Click to see the beacon journal online
Homes   Jobs   Cars   Shopping
Blog of Mass Destruction -- Community Blog

Previous post:

Next post:

Torture Did Not Save Lives

by The Reverend on April 18, 2009

in Bush White House,executive powers,neo-conservatives,rule of law,torture

As our dual narrative America continues in opposite directions over torture…of all things……it becomes more and more important to stop and take the time to expose the lies still being touted about torture.

When George W. Bush said repeatedly, "America doesn't torture", he was relying on his own narrative about torture as defined by his Office of Legal Counsel attorneys who had "legalized" torture.

I can say, "The Reverend doesn't steal", and yet still be hitting up liquor stores, head held high, if I keep telling myself robbing liquor stores isn't really stealing. I could even have an attorney write me up some memoes using tons of legalese, arguing that robbing liquor stores, if done a certain way, is not a violation of law.

If challenged that robbing liquor stores is illegal, I could point to my "legal" justifications and petulantly insist I did nothing wrong.

So, saying, "America doesn't torture", is just a word game.

But the claim, being recirculated by the same neo-con nuts who started it in the first place, that torturing detainee Abu Zubaida resulted in the saving of American lives and the breakup of other terror plots is not just a word game…….it is totally false.

Unfortunately, this false narrative will live on,….it will live on as a zombie narrative. It will be added to the zombie pile of dead and rotted narratives that still walk amongst us as zombie neo-con memes. Dead and proven to be phony, false…..but still stumbling around in the land of the living.

There's no longer any question about whether the crazed neo-cons tortured…..they did, and now, with the Bush torture-memo revelations, it's fully out in the open that the Bush White House authorized that torture.

So the zombie narrative, the new living dead claim, has moved to the "effectiveness" of the torturing which Bush had "legalized" and, then, implemented.

About the torturing of Abu Zubaida, here's what the Washington Post reported recently….

As weeks passed after the (Zubaida) capture without significant new confessions, the Bush White House and some at the CIA became convinced that tougher measures had to be tried.

The pressure from upper levels of the government was "tremendous," driven in part by the routine of daily meetings in which policymakers would press for updates, one official remembered.

"They couldn't stand the idea that there wasn't anything new," the official said. "They'd say, 'You aren't working hard enough.' There was both a disbelief in what he was saying and also a desire for retribution — a feeling that 'He's going to talk, and if he doesn't talk, we'll do whatever.' "

So they tortured Zubaida…..and here's what happened…..

The methods succeeded in breaking him, and the stories he told of al-Qaeda terrorism plots sent CIA officers around the globe chasing leads.

The interrogations led directly to the arrest of Jose Padilla, the man Abu Zubaida identified as heading an effort to explode a radiological "dirty bomb" in an American city. Padilla was held in a naval brig for 3 1/2 years on the allegation but was never charged in any such plot. Every other lead ultimately dissolved into smoke and shadow, according to high-ranking former U.S. officials with access to classified reports.

"We spent millions of dollars chasing false alarms," one former intelligence official said.

In the end, though, not a single significant plot was foiled as a result of Abu Zubaida's tortured confessions, according to former senior government officials who closely followed the interrogations. Nearly all of the leads attained through the harsh measures quickly evaporated, while most of the useful information from Abu Zubaida — chiefly names of al-Qaeda members and associates — was obtained before waterboarding was introduced, they said.

Here is the final evidence that torturing Zubaida didn't prevent or breakup any terror plot…..

Since 2006, Senate intelligence committee members have pressed the CIA, in classified briefings, to provide examples of specific leads that were obtained from Abu Zubaida through the use of waterboarding and other methods, according to officials familiar with the requests.

The agency provided none, the officials said.

No matter what the Bush-clones, Michael Hayden and Michael Mukasey, have been screeching like mono-syllable-spouting zombies the last couple of days in the Wall Street Journal and on corporate teevee…..it ain't true.

Torture produces worthless information….that's what the Zubaida story demonstrates. What the Zubaida story does not demonstrate, at all, is that torturing him saved American lives by breaking up future terror plots.

That's just a lie.

  • Tbomb

    This has all been well documented.I read where WWII vets in charge of interrogations of Nazis learned early on that the best methods involved a "winning them over /gaining their confidence" strategy. You know, you start out praising their ingenuity and great strategy and all their great values and patriotism that is shared by all involved. Then pretty soon they start spilling the beans…because they think you admire them and share similar values even if for different causes[they have families which of course the int. goes to great lengths to inquire about]…..ooooor you can be the wannabe tough guy which of course George and Dick never were[and avoided at all costs...deferments,getting into the Nat. Guard when there were no openings etc.] which might make you feel good and tough but doesn't get the desired results. Physical torture nets whatever the recipient thinks you want to hear!

  • The Reverend

    Exactly.

    Make believe cowboys.

  • Da King

    So, I'm not supposed to believe the former head of the CIA, Michael Hayden, and I'm not supposed to believe the former Attorney General, Michael Mukasey, who both say the Zubaydah interrogations supplied information that led to the capture of other top Al Qaeda leaders and interrupted plots, and who even you admit led to the arrest of Jose Padilla, which stopped a terrorist plot (and contradicts your entire theory).

    Instead, you're asking me to believe an "unnamed intelligence source".

    You're gonna have to do better than that.

  • averagejoe5

    What Lifetime made for movie did you see that infomation. Was Valerie Bertinelli the interigator? This is all speculation on the part of the villanizing lib media to make America look like the criminal state they want. Look at the sources they use. Bloggers and news reporters, many politicians, pundits etc most who never even wore a military uniform or tried gathering intelligence to protect the lives of innocent Americans. (Or in the case of politicians change their minds on a subject to get re-elected.) They are now going to investigate the people that wrote the memos that were released last week.

    Rev you are positive that enhanced interigation tactics never worked? Or was it just that media person's source saying they didn't work. The reason I ask this is because I have relatives that were in WWII, Korea, Vietnam, The Persian Gulf and Iraq. Many were in special forces. I also have friends that were in the Isreali Guard. Their tactics are close to ours. They say the press and the politicians are full of sh*t about how American military questions these people. These tactics are psychological and they do start with being nice to them TBomb. In fact they try to win them over with freedom and promises and bribes. It isn't like the war movies where they start them in the little room. That's Hollywood.(Other countries do that, look at Saddam Huessan, he used terror and mutilation on his own people. Or Pol Pot or Mao tse Tung, or Lenin, Marx, Mousolini, Or recently where the Taliban beat that 15 year old girls ass in the square, accusing her of being a whore. Or in Somalia where they cut a womans privates to reduce her sexual pleasure or like the Africa country that cuts the hands or feet off their enemy instead of killing them, to create a burden against their enemy. That is torture.)
    If they don't talk and it means saving the lives of fellow troops or private citizens, firmer tactics are used. Also these tactics aren't usually used on the grunt warriors. They are used on officers or people higher in rank.
    I don't understand why you libs don't want to understand that during war these people want you and your family dead, because they hate you. Or in the case of many muslim groups, AlKaida, Taliban etc want you dead simply beacuse they don't agree with your lifestyle or belief in God. They will not even think twice about torturing our people out of spite. Look what they did to John McCain.

  • The Reverend

    The "dirty bomb" charges were dropped against Jose Padilla. That would make it seem like there was no evidence against him. So, there's no evidence that Zubaida's blurting out of his name saved anything from happening. Nothing. The burden is not on me…it's on those who choose to believe what they want to believe. The only "terrorist plot" associated with Padilla was in somebody's imaginative head.

    To believe that Mukasey and Hayden are objective sources is also to believe what you want to believe. Cheney says the same things as they do……does that make Cheney believable? Hardly.

    And what is it that you do with those torture memoes? Did they happen? Did Bush authorize the use of the tactics outlined in them?

    It boils down to one issue…..and average agrees with you King….you two believe that torture works. So, in your understanding, the end justifies the means, no matter what the means are.

    I disagree with that premise. I don't care who the "enemy" is.

    average raises the authentic issue here….

    "If they don't talk and it means saving the lives of fellow troops or private citizens, firmer tactics are used."

    How does the torturer KNOW that torturing the detainee "means saving lives"? How does one ascertain that the detainee KNOWS something like that? And…would it be enough if only one American life might be saved if you KNEW ahead of time that the detainee KNOWS something? Is one enough?

    And…if it actually works, like you guys say, then shouldn't police be allowed to use torture also? Wouldn't that follow? And if not, why not?

  • averagejoe5

    Rev, No police shouldn't use torture, we have a judicial system that determines the fate of the criminal. Now, if there is a conspiracy to kill innocent people or a terrorist act and it will save the lives of innocents, absolutely. It would depend on the situation. If someone could have caught McVeigh or his partner on his way to blow up that building and killing all those people and the police knew something was going to happen would a firm questioning seeion been called for? Yes.
    These terrorists or enemies are not our citizens they are people that have conspired to attack or attacked and killed our citizens. We gotta do what we gotta do, yes even if it saves one innocent American. If you knew it would save the life of that little baby in your Easter message, would you use firmer tactics? If I knew it would save that babies life, I would do the job myself.
    Maybe if Bill Clinton would have captured Osama Bin Laden and questioned him firmly we wouldn't have had the two disasters at the WTC. Letting him free after his threats against the US caused a turning point in our history. He treated his own citizens in Waco with more military than Bin Laden, all on a rumor.

    And Rev I don't mean questioning people off of the streets who aren't associated with these criminals. It is a touchy situation and it is not black and white, we have trained professionals to make these decisions. We won't agree on these this subject and that's okay. Should it be made a law not to use these tactics? No, in my opinion. What if other countries use them against us?

    Believe me if you KNOW they are associated and they KNOW something and they won't tell you how to stop it, if you inflict enough pain, they will talk. Until we have been in that situation do we really know what we would do?

  • Da King

    I don't know where you get your information, Rev, but Padilla was convicted on terrorism charges. Look it up.

    And Padilla is only one of many terrorists who were brought down by our intelligence network following 9/11. You can deny that all you want, but it's still true.

    If you want to believe an unnamed intelligence source over the head of the CIA and the Attorney General of the United States, that is your right, but you should stop saying there is no evidence that harsh interrogations stopped terrorists. There is evidence, you are just choosing to ignore it. That's all I'm saying.

  • averagejoe5

    Funny how libs will go completely off the deep end defending criminals that murdered our innocent citizens or ones that have info that will kill and maim more of our troops and citizens yet they have NO regard for the unborn babies. Not even if it is a botched abortion and the baby is born alive. they let it die in a cold sink. They even believe in late term abortion where the baby is almost all the way out and the doctor sucks out the childs brain and collapses the babies skull with a suction tube. Which is worse? Which makes more sense? Rev says the reps believe in torture. Does this mean that Libs believe in the murder of the innocents? It comes down to values, I guess Conservatives believe in protecting the ones they love and the libs beleive in every man for himself…….just sayin.' This is why we just don't "get" what the libs are thinking. It's a contrast of beliefs.

  • Da King

    Protect the guilty and to hell with the innocent is a bizarre belief system, that's for sure.

  • CSD@MTV

    Words games, that's rich. Just like BHO and his renaming stuff from the last administration. Keep it up, there must be someone the USA hasn't surrendered to yet. When the schoolboy POTUS is done he wil have given away everything gained in the last 100 years. We'll all see how it's lie to live in Cuba, France, Mexico, and China.

  • The Reverend

    Well, well.

    First, no one I know of is FOR third trimester abortions. I'm certainly not. So, the equivalence attempt doesn't fit here, average.

    Now, let's be reasonable. Should we base our legal-police-military system on purely hypothetical situations? Does that make any sense? Those who advocate the loudest for torture, like The Dick, set forth the "one percent doctrine" as the working blueprint for when we should torture a person. If there's a one percent chance that the guy you have in custody knows something that would save the lives of others…..torture away.

    Who gets to decide that the guy in custody knows something?

    How can you still support torture when you now know that Sheik Mohammed was waterboarded 183 times in 30 days? Zubaida, about 80 times.

    So, CSD….let me ask you…..did you hear Obama surrender to someone? Did you? Was it any one of those three dead pirate guys?

    Obama talks to the leaders of other countries…..that's his job as president. You should be proud that we have such a star representing us to other nations. I know it doesn't look like the last 8 years…..but that's kind of the point.

  • averagejoe5

    Our president and most other libs arent against 3rd trimester abortions either. Nor is he for mandatoriy saving the life of a baby born alive in a botched abortion. My philosophy is, if you aren't against and you defend it, you are for it. It's like voting present. It doesn't have to be third trimester it can be 1st or second. The point is libs protect the evil doers and want to protect thier rights at all cost even thought they know they are guilty of the crime and then in the other breath they are for aborting unborn babies for the sake of convenience. Doesn't add up to me. Both have the power of life and death.
    We should have just killed Sheikh Mohammed. Torture was too good for him. They should have drown his filthy murdering as* in pork fat. We knew he was guilty of plotting and executing terrorism 2 times on the US costing thousands of innocent American lives. Put yourself in their shoes for a second. Young men and women with families at home and people that loved them, having their lives snuffed by a person that had no beef against them other than they were American. Please.

    Where is this 1% doctrine? What was it called? I agree, if the guy was involved with the terrorists and there is a chance he knows something go ahead and waterboard him. (waterboarding is not torture by the definition. It is only torture by the dictionary of the ACLU and those that hate the Bush administration. As I said before, if there was a 1% chance that you could prevent harm to the baby in your Easter blogg, would you? Even if it meant kicking the person until they were bloody? I would.)

    Did he say to kill the pirates? Who gave that order? Obama or the commander of the Navy Seals? They followed protocol.

    It is great that Obama talks to other world leaders. A much needed improvement over Bush and our past. I just wish he would tell the truth and quit being so apologetic.

  • larry d.

    "A star?" That's funny, Reverend.

  • Da King

    Lots of disinformation, Rev.

    What's this drivel about a one percent doctrine ? When KSM was captured in 2003, he was planning other terrorist attacks against the United States and Europe. That means there wasn't a one percent chance that KSM knew something, there was a one hundred percent chance that he knew something. He was masterminding future terrorist plots. What part of that do you not understand ? KSM's treatment wasn't some hypothetical philosophical experiment. There was the very real threat of innocent people being killed by Al Qaeda.

Previous post:

Next post:

 

© The Akron Beacon Journal • 44 E. Exchange Street, Akron, Ohio 44308

Powered by WordPress
Entries (RSS) and Comments (RSS).