ADVERTISEMENT

Megyn Kelly interviews Dr. James Mitchell

"Torture works great," says war criminal

We paid this asshole millions of dollars to design a torture program that produced nothing but ignominy. Needless to say, that makes Megyn Kelly hot. And here you are hyping the self-interested claims of a war criminal. This is evil, even though he claims to have reduced the amount of water per pour in waterboarding.

Guys like this are covering their asses, because they are war criminals. His claim that he engaged first in noncoercive methods is belied by the fact that we tortured people for weeks before interrogating them. Megyn Kelly asked him if he felt he was in the company of evil when he was in the same room with Khalid Sheik Mohammed, and he said yes, but they were both in the presence of evil when they were talking to each other.

Once again, read this. The pro-torture arguments are complete and utter bullshit, particularly when they come from the equivalent of Herman Goering.
 
LOUD NOISES! LOUD NOISES!

18 U.S.C. Section 2340 (bold added):


As used in this chapter-
(1) "torture" means an act committed by a person acting under the color of law specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions) upon another person within his custody or physical control;
(2) "severe mental pain or suffering" means the prolonged mental harm caused by or resulting from-
(A) the intentional infliction or threatened infliction of severe physical pain or suffering;
(B) the administration or application, or threatened administration or application, of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or the personality;
(C) the threat of imminent death; or
(D) the threat that another person will imminently be subjected to death, severe physical pain or suffering, or the administration or application of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or personality;

If you design procedures or alter procedures to specifically prevent severe and prolonged physical and/or mental harm, you do not violate US law.

Congress trumps Rockfish.
 
Re: "Torture works great," says war criminal


"The equivalent of Herman Goering"?

Good grief. You lose all credibility and, in fact, garner a certain amount of disdain, when you make ridiculous statements like that.
 
Hard to watch . . .

with Kelly interrupting with inane questions like "As a man, how did it feel . . ."

Sheesh.
 
You can't lose credibility

when you never had any to lose. He's been in crackpot territory on this topic from the beginning. Reasonable people can disagree on this, but reasonable is a word that's seldom applicable to anything he says concerning torture.
 
She's an awful interviewer . . .

all I got from the interview was (1) waterboarding was not effective in the interrogation of Khalid Sheik Mohammed, and (2) the interview was really for the purpose of allowing the interviewee to complain about the Senate report.

More crap on top of an already too large pile . . . .
 
Wait . . . . What?

A liberal thinks a question about feelings is inane? You need to surrender your liberal touchy feely credentials.
 
Hearing from the people

who did this is emensly helpful in thinking through the issues for some of us anyway.
 
I'm surprised you could stomach it?

It's unfortunate you and the other sycophants didn't learn anything from it. He provided valuable insight into what works and what doesn't. Pouring water on someone's head isn't torture, cutting someone's head off is torture. What I learned was different stress techniques work on different people and we gained valuable information that certainly disrupted terror plans. But the girls in the Senate would rather play partisan politics than secure America.

Count me as one American greatful for the likes of Mitchell and other CIA agents. I suppose you were sick that O'Neill killed bin Laden?
 
We should be hearing from the war criminals

From the witness stand or not at all.
 
You are always wrong

Like a reverse weathervane, you perversely reassure me that I'm right.

By the way, numbnuts, I was delighted that we killed bin Laden. Under the laws of war, combatants are always fair game wherever they may be found. And we found bin Laden without anything we gained from torture.
 
Really?

Because the illegal methods we modeled at SERE, which that asshole reverse engineered into an institutionalized torture program, were all used by the Gestapo. Torture without a mark.

All of these cruel methods were universally regarded as torture until we adopted them. F#ck my credibility. Deal with reality.
 
How to defend the indefensible

See-no-evil-hear-no-evil-speak-no-evil-monkeys-14750406-500-375.jpg
 
Nah . . .

even in an uber-friendly context like a FOX News infomercial like Kelly's show listening to what this guy has to say is a good thing. Would that Kelly had let him actually speak rather than try to shape the news to her own specifications . . .

. . . besides, what the guy said is probative, in case there are any proceedings . . . .

The real conversation remains off-screen of course. The interviewee's confidentiality agreement was "loosened" according to Kelly, not eliminated, and the major details regarding the tactics and techniques used to interrogate KSM and others remain shrouded. For example, he declined to talk about the number of people present at the interrogations, and he also declined to disclose any information regarding the techniques that supposedly were successful at getting KSM to reveal useful information.

I think it's safe to say that the interview was a little useful, despite Kelly's incompetence, if for no other reason than to peg for certain that we still don't know all that actually occurred . . . .
 
The guy who poured the water is a war criminal

There is enormous evidence of guilty knowledge here, although not from this now-wealthy sociopath. Consider that the administration had carefully chosen lawyers (like war criminal John Yoo) concoct erroneous and now discredited legal claims that (1) the President can lawfully commit crimes whenever he decides he's wearing his commander-in-chief hat; (2) torture isn't really torture if you lawyer it up right; and (3) it's legal to torture those we call "unlawful combatants" because the laws against torture don't apply to them. Add to this the administration's decision to place the tortured detainees in places like Gitmo, which it (erroneously) considered a legal black hole, where no law applied. They did all of this because they knew they were engaged in illegal behavior. And now their enablers and apologists claim that there is nothing to see here. It's pathetic.
 
Reality? get a grip


I have never said that the methods used were not torture. Not once.

What I did say, in less blunt terms, is that it is preposterous and utterly asinine to equate this guy to Hermann Goering.
 
"Crackpot territory"

If I'm emotional about this, perhaps it's because amoral wingnuts like you have moved the needle of public opinion. The taboo against torture is just another casualty of the ill-conceived War on Terror. Sadly, we are now a nation in which ordinary people have come to accept war crimes, when maybe they might benefit us (even though they don't). And we've done this in fear of barbaric pissants who pose less of a threat to us than a bolt of lightning. When did we become such cowards?
 
The banality of evil

I'm fully ware of Godwin's Law, but this asshole did what the Gestapo did. Yet here you are outraged that I've defamed one war criminal by comparing him to a worse war criminal. Perhaps your outrage is misdirected.
 
I dunno . . . is torture . . .

conducted with a measured solemnity any less torture than when conducted with sadomasochistic fervor?

Terror is what we're supposed to be against, right?

Until the interviewee reveals what "EITs" were actually successful in getting KSM to talk, and also reveals what information was obtained using that technique, we won't really know whether we've sold our souls to the devil, will we . . . .
 
I wonder

how many family members of the 126 (at last count) Pakistanis dead at the hands of the pissant Taliban might have approved of waterboarding or sleep deprivation if it would have prevented the murders. You've put yourself so high up on the pedestal that you can't identify with human suffering inflicted by barbarians. You've convinced yourself, if no one else, that you've taken the high moral ground when there is not even a hint of morality in your stance.

This post was edited on 12/16 11:41 AM by RBabbitt
 
It depends on the message that people draw

Imagine that Megyn Kelly was interviewing Charles Manson about the desirability of a race war. What useful insights do you suppose CO. Hoosier would draw from that? Perhaps like me he'd dismiss an interview with a sociopath as infotainment. Or if the sociopath was more agreeable to him, maybe not
 
Yes, the evil people are evil

But we're the good guys, so we don't base our standards on what they (stupidly) do. When did you guys become such moral relativists, and when did the world's worst barbarians become your standard?
 
Careful, you might get hung by your own noose . . .

how many of those same Pakistanis would today be in favor of a total ban on the possession of firearms?
 
Don't think so

I've only glanced at the barest of details, but I feel confident in saying that a number of gun laws violated in that assault. I'm always against the violation of gun laws, even the ones I don't like.
 
Whoever convinced Mitchell to participate...

...in what he calls "physical coercion" did a terrific job. He says he gave up his "moral high ground" as the country was facing a second wave of attacks which would include nuclear weapons and anthrax. Furthermore after talking to the head of the CIA and his legal adviser, Mitchell was convinced he had lawful authority along with an obligation to help save lives.

In a nutshell, Mitchell was convinced by the circumstances following 9/11 and leaders of the country who felt compelled to take extraordinary measures that by participating in the water boarding that he was doing the right thing in order to help prevent a second wave of attacks. He did so, but with at some least discomfort. KSM's demeanor of arrogance, distainfullness, and confrontation along with thinking about the 9/11 victims helped Mitchell overcome his reluctance.

Kelly tried to lead Mitchell and put words in his mouth, but he resisted her efforts and told his story his way.
 
Money convinced Mitchell to participate

He and his partner made over $80 million torturing people. Doing well doing good, I guess.

This is an underappreciated irony: The Bush administration privatized torture. The CIA wasn't in the interrogation business, so the administration hired a couple of go-getters, who created a startup torture business to fill the gap. As it turned out, these go-getters didn't know anything about actual interrogations. Instead, they knew about the illegal tactics modeled at SERE, which our enemies had designed to extract propaganda confessions and not actionable intelligence. Real interrogators (like Ali Soufan) would have nothing to do with these torture multimillionaires.

I don't know what was in Mitchell's mind, but he enriched himself by committing war crimes. He deserves no benefit of any doubt.
 
Let me just run a highlighter over this

At what we considered the time of our greatest need, we handed over the interrogation of detainees to a couple of inexperienced self-promoters who made tens of millions of dollars to produce nothing, at the cost of our most important principles. Meanwhile, self-professed conservatives, who claim to despise both moral relativism and what they consider the inevitable incompetence of government, laud this scandalous, incompetent, and wasteful program as the finest example of patriotism. Pardon me for concluding that this is deeply stupid.
 
The contractors had experience...

...in resistance strategies and had been engaged in teaching our military these techniques. Although the contractors weren't experienced interrogators they did understand resistance strategies which would be used by those being interrogated, and they were part of a team which included experienced interrogators along with emergency medical people.

Rock, you bring up the lucrative compensation paid to the contractors. I cannot help but think this could of been a big factor in putting aside their moral doubts and had a great deal to do with their decision to participate in the "physical coercion" (using Dr. James Mitchell's words).
 
what he doesn't get

What the small minority of people who get worked up about fail to understand is the vast majority of Americans dont care that we poured water on the head of the guy who beheaded Daniel Pearl and planned the trade center attack. Senate Democrats are trying to give up even more seats next time around with the carnival barking on issues like this. And now, back to the fact that 90+M working age people are out of work.
 
It is my understanding that

the techniques the North Koreans used in the Korean War were studied as part of the development of our interrogation techniques. I find it interesting that the US used a report on how the North Koreans coaxed false confessions to develop interrogation techniques.

It appears those techniques did indeed provide further false confessions. Hooda thunk
 
No, the "team" did not include "experienced interrogators"

As the Senate report makes clear, we shunted aside experienced interrogators (like Ali Soufan) in favor of torturers who had never interrogated anyone. As I said, the now-wealthy contractors had indeed worked at SERE, and they did indeed reverse-engineer the illegal methods modeled there into a full-blown torture program, over the objection of people who actually were experienced interrogators. Among the great many things that the contractors didn't understand was that many of those they tortured weren't employing any "resistance techniques". Instead, they were producing no intelligence because they were entirely innocent. And even the guilty, like Abu Zubaydah, gave up all they had before they were tortured, but were nevertheless tortured at length until the contractors concluded that they really did have nothing more to give.

You say Mitchell put aside his moral objections to torture. But this assumes that he had moral objections in the first place. I see no evidence that this is so. He looks like an amoral greedhead to me. That guy is War Crimes, Inc.
 
The definition of torture.

Per the UN Convention Against Torture, of which the USA is a signatory.

For the purposes of this Convention,
torture means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether
physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for
such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person
information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a
third person has committed or is suspected of having committed,
or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any
reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or
suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the
consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person
acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or
suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful
sanctions.


Also, you interpret 18 USC 2340 incorrectly. Only "mental pain or suffering" is required to contain a "prolonged" nature. Physical pain is not.

goat
 
Rock, my apologies to you, as you are spot on

My remarks about the "team" came from Mitchell as per the Kelly interview video. This article goes into depth about the Mitchell/Jessen and Associates firm and tells about Mitchell acting as an interrogator without a team.

Having read the article my attitude about Mitchell and his entire role in the interrogations has changed. Rock, I don't go quite as far as you do in calling Mitchell a war criminal, but your remarks about him being inexperienced in interrogation and out for the money appear to be spot on.
 
Swing and a Miss

1. You forgot "specifically intended" and the impact of the steps taken by the US to SPECIFICALLY PREVENT harm.

2. A US State Department report to the UN dated October 1999 (Clinton admin) equated the UN and US definitions, stating "Every act constituting torture under the Convention constitutes a criminal offence under the law of the United States." So if you wanna prove torture, you gotta prove a violation of 28 USC 2340.

In addition, I think folks are conveniently forgetting "the times." The fear was palpable. 9/11 was immediately followed by anthrax attacks. The threat of a bio/chem attack was very real.

I live 25 miles from Ft. Knox.
In the 16th largest metro area.
I could easily conceive of this city being a target and worried about a shoe box full of bio/chem.

We were - and are - fighting people who gleefully kill children.
Gleefully.

I don't blame the folks who took these acts any more than I blame a soldier who shot a surrendering Nazi.

They were trying to protect me and my kids.

Calling them war criminals to win a political point is depraved.
 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT