Wiretaping and Torture

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Aug 16 2006, 03:28 PM) [snapback]304238[/snapback]</div>

But you must have read this somewhere, right? Or did you just pick it up from the aether? The wiretapping, I can probably believe, but I'd like to read some story saying it. I find the torture somewhere harder to believe, so I'd like to read the article and/or blog where you got that from.

Thanks.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Aug 16 2006, 12:28 PM) [snapback]304238[/snapback]</div>

Do you have any credible sources to corroborate your assertions that torture and legally unauthorized wire taps were used to break this plot?

By credible sources I mean mainstream media outlets, including the right of center Fox News, The Wall Street Journal and The Washington Times.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(efusco @ Aug 15 2006, 05:12 PM) [snapback]303764[/snapback]</div>

I was attempting to inject civility into this discussion, and it's unfortunate that you chose to spin it the way you did. The OP left the term vague, yes; I was pointing out that there is a vast spectrum of activities that can be called "torture", and it is my prerogative to do so. The media uses the word dysphemistically in order to attract viewers and sell publications. Most times they conveniently leave out the fact that no actual harm is done, save for a few "hurt feelings". The aggressive interrogation techniques used by the United States fall far short of the classic definition of "torture".

As for my question being a "lame trap" - again, it's unfortunate you chose to spin it that way. People speak of the deterioration of civil rights, and I can't see any that are being eroded. I was inviting a civil discussion about that deterioration, in hopes that someone would educate me on something I've apparently missed. Yes, it may take a while longer to get into the secured passenger area in an airport. Big whoopie. It's not a civil right to be able to get through quickly. Domestic wiretaps are being used as they always have been. They are used against suspected lawbreakers after vetting and approval by a judge. Call record screening has been going on since the mid-80s, and has been codified in federal law since 1994 (Google CALEA if you doubt me). All telecom carriers are required by federal law to make their records available to law enforcement personnel upon receipt of a court order. International conversations are not, and never have been, protected by same rules as domestic calls. Running the voices on international calls through a computer screening program is a "sanitary" way to scan for catchwords and catchphrases. The people involved in interpreting the results of the scans don't give a rat's fanny about what someone might say to their Iranian grandmother. If they really and truly want to waste their time listening to my conversations with our vendors in Scotland, it's fine by me - so long as they listen to the scumbags, too, and use the intelligence gathered to catch or stop them. The law enforcement community has the job of investigating violations and potential violations of the law (that's why there are laws against conspiracy). Sometimes the wrong people get investigated, true. When that happens, the person has a vast panoply of options to pursue in the courts. Until someone can point out an actual violation of civil rights, my question stands.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(efusco @ Aug 16 2006, 03:37 PM) [snapback]304273[/snapback]</div>

Well, the legality of how the taps were ordered is still up in the air - it's been challenged, but no final ruling has come down. Again, calls between the U.S. and international locations have always been subjected to a different set of laws. Clinton and Carter used the same interpretations of powers granted by FISA for performing warrantless wiretaps, but were never challenged on it (never caught at it at the time?). Time will tell, I suppose.

I agree with you wholeheartedly on the infliction of pain, sensory deprivation, and such like. Things that can cause actual, quantifiable damage are outside the realm of civilized behavior. I haven't heard any reliable reports that indicate that this type of activity is going on. That's why I wanted to carefully explain my definition of the line between aggressive interrogation techniques and torture - I condone the first, and condemn the second. Before anyone asks, "condone" means I may not particularly like it, but it's justifiable in my mind.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Aug 15 2006, 12:17 PM) [snapback]303656[/snapback]</div>

Are you sure they employed "torture" ... as in the destruction of human flesh ... rather than the things we call "torture" today like water boarding and stress-inducing prior to interrogation? I really don't consider those things on a par with the image the word "torture" gives people.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Aug 16 2006, 02:28 PM) [snapback]304238[/snapback]</div>

Are you going to vote for Senator McCain for president? He said that torture does not work.

""It's killing us!" US senator John McCain – himself tortured during the Vietnam War -- wrote late last month in the US magazine Newsweek.

"Obviously, to defeat our enemies we need intelligence, but intelligence that is reliable... The abuse of prisoners harms, not helps, our war effort," argued McCain, who introduced a bill outlawing the use of torture by the US Army and the CIA, which is currently being debated in Congress.

"In my experience, abuse of prisoners often produces bad intelligence because under torture a person will say anything he thinks his captors want to hear --whether it is true or false -- if he believes it will relieve his suffering," he said."

http://news.inq7.net/breaking/index.php?in...&story_id=59251

Torture may have played a part in this episode, but remember, a broken clock is right twice a day.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(burritos @ Aug 17 2006, 09:54 PM) [snapback]305065[/snapback]</div>

Burritos, you've hit the nail on the head here. I've heard senator McCain's take on this as well as other people in the same situation as he once was. When a person is tortured for information, he will tell his captors what he thinks they want to hear without regard to accuracy. In other words, say what they want to hear as long as it stops the torture.