George W Bush Defends Waterboarding

#1
George W Bush's decision (fully admitted by him) to water board al-Qaeda suspects following 9/11, was ill-conceived with political (rather than tactical) motives, and gave the terrorists additional success.

More...
 
#3
George W Bush admitted decision to waterboard al-Qaeda suspects following 9/11 was ill-conceived and purely political, plus gave the terrorists additional success.

More...
No, he didn't. That is lies. You have chosen to misrepresent what has been widely printed in the MSM in order to further your own pathetic political views. You obviously think the people on this site are as pig shit ignorant as you are!

Waterboarding??? a version of that was part of my E&E training as a 16 year old at Shorncliffe, you total tosser!

As has been stated, who apart from all you liberal marxist fuckwits gives a shit anyway. I'd toast the **** over an open fire if I thought he would cough.
 
#4
George W Bush admitted decision to waterboard al-Qaeda suspects following 9/11 was ill-conceived and purely political, plus gave the terrorists additional success.

More...
In the interview I saw tonight, Bush defended the use of waterboarding. He said it was only used on three individuals, out of all those captured. And that waterboarding these terrorists provided information that prevented attacks on Heathrow and Canary Wharf, saving British lives.

I don't recall him saying Waterboarding was only used for political purposes, or that it's use was ill-conceived. Quite the opposite, in fact.
 
#5
The extract posted here isn't what the article said at all. But on the other hand, if you were waterboarded at the age of 16, I'd agree that there's probably no point reading anything I've got to say on the subject.
 
#7
The extract posted here isn't what the article said at all. But on the other hand, if you were waterboarded at the age of 16, I'd agree that there's probably no point reading anything I've got to say on the subject.
So why post it?

And, it came from your blog.

Bye then, ******!!
 
#8
So why post it?

And, it came from your blog.

Bye then, ******!!
I didn't post it - as it's an RSS feed which ARRSe takes from my blog.

I'd suggest ACAB read my blog before sounding off, but judging from your response that would be a waste of time. so goodbye to you.

For others reading this thread, it's generally accepted that torture produces unreliable information, so a President ordering it is extraordinary.

It's also an acceptance that legal methods aren't working, and that the government is losing control, which is exactly what the terrorists are trying to achieve. GW Bush went on to get us into Afghanistan and Iraq - all as part of his response to 911, which I think was misguided.
 
#9
For others reading this thread, it's generally accepted that torture produces unreliable information, so a President ordering it is extraordinary.

It's also an acceptance that legal methods aren't working, and that the government is losing control, which is exactly what the terrorists are trying to achieve. GW Bush went on to get us into Afghanistan and Iraq - all as part of his response to 911, which I think was misguided.
Crap, it's generally accepted that 'moderate' torture provides very reliable information. However, the more extreme the torture the more 'extreme' the responses become IE: in an attempt to get you to remove the battery clips from his testicles he will tell you what he thinks you want to know, not what is true. Waterboarding (which produces a sensation of panic as opposed to physical harm) scores about 1 out of 10 in the Good Torturers Cook Book.

As to legal methods aren't working, couldn't agree more. Get rid of the ECHR Act and break out the pliers and tyre irons
 
#10
Whatever your thoughts on waterboarding, and I don't agree with it, I would want to see the evidence that it does work, George Bush certainly didn't say what's being claimed in this thread. I saw him on the television when he was talking about it and he resolutely defended his decision to sanction it's use saying that it was a lesser form of pursuasion than others that had been suggested to him. He also said that waterboarding had saved American and British lives and that in terms of saving American lives, that was his job as the POTUS.
 
#11
I'd just like to repeat that the 'posting' which started this thread, which ARRSe took by RSS feed, is a totally inaccurate summary of what I said in my blog. I will take this up with the moderators tomorrow.

ACAB ought to do a bit more research. I think we can pretty sure that he's not talking from personal experience. The CIA’s so-called "KUBARK Counterintelligence Interrogation" manual, which dates from 1963 and was published after a Freedom of Information Act law suit in 1997, states that pain inflicted on a person from outside himself may actually focus or intensify his will to resist, and that a far more effective use of pain is that which the prisoner seems to inflict upon himself – for example by being told to stand at attention for long periods. This avoids contests between torturer and prisoner. It also says that threats of violence by interrogators are seen as being more effective than actual violence.

The CIA manual says that actual torture is quite likely to produce false confessions, as a means of escaping from distress, which have to be investigated. The prisoner can use this time to think up new, more complex "admissions" that take still longer to disprove. The manual also discusses the use of drugs and hypnosis.

I suppose it's regarded as OK to talk about pliers, tyre irons and bulldog clips while sheltering behind the anonymity of usernames here on ARRSe. I'm new here so if that's what you do, crack on. You do your thing - and I'll do mine.
 
#12
The manual also discusses the use of drugs and hypnosis.

I suppose it's regarded as OK to talk about pliers, tyre irons and bulldog clips while sheltering behind the anonymity of usernames here on ARRSe. I'm new here so if that's what you do, crack on. You do your thing - and I'll do mine.
Rather, old chap. I don't want to come over all voyeur ... oh my ... but do post the photographs when you've done yours.

 
#13
I'd just like to repeat that the 'posting' which started this thread, which ARRSe took by RSS feed, is a totally inaccurate summary of what I said in my blog. I will take this up with the moderators tomorrow.

ACAB ought to do a bit more research. I think we can pretty sure that he's not talking from personal experience. The CIA’s so-called "KUBARK Counterintelligence Interrogation" manual, which dates from 1963 and was published after a Freedom of Information Act law suit in 1997, states that pain inflicted on a person from outside himself may actually focus or intensify his will to resist, and that a far more effective use of pain is that which the prisoner seems to inflict upon himself – for example by being told to stand at attention for long periods. This avoids contests between torturer and prisoner. It also says that threats of violence by interrogators are seen as being more effective than actual violence.

The CIA manual says that actual torture is quite likely to produce false confessions, as a means of escaping from distress, which have to be investigated. The prisoner can use this time to think up new, more complex "admissions" that take still longer to disprove. The manual also discusses the use of drugs and hypnosis.

I suppose it's regarded as OK to talk about pliers, tyre irons and bulldog clips while sheltering behind the anonymity of usernames here on ARRSe. I'm new here so if that's what you do, crack on. You do your thing - and I'll do mine.
ACAB doesn't need to any more 'research'. I'll leave research to the likes of you.

Significantly, torture has been 'de rigeur' for centuries. You don't have to agree with it but don't say it's not effective. I was on a course about a decade ago headed by a man who is a 'doyenne' of the defence barrister types in what is, or is not, classed as torture. He should know as he freely admits torturing a number of arabic type individuals in the 50s. He NOW states that torture is 'inhumane' and 'ineffective'. I asked him if he felt that at the time. I also asked if he was happy for Ops to commence on the intelligence he had obtained, by his own admission, as a result of torture. His reply was 'next question'
 
#14
#15
'Where shall I apply these electrodes?'
But a good point mate. Needless to say, he has gone on to make rather a tidy wad by rubbishing the very ethos he once swore by.

Hypocrites, don't you just love them!
 
#16
Having had no experience of this, it's tempting to assume that genuinely fanatical jihadi types would be impervious to 'torture' (by whatever definiton) but I wonder if that's really true. In any case, the precedent has been set, regardless of what one might think of the rights and wrongs of the subject. Is that a Machiavellian way of considering it?
 
#17
Having had no experience of this, it's tempting to assume that genuinely fanatical jihadi types would be impervious to 'torture' (by whatever definiton) but I wonder if that's really true. In any case, the precedent has been set, regardless of what one might think of the rights and wrongs of the subject. Is that a Machiavellian way of considering it?
It's all a matter of perspective.

Lets say, you have Khalid Sheikh Mohammed's 'Guantanomo interview' in front of you. (Page 26, I think, oh and obtained by waterboarding)

Lets say, as a result of that you know the targets are, and strongly suspect aircraft are going to be flown into, Canary Wharf, The Houses of Parliament and Terminal 3 at Heathrow.

Lets say, you are interviewing a member of this AQ unit. He exercises his rights, and, in the presence of his solicitor goes 'no comment'

Lets say, whilst he is in your custody, aircraft plummet into the targets described. Thousands are killed, our economy is crippled. But our Detained Person wasn't subjected to 'degrading or inhumane treatment'.

Job well done?
 
#18
No comment! Infidel pig! A pox on your camels! (spits)

Seriously though, if I had forewarning of both the targets and weapons to be used, I could still take steps to prevent the attacks (unless I've misunderstood your last, in which case I apologise) Indeed, I would do so, regardless of how the int. was obtained.

Having said that, I'd still be in a cleft stick when it came to giving some AQT scrote a long-term manicure, regardless of the legality or ethics involved. Even if I thought the resulting int were reliable (which I would have no way of knowing) it would still have to be verified, insofar as possible, which might prove to be impossible.

There's no right answer to all this.
 
#19
Is this supposed to be an "end justifies the means" type post?
Torture has been around since Old Nick was a little lad. People will continue to be nasty to each other whether by psychological or physical means.
I have posted elsewhere this morning that from an historical perspective, the British found that QCs made the best interrogators during WW2.
Whether torture or the threat of torture is more effective is debatable. There will be a great incentive to gain quick results but how reliable the information so gained is debatable.
The Lawyers have a well paid field day trying to define "torture": Thumbscrews and the Rack are fairly easy to define but what about sleep deprivation, stress positions etc?
 

BuggerAll

LE
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
#20
This is an interesting subject. The use of torture was 'studied' and discussed on my Military Analysis (MA) course and I've arranged a debate were the subject was examined.

Most of us would agree that torture is almost never justified but there are several issues.

What constitutes torture? The human rights/liberty crowd would say anything other than an interview with coffee and biscuits is torture. Others would say anything short of lasting physical harm is not torture.

Waterboarding is interesting in this context. It doesn't do lasting physical damage although I suppose it may create lasting psychological damage. What of hooding and sensory deprivation.

There is also a need to disengage intelligence and information from evidence. Evidence gained by coercion is unreliable.

Several British soldiers where rescued in Iraq after they were kidnapped by rogue policemen as a result of information obtained by robust methods.

On the other hand allegations of complicity in torture levelled at the CIA and MI6, Abu Grahib and the QLR allegations etc have tarnished the image of the west and affected our occupation of the moral high ground - which matters because we are involved in a war of ideas just as great as the kinetic one and its the war of ideas we must win to secure any kind of peace.
 

Latest Threads

Top