CIA 'threatened September 11 suspect's children'

formerroadie said:

For someone who champions the constitutions and the rule of law, you sure are inconsistent in applying such things. If the end justifies your means, apparently none of it matters.

Click to expand...

I am constantly amused, or perhaps the correct choice of words would be stunned disbelief, when people desperately attempt to assert that non-uniformed enemy combatants and terrorists captured on foreign soil in battle with our troops are somehow entitled to the US Constitutional protections our citizens enjoy.

Truth Detector said:

I am constantly amused, or perhaps the correct choice of words would be stunned disbelief, when people desperately attempt to assert that non-uniformed enemy combatants and terrorists captured on foreign soil in battle with our troops are somehow entitled to the US Constitutional protections our citizens enjoy.

Click to expand...

That is arguable, and has been argued, repeatedly, over the past 8 years.

However, what isn't arguable is that U.S. military forces are bound by the Uniform Code of Military Conduct, regarding treatment of captured prisoners, EITHER WAY.


See, even if they're hostile insurgent terrorists, we're still AMERICANS. So the laws still apply TO US.

I'd have threatened his children, and arranged that he could father no more to prevent further attacks. I'd have vivisected him personally. I don't give a rat's toenail whether it would have led to a conviction-- that's something for polite society.

People need to get a grip. What do you all think happens when we drop a bomb on some terrorist training camp to prevent attacks?

I believe that people are confusing threatening his no doubt murderers-in-training offspring, and delivering on the threats.

Oftencold said:

I'd have threatened his children, and arranged that he could father no more to prevent further attacks. I'd have vivisected him personally. I don't give a rat's toenail whether it would have led to a conviction-- that's something for polite society.

People need to get a grip. What do you all think happens when we drop a bomb on some terrorist raining camp to prevent attacks?

I believe that people are confusing threatening his no doubt murderers-in-training offspring, and delivering on the threats.

Click to expand...

What many on the left fail to recognize is that from now on, these scumbags will be "interrogated" in the field, then shot trying to escape so that none of this crap happens in the future.

Oftencold said:

I'd have threatened his children, and arranged that he could father no more to prevent further attacks. I'd have vivisected him personally. I don't give a rat's toenail whether it would have led to a conviction-- that's something for polite society.

People need to get a grip. What do you all think happens when we drop a bomb on some terrorist raining camp to prevent attacks?

I believe that people are confusing threatening his no doubt murderers-in-training offspring, and delivering on the threats.

Click to expand...

So is this about revenge or stopping terrorism to you? Lets be honest here. From what you just said it seems like you're taking a position based on how you feel. To torture seems to denote a total loss of control on the part of the interrogator who has lost control over the situation. So you take the activist position that our laws don't mean anything.

PogueMoran said:

So is this about revenge or stopping terrorism to you? Lets be honest here. From what you just said it seems like you're taking a position based on how you feel. To torture seems to denote a total loss of control on the part of the interrogator who has lost control over the situation. So you take the activist position that our laws don't mean anything.

Click to expand...

I think you're mistaken. Information gained from terrorist suspects is used, in many cases, to kill their peers. Do you really have an issue with that?

Catz Part Deux said:

That is arguable, and has been argued, repeatedly, over the past 8 years.

However, what isn't arguable is that U.S. military forces are bound by the Uniform Code of Military Conduct, regarding treatment of captured prisoners, EITHER WAY.

Click to expand...

But this is not what is being debated in this thread is it? :doh

Catz Part Deux said:

See, even if they're hostile insurgent terrorists, we're still AMERICANS. So the laws still apply TO US.

Click to expand...

And yet, no one can pinpoint what exact laws the CIA employees broke; what we have here is a lot of emotional partisan hyperbolic blather about "perceived" injustices where none have occurred in an attempt to impugn the previous administration or worse, the entire nation for purely political purposes, and where they have been discovered, the perpetrators were indeed prosecuted for those actions.

This is indeed a PARTISAN effort; there is little support for this type of inquiry on the Republican side and even Obama himself has suggested this should be dropped before it become politically expedient for him to do what he is rapidly becoming known for; someone who seldom keeps his word and flip flops around just about every issue lacking substance or anything that could be remotely considered “leadership.”

Catz Part Deux said:

That is arguable, and has been argued, repeatedly, over the past 8 years.

However, what isn't arguable is that U.S. military forces are bound by the Uniform Code of Military Conduct, regarding treatment of captured prisoners, EITHER WAY.


See, even if they're hostile insurgent terrorists, we're still AMERICANS. So the laws still apply TO US.

Click to expand...

It's not arguable. the GC specifically states that un-uniformed non-state actors aren't allowed protection under the law.

The UCMJ only applies to legal combatants, as described by the GC.

Gill said:

What many on the left fail to recognize is that from now on, these scumbags will be "interrogated" in the field, then shot trying to escape so that none of this crap happens in the future.

Click to expand...

One can only wish; but we are truly beyond this kind of method for the most part which is something most of our enemies have no compunction about. Our troops will not act in this way unless of course they are overcome by emotion from the recent death of one of their comrades in arms.

While I would not support or sanction such behavior, I certainly would not expect to prosecute a soldier if this occurred given the circumstances.

You are incorrect. It has nothing whatever to do with revenge. It has to do with protecting our own.

Your concept of harsh interrogation is about what I'd expect from someone constantly shielded from the underside of society. This is not derisiveness on my part, merely a long-term observation.

What you call "torture" is not the loss of control, but the assertion of it. Foolishly, people who have never seen someone broken, accidentally, or purposely, claim the the target will "say anything to make the pain stop." But they fail to realize that someone properly so treated is pretty much incapable of lying-- the creative faculties require a certain positive self image to prevaricate.

This is the nature of the world: sometimes very hard choices have to be made, hard things have to be done. History books are full of examples of people who chose wrongly, or failed to take necessary action. Living examples however are sparse.

By the way, since you think my response emotional, know this. I could perform the midsection I mentioned while sipping lemonade and listening to Brahms.

Oftencold said:

You are incorrect. It has nothing whatever to do with revenge. It has to do with protecting our own.

Click to expand...

If this were true, one would be looking hard at the consequences of their actions and how it impacts the situation. Such as how does pursuing an aggressive, occupational, and very destructive policy in the middle east affect the area and the attitudes, responses, and actions of the people there.

Laila said:

CIA 'threatened September 11 suspect's children' - Times Online

Oh, 9/11 suspect or not. I don't think threatening children is right if this is true.

Click to expand...

If this is true, do you not understand that the children weren't threatened? Mohammed was threatened that something would happen to his children. His children never knew of the threat, nor were they killed.

This is patently irresponsible for Holder to go public with this. It only fans the flames, and it really makes you wonder who's side Obama and his cronies are on.

Ikari said:

If this were true, one would be looking hard at the consequences of their actions and how it impacts the situation. Such as how does pursuing an aggressive, occupational, and very destructive policy in the middle east affect the area and the attitudes, responses, and actions of the people there.

Click to expand...

Well, I suppose it depends on how one defines "our own," and "destructive." I don't consider our policies in the Middle East to be destructive, because the attitudes of people who embrace savage violence have little value to me, or to you for that matter.

Would you prefer a more pragmatic policy? The one that comes to mind is a return to Colonialism, which I favor.

The fault in your thinking is common, and understandable. Being steeped in the benefits of a society that places at least substantial value on Rationality, you find it difficult to accept that there are societies which do not, at least by any standard that you'd recognize. (Fore instance, enslaving women and killing apostates seems quiote rational in other systems.)

Catz Part Deux said:

I think you're mistaken. Information gained from terrorist suspects is used, in many cases, to kill their peers. Do you really have an issue with that?

Click to expand...

Do we have information that torture itself gave us the ability to kill their peers or that other methods allowed that? Again any solid proof that torture has stopped any plots?

PogueMoran said:

Do we have information that torture itself gave us the ability to kill their peers or that other methods allowed that? Again any solid proof that torture has stopped any plots?

Click to expand...

Are you under the seriously mistaken perception that I think torture is a useful interrogation technique?

Truth Detector said:

But this is not what is being debated in this thread is it? :doh

Click to expand...

Are you seriously doh'ing me???

I don't have any problems with the CIA threatening to harm the children of suspects because I know that they would not be allowed to follow through on those threats.

And yet, no one can pinpoint what exact laws the CIA employees broke; what we have here is a lot of emotional partisan hyperbolic blather about "perceived" injustices where none have occurred in an attempt to impugn the previous administration or worse, the entire nation for purely political purposes, and where they have been discovered, the perpetrators were indeed prosecuted for those actions.

Click to expand...

I have a problem with acts of torture being allowed under U.S. law. I was answering your generic torture arguments in my response. However, to be clear, I do not put this particular incident in the realm of torture.

Oftencold said:

You are incorrect. It has nothing whatever to do with revenge. It has to do with protecting our own.

Your concept of harsh interrogation is about what I'd expect from someone constantly shielded from the underside of society. This is not derisiveness on my part, merely a long-term observation.

What you call "torture" is not the loss of control, but the assertion of it. Foolishly, people who have never seen someone broken, accidentally, or purposely, claim the the target will "say anything to make the pain stop." But they fail to realize that someone properly so treated is pretty much incapable of lying-- the creative faculties require a certain positive self image to prevaricate.

This is the nature of the world: sometimes very hard choices have to be made, hard things have to be done. History books are full of examples of people who chose wrongly, or failed to take necessary action. Living examples however are sparse.

By the way, since you think my response emotional, know this. I could perform the midsection I mentioned while sipping lemonade and listening to Brahms.

Click to expand...

Shielded? I'm basing it on the reality of the situation. You act as if we've never had to face terrorism that somehow 9/11 changed everything even though it changed nothing. To argue otherwise suggests a certain naivety in our society. There are constant examples in our history where some of our greatest presidents had to make hard choices and chose to do the right thing.

George Washington said no to torture as did Abe Lincoln. Even St Ronnie railed against torture. Some of the "hardest" nazis we cracked through traditional interrogation techniques including playing chess with them. We can agree the nazis were some pretty rotten mother****ers.

Yet we found when we "broke" KSM, Al Nashiri and Zubaydah they provided us with virtually worthless information. KSM took responsibility for everything under the sun and told us what we wanted to hear. Time and time again the experts have come out and stated it doesn't work and its not practical. And yet you persist to claim the opposite regardless of the circumstances.

We've successfully interogated prisoners for years using the army field manual and traditional methods and were able to gather intel.

The world doesn't work according to 24.

Laila said:

Can't say i am surprised.

Click to expand...

I'm 50/50 on what is viewed as right or wrong when the issue is on the War on Terror.

On the one hand, the terrorist take a "kill or be killed" approach. They don't distinguish between combatant or innocent civilian where their enemies are concerned. They'd just as soon kill an innocent bystander on the streets who they view as the enemy as they would a soldier. But we, Americans (or members of other more "civilized" nations) do make that distinction. Nevertheless, when it comes to treatment of POWs/MIAs I doubt the terrorist are looking kindly upon our soldiers as we once did towards theirs. Still, I admit I'm torn between the morality that tells me to be bigger than they and not stoop to their level while at the same time knowing full well they really don't care about what happens to us.

So, when it comes down to it the question is do we take care not to lose our moral selves in this fight against terrorism and abid by national and international laws or do we take the low ground and follow the "kill or be killed/shoot first and ask questions later" approach?

I would like to believe I'd be one of those individuals who would stand by and support the laws of the land in any and all cases no matter what the subject matter might be, but the truth is where terrorist activities are concerns, particularly when committed against my country, I tend to not give a rats arse about those who would take the life of my fellow soldiers, sailors and even innocent civilians (reporters) without hesitation long before I stand up and denounce those who may have done wrong in their terror techniques. Admittedly, I go back and forth on this matter each time it has been addressed, but deep down if I'm honest about my personal self-check, I'm less inclined to care about what happens to terrorists no more than I'd care what happens to a child molester or a cold blooded murderer.

Sorry, folks. But that's just me being honest.

Oftencold said:

Well, I suppose it depends on how one defines "our own," and "destructive." I don't consider our policies in the Middle East to be destructive, because the attitudes of people who embrace savage violence have little value to me, or to you for that matter.

Would you prefer a more pragmatic policy? The one that comes to mind is a return to Colonialism, which I favor.

The fault in your thinking is common, and understandable. Being steeped in the benefits of a society that places at least substantial value on Rationality, you find it difficult to accept that there are societies which do not, at least by any standard that you'd recognize. (Fore instance, enslaving women and killing apostates seems quiote rational in other systems.)

Click to expand...

Oh, I know there are societies that base decisions on varying standards. I just don't care about them. They aren't our business. We aren't charged with bringing democracy, we're not in the business of liberation. People can fight for their own freedom if they want it. But the obvious destructive, interventionist policies we have pursued for the past 60 or so years has had many negative consequences. If we're interested in protecting our own, then you have to look at these consequences and understand how it plays into current plans. We were attacked on 9/11, we went into Afghanistan which I supported as that was a proper place to get terrorists. Without fully securing Afghanistan, we left to engage in a side war which had nothing to do with us and which has done nothing but play into the propaganda machine of the terrorists. We should understand that actions have consequences and figure out to the best of our abilities what those consequences could be so we can properly plan our actions. Running around playing world police isn't going to do anything but kill a bunch of Americans and waste a bunch of American money.

Ikari said:

Oh, I know there are societies that base decisions on varying standards. I just don't care about them. They aren't our business. . . .

Click to expand...

It appears to have escaped your attention, that while you do not consider savage nations to be your business, they most assuredly consider you theirs.

Here's an excellent example in which John Adams and Thomas Jefferson attempted to negotiate an end to the depredations of the Barbary Pirates in 1786 with Tripoli's envoy to London.

In 1786, Thomas Jefferson and John Adams went to negotiate with Tripoli's envoy to London, Ambassador Sidi Haji Abdrahaman or (Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja). Upon inquiring "concerning the ground of the pretensions to make war upon nations who had done them no injury", the ambassador replied:

It was written in their Koran, that all nations which had not acknowledged the Prophet were sinners, whom it was the right and duty of the faithful to plunder and enslave; and that every muslim who was slain in this warfare was sure to go to paradise. He said, also, that the man who was the first to board a vessel had one slave over and above his share, and that when they sprang to the deck of an enemy's ship, every sailor held a dagger in each hand and a third in his mouth; which usually struck such terror into the foe that they cried out for quarter at once.​

Click to expand...

LINK: [ame]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Barbary_War[/ame]

For good or ill, Human events are propelled by the aggressive.

Gill said:

Quote from Inspector Generals report.

Any more questions??

Click to expand...

That report mentions nothing about torture.
The memo that had just been released claims that certain ploys were revealed but it also reveals that KSM had lied and led authorities on a wild goose chase.
Not to mention the fact that there is no evidence to prove that the same information wouldn't have been obtained through traditional methods more accurately and more quickly.

apdst said:

CIA did this to protect our country. That's the difference.

Click to expand...

So the ends justify the means? Not to mention the fact that are you saying it's okay to break the law so long as it's for a good cause?

apdst said:

It doesn't matter what intel you get, or how you get it, it isn't credible until you confirm it. If torture didn't work, it would have faded out about 2,000 years ago. Since it's still in use, to this day, obviously, someone has achieved some good results from it.

Click to expand...

Actually we phased out torture 200 years ago and did not use it again until W's presidency.

I have struggled with the Moby Dick (but the story of my sex life is another thread, or novel, movie ect) the Ahab-like question, how to kill the Great White Whale without becoming a greater sea monster?

As far as I can see, none of us have the answer.

Even Abe “better angels of our nature” Lincoln did things that would have made Bush blush.

Do the ends justify the means?

Well there are no ends without means, means make all the ends.

Still, what we mean becomes what we end up.

I am still struggling with this one.

But my moby dick knows where it wants to migrate with no struggle at all.

So my answer is, more sex, less ideology.

jfuh said:

Actually we phased out torture 200 years ago and did not use it again until W's presidency.

Click to expand...

Hows the weather in never never land?


The American Prison and the Normalization of Torture


I am not saying its right but you are dreaming if you really think that.

Many people who have been to prison can testify.

You know how many people they thought they were going to kill on 911?

It was not a measly 3000. They thought they could get 25k in each building.


We got off easy.

Keep trying to negotiate with people who desire only to present your head to allah.


See how far that gets you. We all know what happened to Danny Pearl when he went to conduct an investigation. He met KSM and his own demise.


I cant believe the ongoing idiocy of dear leader at the moment. We are actually going to mirandize these guys and they are going to beat us about the face and head with our own lawyers and then blow us up. Frakin hippies have forgotten the face of their fathers..

jfuh said:

So the ends justify the means? Not to mention the fact that are you saying it's okay to break the law so long as it's for a good cause?

Click to expand...

That's exactly right.

Actually we phased out torture 200 years ago and did not use it again until W's presidency.

Click to expand...

That is untrue!...LOL!!! How do you think LSD came into being? Wanna take a guess who concocted that little brew and why? C'mon, take a guess. What about all those German spies that were tortured at Bletchly Park during WW2?