except that
torture shall not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to
lawful sanctions.

What is striking is that while the pain or suffering must, in both definitions, be severe, there is no indication in the Rome Statute of any concept of relative intensity of pain or suffering by reference to other forms of ill-treatment.

UN General Assembly adopted the Convention against Torture

1. For the purposes of this Convention, the term “torture” means any act by which
severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a
person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a
confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected
of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any
reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by
or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other
person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only
from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.

2. This article is without prejudice to any international instrument or national
legislation which does or may contain provisions of wider application.

Less than two years later, there was a remarkable change in position when, on 31 December 2000, President Clinton demonstrated US support for the Court by signing the Rome Statute. Five months later, however, in May 2001, the new Bush administration revoked the US signature and commenced a worldwide campaign against the Court.

INTER-AMERICAN CONVENTION TO PREVENT AND PUNISH TORTURE

Article 2

For the purposes of this Convention, torture shall be understood to be any act intentionally performed whereby physical or mental pain or suffering is inflicted on a person for purposes of criminal investigation, as a means of intimidation, as personal punishment, as a preventive measure, as a penalty, or for any other purpose. Torture shall also be understood to be the use of methods upon a person intended to obliterate the personality of the victim or to diminish his physical or mental capacities, even if they do not cause physical pain or mental anguish.

The concept of torture shall not include physical or mental pain or suffering that is inherent in or solely the consequence of lawful measures, provided that they do not include the performance of the acts or use of the methods referred to in this article.

Article 3

The following shall be held guilty of the crime of torture:

a. A public servant or employee who acting in that capacity orders, instigates or induces the use of torture, or who directly commits it or who, being able to prevent it, fails to do so.

b. A person who at the instigation of a public servant or employee mentioned in subparagraph (a) orders, instigates or induces the use of torture, directly commits it or is an accomplice thereto.

Article 4

The fact of having acted under orders of a superior shall not provide exemption from the corresponding criminal liability.

Article 5

The existence of circumstances such as a state of war, threat of war, state of siege or of emergency, domestic disturbance or strife, suspension of constitutional guarantees, domestic political instability, or other public emergencies or disasters shall not be invoked or admitted as justification for the crime of torture.

Neither the dangerous character of the detainee or prisoner, nor the lack of security of the prison establishment or penitentiary shall justify torture.

Article 6

In accordance with the terms of Article 1, the States Parties shall take effective measures to prevent and punish torture within their jurisdiction.

The States Parties shall ensure that all acts of torture and attempts to commit torture are offenses under their criminal law and shall make such acts punishable by severe penalties that take into account their serious nature.

The States Parties likewise shall take effective measures to prevent and punish other cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment within their jurisdiction.

Article 7

The States Parties shall take measures so that, in the training of police officers and other public officials responsible for the custody of persons temporarily or definitively deprived of their freedom, special emphasis shall be put on the prohibition of the use of torture in interrogation, detention, or arrest.

The States Parties likewise shall take similar measures to prevent other cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment.

Well, Webster's (or any other dictionary definition) isn't the legal basis for the definition of torture under international law and it's standards.

It's that time again kids!

*plays old school piano music*

Why is it necessary for you to bury everyones opinions with your countless pages of cut and paste? If I wanted to read the articles I would look them up myself, or if you felt it was imperative that I read them, why not just paste the link?

It's as though your goal is to stamp out actual opinion and replace it with reguritation of someones who isn't even active on POF...

Enough already, we get that you're well read!