| | | >> That isn't correct. As long as there wasn't major organ failure or death, it was ok. Waterboarding wasn't the only form of torture they used, either. For some, they broke their feet and forced them to stand on them. Then there was the guy they chained to the floor and he died of hypothermia.
The problem here is that you're getting your information from one source, the exaggerated and lying Feinstein document. It is simply not a factual account, and no one who was involved with the process has said it is, and none of the principals involved were questioned prior to its release.
If you survey more important accounts, the story is different.
One person DID die of hypothermia. That is correct. However, that death has to be placed in context. Previously, back into the Clinton administration, these processes were outsourced as part of "extraordinary rendition" -- a process by which REAL torture was used, which was totally unaccountable, and produced poor results (notably, the incorrect information obtained from al-Libi which ended up in Powell's report to the UN).
At the time of the hypothermia death, the so-called "black sites" were just coming into existence, as were the EIT protocols. Salt Pit had just been constructed, and CIA had relatively little first hand experience with these kinds of interrogations. So, yes, one terrorist did die.
One of the waterboarded detainees was practically dead when they received him; had it been Obama, they would have just shot him in the head where he was originally wounded (see: bin Laden killing). They actually flew in a specialty surgeon from Johns Hopkins -- to Pakistan -- to save his life. He was never interrogated until he had stabilized -- and the accounts of his waterboarding are apparently exaggerated.
There was no incident involving "major organ failure" that resulted from the procedures applied, AFAIK. I'm not sure what you're referring to. Other than the one detainee who was presumed frozen to death early on.
>> You seem to be the one who doesn't know WTF you are talking about.
I'm not an expert of any kind, and neither are you. I do read everything, not just the things that align with my political views, however, and I take into account the political views of those writing the documents.
The Feinstein account is a terrible disservice to the American people because it is dishonest. That doesn't serve anyone's interests (other than maybe that of the terrorist). But it is how the Democrats do business. You talk about "end justifying the means" -- that is precisely what this bogus document amounts to. |
|
