So what's the reason behind releasing this?

[spence]

I believe under the ACLU lawsuit ruling they would have had to release the documents or fight a battle to keep them secret.

Regardless it's almost certain that they would have leaked anyway, and this allows Obama to get the issue behind him rather than have leaked documents keep a story running that's a distraction.

Yes, some will argue that this will cause the CIA to pull back, but if we just keep our behavior in line with the law, I'd wager our intelligence professionals can be very productive. From what I've read, it sounds like most of the detainees who were tortured gave up the good info using legal techniques. Had torture resulted in good intel that's saved lives? I haven't heard any stories that indicate this, although we may never really know. Regardless it's a slippery slope that as a law abiding nation we probably shouldn't have gone down.

Yet another mess Obama inherited from Bush.

-spence

[afterhours]

what no blowtorch and vise grips???....ahhhhh the bug! if they have high value intel and it will save lives.....

[keeperreaper]

Waterboarding is super effective. To not be able to use this technique to extract viable, pertinent information from enemies of the country is a joke.

[spence]

Originally Posted by keeperreaper

Waterboarding is super effective. To not be able to use this technique to extract viable, pertinent information from enemies of the country is a joke.

There are a lot of experts in the area who would say that no coercive methods or torture are effective as the reliability of information is so suspect as to be worthless.

That being said, to assert that we should use torture simply because it's effective shows a real lack of ethics or belief in the rule of law.

-spence

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by keeperreaper

Waterboarding is super effective. To not be able to use this technique to extract viable, pertinent information from enemies of the country is a joke.

If by "super effective" you actually mean, "has never provided substantially useful information" then you'd be spot on.

Officials: Waterboarding Foiled No Plot
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/...n4901154.shtml

All waterboarding does is get the person to say whatever they possibly can to make the torture stop - be it useful information or not.



Buckman, to answer your question, my understanding is that this was released on a Freedom of Information Act request.

[Raven]

brain scanning technology will soon make torture obsolete...

[Swimmer]

Originally Posted by spence

Yes, some will argue that this will cause the CIA to pull back,

but if we just keep our behavior in line with the law, I'd wager our intelligence professionals can be very productive. From what I've read, it sounds like most of the detainees who were tortured gave up the good info using legal techniques. Had torture resulted in good intel that's saved lives? I haven't heard any stories that indicate this, although we may never really know. Regardless it's a slippery slope that as a law abiding nation we probably shouldn't have gone down.

Yet another mess Obama inherited from Bush.

-spence

Do you actually think that under O'Bama it isn't going to continue, unabated?

The sodium pentathol budget will be increased.

[Raven]

and the guy will be babbling like a brook

[buckman]

Originally Posted by Swimmer

Do you actually think that under O'Bama it isn't going to continue, unabated?

The sodium pentathol budget will be increased.

The Defense budget is the only budget thats going to see cuts. Every other will see massive increases.

[spence]

Originally Posted by buckman

The Defense budget is the only budget thats going to see cuts. Every other will see massive increases.

Nice to see a statement on a sunny Sunday morning that's based entirely on no facts.

-spence

[buckman]

Originally Posted by spence

Nice to see a statement on a sunny Sunday morning that's based entirely on no facts.

-spence

It was a prediction, Spence.
It will become fact, like so many of the predictions about this nutty bunch you voted in.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Swimmer

Do you actually think that under O'Bama it isn't going to continue, unabated?

The fish rots from the head down.

-spence

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

Regardless it's a slippery slope that as a law abiding nation we probably shouldn't have gone down.

Yet another mess Obama inherited from Bush.

-spence

Eric Holder spoke out on the interrogation of unlawful combatants in 2002.


"One of the things we clearly want to do with these prisoners is to have an ability to interrogate them and find out what their future plans might be, where other cells are located; under the Geneva Convention that you are really limited in the amount of information that you can elicit from people.


"It seems to me that given the way in which they have conducted themselves, however, that they are not, in fact, people entitled to the protection of the Geneva Convention. They are not prisoners of war. If, for instance, Mohamed Atta had survived the attack on the World Trade Center, would we now be calling him a prisoner of war? I think not. Should Zacarias Moussaoui be called a prisoner of war? Again, I think not."


--Eric Holder, CNN interview, January 2002

[spence]

Originally Posted by scottw

Eric Holder spoke out on the interrogation of unlawful combatants in 2002.


"One of the things we clearly want to do with these prisoners is to have an ability to interrogate them and find out what their future plans might be, where other cells are located; under the Geneva Convention that you are really limited in the amount of information that you can elicit from people.


"It seems to me that given the way in which they have conducted themselves, however, that they are not, in fact, people entitled to the protection of the Geneva Convention. They are not prisoners of war. If, for instance, Mohamed Atta had survived the attack on the World Trade Center, would we now be calling him a prisoner of war? I think not. Should Zacarias Moussaoui be called a prisoner of war? Again, I think not."


--Eric Holder, CNN interview, January 2002

You should really try placing quotes in context...

http://premium.edition.cnn.com/TRANS...28/ltm.03.html

ERIC HOLDER, FORMER DEP. ATTORNEY GENERAL: Good morning.

ZAHN: The president will be meeting with his National Security team this morning to talk about, well, the apparent discord here. Give us a preview of what this discussion might entail. When you have Secretary of State Powell saying, "Let's abide by the Geneva Convention," and then folks on the other side, we are told, saying "Wait a minute. If we hold them to that kind of status, then all they'll be required to give us is their name, rank and file number."

HOLDER: Yes, it seems to me this is an argument that is really consequential. One of the things we clearly want to do with these prisoners is to have an ability to interrogate them and find out what their future plans might be, where other cells are located; under the Geneva Convention that you are really limited in the amount of information that you can elicit from people.

It seems to me that given the way in which they have conducted themselves, however, that they are not, in fact, people entitled to the protection of the Geneva Convention. They are not prisoners of war. If, for instance, Mohammed Atta had survived the attack on the World Trade Center, would we now be calling him a prisoner of war? I think not. Should Zacarias Moussaoui be called a prisoner of war? Again, I think not.

And yet, I understand what Secretary Powell is concerned about, and that is we're going to be fighting this war with people who are special forces, not people who are generally in uniform. And if unfortunately they somehow become detained, we would want them to be treated in an appropriate way consistent with the Geneva Convention.

ZAHN: So is the secretary of state walking a fine line here legally? He is not asking that the United States declare these men as prisoners of war right now. He's just saying let's abide by the Geneva Convention in the meantime.

HOLDER: Yes, and I think in a lot of ways that makes sense. I think they clearly do not fit within the prescriptions of the Geneva Convention. You have to remember that after World War II, as these protocols were being developed, there seemed to be widespread agreement that members of the French Resistance would not be considered prisoners of war if they had been captured. That being the case, it's hard for me to see how members of al Qaeda could be considered prisoners of war.

And yet, I understand Secretary Powell's concerns. We want to make sure that our forces, if captured in this or some other conflict, are treated in a humane way. And I think ultimately that's really the decisive factor here. How are people, who are in our custody, going to be treated? And those in Europe and other places who are concerned about the treatment of al Qaeda members should come to Camp X-ray and see how the people are, in fact, being treated.

ZAHN: The administration this morning playing down any discord among its team, but if you could, help us understand how you reconcile this.

HOLDER: Well, I think you've got people on the one hand saying that these are folks who should not be treated pursuant to the Geneva Convention, and at the same time, you're going to have people saying, "Well, you know, what does that mean for our forces down the road? What does that mean for people who are going to be doing what we tell them to do throughout the course of this conflict, which is worldwide and which is going to be taking years to ultimately resolve?"

I can understand the tensions that exist, but I think the way to resolve it is, in fact, the way Secretary Powell has proposed, which is to say these are not people who are prisoners of war as that has been defined, but who are entitled to, in our own interests, entitled to be treated in a very humane way and almost consistent with all of the dictates of the Geneva Convention.

ZAHN: Final question for you, moving onto the issue of John Walker Lindh, the American Taliban. How much pressure should they put on this man to get information out of him as they interrogate him?

HOLDER: Well, I mean, it's hard to interrogate him at this point now that he has a lawyer and now that he is here in the United States. But to the extent that we can get information from him, I think we should. I would expect that this is not a case that ultimately is going to go to trial. I'd be very surprised if the case went to trial. It seems to me that he is different from other people like Moussaoui, obviously the people who went into the World Trade Center. I suspect this is not a young man who is a zealot, who now, with a good lawyer and here in the United States once again, is likely to try to reach some kind of an agreement with the United States. And if in reaching that agreement with him, we get information from him, I think that makes a lot of sense.

ZAHN: I am hearing you say, "Plea bargain, plea bargain." Right? I'm not reading too much into what you just said?

HOLDER: No. That would be my guess. I would be very surprised if at the conclusion of this whole process, after you have gone through discovery, after you have gone through the pretrial hearings, I'd be very surprised that there's actually a trial on this matter.

ZAHN: Erick Holder, again thanks for dropping by A.M. -- appreciate your time this morning.

HOLDER: Thank you.

[scottw]

[QUOTE=spence;683580]You should really try placing quotes in context...

I can understand the tensions that exist, but I think the way to resolve it is, in fact, the way Secretary Powell has proposed, which is to say these are not people who are prisoners of war as that has been defined, but who are entitled to, in our own interests, entitled to be treated in a very humane way and almost consistent with all of the dictates of the Geneva Convention.



and they have absolutely been treated in a very humane way considering they act like something far less than human and we have been "ALMOST" consistent with all of the dictates Geneva Convention dictates......unbelieveable...