Should Berkeley Fire John Yoo??? Forum

[flaco17]

Even if torture "worked" 100% of the time (and it does not): NO.

That is all.

Hypothetical. A terrorist is sitting in a hut in the middle of the desert. He's Osama bin Laden. We could a) pick him up for interrogation or b) kill him. Would you be upset if we just killed him? Is it your contention it's more moral to just kill him than to pick him up and torture him (though causing no permanent disability) for information?

[OperaSoprano]

But, let's say for the sake of argument that the intelligence extracted from torture were reliable, and that time bomb hypothetical you just described became manifest. Let's say, for the sake of argument, I concede that torture in this scenario would be acceptable on utilitarian grounds. Does it demand the proliferation of memos justifying torture which consequently lead to the wholesale implementation of torture torture methods? I would say it does not.

Also, please correct me if I have a quaint view of the practice of law, but if a lawyer is advising a client, and the client asks "Is this action legal?", doesn't a lawyer provide an exhaustive analysis of all sides to a legal question? Or, do we simply espouse solely our own ideological views, however controversial? If not germane to the topic at hand, I would like to know for professional reasons if and when I pass the bar.

Do you, really?

[SethD2767]

Even if torture "worked" 100% of the time (and it does not): NO.

That is all.

Why? Do you have any argument to support your position?

Because doing so (torturing) subjects Americans to torture when held by other states or non-state actors. If you don't think we have anyone in that situation, I suggest you ask the Iranian-American woman recently convicted of espionage by the Islamic Republic.

(Edit: This is not to say they HAVE tortured her, but rather to say there are instances around the world where our adhearance to international law (or lack thereof) can have serious implications.)

I like your argument. But, I think that it works only if we suppose: (1) that other nations would be aware of the fact that we engaged in torture (which, I suppose, they generally are); and, (2) that the harm caused to Americans abroad by nations who use our acts of torture as a precedent to begin to torture would be greater than the harm that our acts of torture prevented (as would likely NOT be true in the case of preventing the bombing of naval base or major US city). Furthermore, one would have to suppose that these nations did not already engage in the torture of American citizens. For instance, if Iran did torture those women, I think they would have done so regardless of whether or not we engaged in torture.

[flaco17]

crazy smart...like a fox

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O1GT-BZvhrw

Too funny! Is the guy who is sitting behind Yoo and wispering to him what he should say also present during Yoo's lectures just in case a student asks him a question?

I thought Yoo had a point. He was questioned whether his memo was "implemented," which is a weird way to ask if it was followed. And answering that question required information that Yoo could not testify to, as that involved information outside his knowledge and to the extent he did have knowledge that knowledge was classified. But oh so funny! Ha ha, crazy smart like a fox. Unlike ya'll.

[OperaSoprano]

Even if torture "worked" 100% of the time (and it does not): NO.

That is all.

Hypothetical. A terrorist is sitting in a hut in the middle of the desert. He's Osama bin Laden. We could a) pick him up for interrogation or b) kill him. Would you be upset if we just killed him? Is it your contention it's more moral to just kill him than to pick him up and torture him (though causing no permanent disability) for information?

OS contends: Why is "Arrest him, and prosecute him for 9/11 and assorted reprehensible actions, without torturing him" not an option in this poll?

[flaco17]

But, let's say for the sake of argument that the intelligence extracted from torture were reliable, and that time bomb hypothetical you just described became manifest. Let's say, for the sake of argument, I concede that torture in this scenario would be acceptable on utilitarian grounds. Does it demand the proliferation of memos justifying torture which consequently lead to the wholesale implementation of torture torture methods? I would say it does not.

Also, please correct me if I have a quaint view of the practice of law, but if a lawyer is advising a client, and the client asks "Is this action legal?", doesn't a lawyer provide an exhaustive analysis of all sides to a legal question? Or, do we simply espouse solely our own ideological views, however controversial? If not germane to the topic at hand, I would like to know for professional reasons if and when I pass the bar.

Do you, really?

Why is torture morally worse than letting millions or thousands or even hundreds of people die?

[flaco17]

Even if torture "worked" 100% of the time (and it does not): NO.

That is all.

Hypothetical. A terrorist is sitting in a hut in the middle of the desert. He's Osama bin Laden. We could a) pick him up for interrogation or b) kill him. Would you be upset if we just killed him? Is it your contention it's more moral to just kill him than to pick him up and torture him (though causing no permanent disability) for information?

OS contends: Why is "Arrest him, and prosecute him for 9/11 and assorted reprehensible actions, without torturing him" not an option in this poll?

Sure, it could be. I'm just saying, is it your contention it's more moral to just kill him than to pick him up and torture him but let him live? I am assuming you think it's OK we kill OBL if have his location, that we are not obligated to arrest and prosecute him. Assuming that dropping a bomb on his head is morally permissible, can you distinguish between the two scenarios in a morally meaningful way? I suspect you cannot.

A much better argument against torture is premised on slippery slope grounds. That while torture is morally OK in a limited sphere of action, confining torture to these situations would prove impracticable and we must therefore have a brightline rule against all torture.

[badlydrawn]

But, let's say for the sake of argument that the intelligence extracted from torture were reliable, and that time bomb hypothetical you just described became manifest. Let's say, for the sake of argument, I concede that torture in this scenario would be acceptable on utilitarian grounds. Does it demand the proliferation of memos justifying torture which consequently lead to the wholesale implementation of torture torture methods? I would say it does not.

Also, please correct me if I have a quaint view of the practice of law, but if a lawyer is advising a client, and the client asks "Is this action legal?", doesn't a lawyer provide an exhaustive analysis of all sides to a legal question? Or, do we simply espouse solely our own ideological views, however controversial? If not germane to the topic at hand, I would like to know for professional reasons if and when I pass the bar.

Do you, really?

Why is torture morally worse than letting millions or thousands or even hundreds of people die?

One can say an agent's actions to deliberately cause harm to another agent are morally reprehensible regardless of the wider context and good consequences that result.

[SethD2767]

But, let's say for the sake of argument that the intelligence extracted from torture were reliable, and that time bomb hypothetical you just described became manifest. Let's say, for the sake of argument, I concede that torture in this scenario would be acceptable on utilitarian grounds. Does it demand the proliferation of memos justifying torture which consequently lead to the wholesale implementation of torture torture methods? I would say it does not.

Also, please correct me if I have a quaint view of the practice of law, but if a lawyer is advising a client, and the client asks "Is this action legal?", doesn't a lawyer provide an exhaustive analysis of all sides to a legal question? Or, do we simply espouse solely our own ideological views, however controversial? If not germane to the topic at hand, I would like to know for professional reasons if and when I pass the bar.

I would agree with you here. In most situations, torture seems morally wrong; only in the extreme case does it begin to look like an acceptable and justified course of action. Clearly, then, memos which justify torture methods for the non-extreme cases based on the fact that such methods are justified in the extreme case commits a fallacy of subreption.

[flaco17]

But, let's say for the sake of argument that the intelligence extracted from torture were reliable, and that time bomb hypothetical you just described became manifest. Let's say, for the sake of argument, I concede that torture in this scenario would be acceptable on utilitarian grounds. Does it demand the proliferation of memos justifying torture which consequently lead to the wholesale implementation of torture torture methods? I would say it does not.

Also, please correct me if I have a quaint view of the practice of law, but if a lawyer is advising a client, and the client asks "Is this action legal?", doesn't a lawyer provide an exhaustive analysis of all sides to a legal question? Or, do we simply espouse solely our own ideological views, however controversial? If not germane to the topic at hand, I would like to know for professional reasons if and when I pass the bar.

Do you, really?

Why is torture morally worse than letting millions or thousands or even hundreds of people die?

One can say an agent's actions to deliberately cause harm to another agent are morally reprehensible regardless of the wider context and good consequences that result.

Torturing an arguably innocent party for information might have that defense. However, these were all known terrorists revealing information about active plots to kill innocent parties, so the moral principle of self defense is clear. Obviously killing KSM is OK on the field of battle. I don't see why torture is necessarily worse than that. Some torture resulting in extreme disfigurement or death might in fact be worse than death, but certainly not the kind we implemented. I don't think there is sufficient moral reasoning to provide an answer. The best argument is one of policy, that while torture is OK in some instances we do not trust government to do a good job of distinquishing between when it is moral and when it is not, so we will have a blanket ban. But that doesn't leave somebody with the same righteous indignation, does it?

[Esc]

But, let's say for the sake of argument that the intelligence extracted from torture were reliable, and that time bomb hypothetical you just described became manifest. Let's say, for the sake of argument, I concede that torture in this scenario would be acceptable on utilitarian grounds. Does it demand the proliferation of memos justifying torture which consequently lead to the wholesale implementation of torture torture methods? I would say it does not.

Also, please correct me if I have a quaint view of the practice of law, but if a lawyer is advising a client, and the client asks "Is this action legal?", doesn't a lawyer provide an exhaustive analysis of all sides to a legal question? Or, do we simply espouse solely our own ideological views, however controversial? If not germane to the topic at hand, I would like to know for professional reasons if and when I pass the bar.

Do you, really?

Why is torture morally worse than letting millions or thousands or even hundreds of people die?

Why are you continuing this invalid, disproven straw man argument? Did you even read what I posted? The professionals in the U.S. military who designed, conduct, and oversee the very program that trains U.S. troops to resist these very torture methods SAY THAT TORTURE DOES NOT PRODUCE CREDIBLE INFORMATION!

[OperaSoprano]

Even if torture "worked" 100% of the time (and it does not): NO.

That is all.

Hypothetical. A terrorist is sitting in a hut in the middle of the desert. He's Osama bin Laden. We could a) pick him up for interrogation or b) kill him. Would you be upset if we just killed him? Is it your contention it's more moral to just kill him than to pick him up and torture him (though causing no permanent disability) for information?

OS contends: Why is "Arrest him, and prosecute him for 9/11 and assorted reprehensible actions, without torturing him" not an option in this poll?

Sure, it could be. I'm just saying, is it your contention it's more moral to just kill him than to pick him up and torture him but let him live? I am assuming you think it's OK we kill OBL if have his location, that we are not obligated to arrest and prosecute him. Assuming that dropping a bomb on his head is morally permissible, can you distinguish between the two scenarios in a morally meaningful way? I suspect you cannot.

A much better argument against torture is premised on slippery slope grounds. That while torture is morally OK in a limited sphere of action, confining torture to these situations would prove impracticable and we must therefore have a brightline rule against all torture.

I agree about the brightline prohibition, since I do not believe torture is morally ok in any sphere of action.

My edit on OBL: If it is at all possible to capture him and try him, rather than dropping a bomb on his head, we have a moral obligation to do so.

I am enjoying this sparring very much. I have been, and continue to be deeply impressed with the knowledge, intelligence, and thoughtfulness displayed by the people of TLS. My own store of knowledge is quite humble, but I offer my thoughts to you.

[badlydrawn]

But, let's say for the sake of argument that the intelligence extracted from torture were reliable, and that time bomb hypothetical you just described became manifest. Let's say, for the sake of argument, I concede that torture in this scenario would be acceptable on utilitarian grounds. Does it demand the proliferation of memos justifying torture which consequently lead to the wholesale implementation of torture torture methods? I would say it does not.

Also, please correct me if I have a quaint view of the practice of law, but if a lawyer is advising a client, and the client asks "Is this action legal?", doesn't a lawyer provide an exhaustive analysis of all sides to a legal question? Or, do we simply espouse solely our own ideological views, however controversial? If not germane to the topic at hand, I would like to know for professional reasons if and when I pass the bar.

Do you, really?

Why is torture morally worse than letting millions or thousands or even hundreds of people die?

Why are you continuing this invalid, disproven straw man argument? Did you even read what I posted? The professionals in the U.S. military who designed, conduct, and oversee the very program that trains U.S. troops to resist these very torture methods SAY THAT TORTURE DOES NOT PRODUCE CREDIBLE INFORMATION!

It's my fault. I was indulging in their hypothetical and assumptions in effort to gainsay any argument that justified the torture memos and, consequentially, the institutionalization of torture.

[flaco17]

I agree about the brightline prohibition, since I do not believe torture is morally ok in any sphere of action.

My edit on OBL: If it is at all possible to capture him and try him, rather than dropping a bomb on his head, we have a moral obligation to do so.

I am enjoying this sparring very much. I have been, and continue to be deeply impressed with the knowledge, intelligence, and thoughtfulness displayed by the people of TLS. My own store of knowledge is quite humble, but I offer my thoughts to you.

Thanks for the compliment.

Well, obviously there is a risk-benefit analysis in each case. It might take longer to get a party to snatch him up than just to kill him, so there is the risk he will get away. There is the risk soldiers will be killed or wounded in the attempt to retrieve him. So obviously the military is probably going to usually prefer to drop a bomb and check the DNA, other thins being equal. The one big benefit to capturing a terrorist or hideout intact is of course intelligence. But by limiting the means we use to extract intelligence, we are altering the cost-benefit analysis in favor of killing the terrorist. A delicious irony if one is concerned about the "harm" done to the terrorist or terrorist suspects. The result of the policy very well could be: no tortured terrorists, but more dead terrorists (and let's not forget, innocents killed collaterally), as well as perhaps our own innocents who may suffer a harm which could have otherwise been prevented.

A lot of other issues trouble me more than the limited use of torture in the WoT. Collateral damage can be justified morally, but it certainly seems worse than the "torture" we have inflicted against a limited number of high-ranking terrorists. But I am very sympathetic to a few arguments against torture. The harm is does to our image (more of an argument for secrecy and duplicity than anything, but if leaks are inevitable than it is also an argument for a ban); the perhaps increase in use against our own soldiers because of our policies (not necessarily by al-qaeda, they will do anything, but other countries feel thy can now torture our soldiers because we have waterboarded terrorist detainees); and of course the arguments basaed on the slippery slope reasoning. I think there are a lot of good arguments against the POLICY; however, I really tire of the moral indignation. Which, I confess, is just plain puzzling.

[flaco17]

But, let's say for the sake of argument that the intelligence extracted from torture were reliable, and that time bomb hypothetical you just described became manifest. Let's say, for the sake of argument, I concede that torture in this scenario would be acceptable on utilitarian grounds. Does it demand the proliferation of memos justifying torture which consequently lead to the wholesale implementation of torture torture methods? I would say it does not.

Also, please correct me if I have a quaint view of the practice of law, but if a lawyer is advising a client, and the client asks "Is this action legal?", doesn't a lawyer provide an exhaustive analysis of all sides to a legal question? Or, do we simply espouse solely our own ideological views, however controversial? If not germane to the topic at hand, I would like to know for professional reasons if and when I pass the bar.

Do you, really?

Why is torture morally worse than letting millions or thousands or even hundreds of people die?

Why are you continuing this invalid, disproven straw man argument? Did you even read what I posted? The professionals in the U.S. military who designed, conduct, and oversee the very program that trains U.S. troops to resist these very torture methods SAY THAT TORTURE DOES NOT PRODUCE CREDIBLE INFORMATION!

EPIC FAIL. The article or whatever you cited said:

CONCLUSION: The application of extreme physical and/or psychological duress (torture) has some serious operational deficits, most notably, the potential to result in unreliable information....

The potential to result in unreliable information does NOT equal torture does not produce credible information. Try again.

[Esc]

I agree about the brightline prohibition, since I do not believe torture is morally ok in any sphere of action.

My edit on OBL: If it is at all possible to capture him and try him, rather than dropping a bomb on his head, we have a moral obligation to do so.

I am enjoying this sparring very much. I have been, and continue to be deeply impressed with the knowledge, intelligence, and thoughtfulness displayed by the people of TLS. My own store of knowledge is quite humble, but I offer my thoughts to you.

Thanks for the compliment.

Well, obviously there is a risk-benefit analysis in each case. It might take longer to get a party to snatch him up than just to kill him, so there is the risk he will get away. There is the risk soldiers will be killed or wounded in the attempt to retrieve him. So obviously the military is probably going to usually prefer to drop a bomb and check the DNA, other thins being equal. The one big benefit to capturing a terrorist or hideout intact is of course intelligence. But by limiting the means we use to extract intelligence, we are altering the cost-benefit analysis in favor of killing the terrorist. A delicious irony if one is concerned about the "harm" done to the terrorist or terrorist suspects. The result of the policy very well could be: no tortured terrorists, but more dead terrorists (and let's not forget, innocents killed collaterally), as well as perhaps our own innocents who may suffer a harm which could have otherwise been prevented.

A lot of other issues trouble me more than the limited use of torture in the WoT. Collateral damage can be justified morally, but it certainly seems worse than the "torture" we have inflicted against a limited number of high-ranking terrorists. But I am very sympathetic to a few arguments against torture. The harm is does to our image (more of an argument for secrecy and duplicity than anything, but if leaks are inevitable than it is also an argument for a ban); the perhaps increase in use against our own soldiers because of our policies (not necessarily by al-qaeda, they will do anything, but other countries feel thy can now torture our soldiers because we have waterboarded terrorist detainees); and of course the arguments basaed on the slippery slope reasoning. I think there are a lot of good arguments against the POLICY; however, I really tire of the moral indignation. Which, I confess, is just plain puzzling.

I really tire of watching people like you try to justify the unjustifiable by committing logical fallacies, ignoring the facts, and lying. It is, I confess, just plain puzzling why someone would sink to such a sub-human level.

[flaco17]

I agree about the brightline prohibition, since I do not believe torture is morally ok in any sphere of action.

My edit on OBL: If it is at all possible to capture him and try him, rather than dropping a bomb on his head, we have a moral obligation to do so.

I am enjoying this sparring very much. I have been, and continue to be deeply impressed with the knowledge, intelligence, and thoughtfulness displayed by the people of TLS. My own store of knowledge is quite humble, but I offer my thoughts to you.

Thanks for the compliment.

Well, obviously there is a risk-benefit analysis in each case. It might take longer to get a party to snatch him up than just to kill him, so there is the risk he will get away. There is the risk soldiers will be killed or wounded in the attempt to retrieve him. So obviously the military is probably going to usually prefer to drop a bomb and check the DNA, other thins being equal. The one big benefit to capturing a terrorist or hideout intact is of course intelligence. But by limiting the means we use to extract intelligence, we are altering the cost-benefit analysis in favor of killing the terrorist. A delicious irony if one is concerned about the "harm" done to the terrorist or terrorist suspects. The result of the policy very well could be: no tortured terrorists, but more dead terrorists (and let's not forget, innocents killed collaterally), as well as perhaps our own innocents who may suffer a harm which could have otherwise been prevented.

A lot of other issues trouble me more than the limited use of torture in the WoT. Collateral damage can be justified morally, but it certainly seems worse than the "torture" we have inflicted against a limited number of high-ranking terrorists. But I am very sympathetic to a few arguments against torture. The harm is does to our image (more of an argument for secrecy and duplicity than anything, but if leaks are inevitable than it is also an argument for a ban); the perhaps increase in use against our own soldiers because of our policies (not necessarily by al-qaeda, they will do anything, but other countries feel thy can now torture our soldiers because we have waterboarded terrorist detainees); and of course the arguments basaed on the slippery slope reasoning. I think there are a lot of good arguments against the POLICY; however, I really tire of the moral indignation. Which, I confess, is just plain puzzling.

I really tire of watching people like you try to justify the unjustifiable by committing logical fallacies, ignoring the facts, and lying. It is, I confess, just plain puzzling why someone would sink to such a sub-human level.

Maybe you can point out any logical fallacy I have commited, any fact I have ignored, or any lying I have done.

For my part, I'll just note the logical fallacy you already committed (and did not respond to). As well as note you have resorted to calling me "sub-human," which is of course an ad hominem attack. Ad hominems are good, when they spice up an argument. But you have no argument at all, do you?

[Esc]

The potential to result in unreliable information does NOT equal torture does not produce credible information. Try again.

Do you fail to see that the very fact that something produces unreliable information means that there is no way to tell whether the information is reliable or not?

God, it is sickening that you are even trying to defend torture

[flaco17]

The potential to result in unreliable information does NOT equal torture does not produce credible information. Try again.

Do you fail to see that the very fact that something produces unreliable information means that there is no way to tell whether the information is reliable or not?

God, it is sickening that you are even trying to defend torture

LOL. Um, no. Try again. Another logical fallacy. You're three for three.

[Esc]

Maybe you can point out any logical fallacy I have commited, any fact I have ignored, or any lying I have done.

For my part, I'll just note the logical fallacy you already committed (and did not respond to). As well as note you have resorted to calling me "sub-human," which is of course an ad hominem attack. Ad hominems are good, when they spice up an argument. But you have no argument at all, do you?

You ignore cited evidence that torture does not produce credible information. You continue to make the invalid "ticking bomb" argument that torture can somehow prevent an imminent attack. You claim that a "limited number of high ranking terrorists" were tortured---tell that to the poor Iraqis who were dragged off the street and thrown into Abu Ghraib. You claim that "these were all known terrorists revealing information about active plots to kill innocent parties," which is untrue---KSM revealed nothing about a pending attack, and what he did reveal about the already-completed 9/11 attacks, he revealed before his torture to FBI investigators using conventional interrogation techniques.

I could go on. Even disregarding the moral imperative to not torture (which is required under any form of philosophical thought, as torture can not be justified under any ethical theory, not even utilitarianism), your blatent disregard of the facts shows the logical untruth of your repulsive beliefs.

I'm going to go to bed now. I'm sick of dealing with you, and obviously, you are not going to recognize your moral and logical errors.

[OperaSoprano]

I imagine he is playing the devil's advocate, Esc. I cannot imagine that this is meant to be a reasoned defense of torture in practice. If I am wrong, please correct me.

[flaco17]

Maybe you can point out any logical fallacy I have commited, any fact I have ignored, or any lying I have done.

For my part, I'll just note the logical fallacy you already committed (and did not respond to). As well as note you have resorted to calling me "sub-human," which is of course an ad hominem attack. Ad hominems are good, when they spice up an argument. But you have no argument at all, do you?

You ignore cited evidence that torture does not produce credible information. You continue to make the invalid "ticking bomb" argument that torture can somehow prevent an imminent attack. You claim that a "limited number of high ranking terrorists" were tortured---tell that to the poor Iraqis who were dragged off the street and thrown into Abu Ghraib. You claim that "these were all known terrorists revealing information about active plots to kill innocent parties," which is untrue---KSM revealed nothing about a pending attack, and what he did reveal about the already-completed 9/11 attacks, he revealed before his torture to FBI investigators using conventional interrogation techniques.

I could go on. Even disregarding the moral imperative to not torture (which is required under any form of philosophical thought, as torture can not be justified under any ethical theory, not even utilitarianism), your blatent disregard of the facts shows the logical untruth of your repulsive beliefs.

I'm going to go to bed now. I'm sick of dealing with you, and obviously, you are not going to recognize your moral and logical errors.

Abu Ghraib was not directed by the White House. I think some think the CIA or contractors for the CIA contributed to what happened by suggesting treatment, but I really don't know enough about the situation to comment.

Note that I said active plot and you said "pending attack." This is consistent with your propensity to distort and resort to logical fallacies to bolster your weak and unpersuasive argument. The counterargument out there is that KSM revealed information that saved lives. Maybe that is wrong, maybe it isn't. I don't think anybody can definitively say until we get the actual memos (and I doubt Obama is going to fasttrack declassification on anything that will undermine his decision).

You have repeatedly distorted the facts (see the potential to produce false information becoming cannot produce credible information). You have refused to acknowledge thsoe distortions. My guess is you just haven't thought about the issue all that much, or at least you haven't thought about it with an open mind. It shows. As for my own part, I honestly addressed the merits of the debates, statin the arguments I thought best. I'm hardly a partisan seeking to validate the policy of torture through lies and deceit.

[flaco17]

I imagine he is playing the devil's advocate, Esc. I cannot imagine that this is meant to be a reasoned defense of torture in practice. If I am wrong, please correct me.

I don't think the instances of torture in question are morally wrong. I do think a policy of torture would have potential to produce instances of torture which are morally wrong. I do think the policy (or at least disclosure of it) has hurt our image and probably made it more likely our own soldiers might encounter it (not so much by terrorists, who do not have restraint, but my countries who feel they can get away with it now). So there are real coststo the policy, and serious arguments against it. The rhetoric that "torture is always wrong," however, is over the top and just plain stupid. I suspect that people against the policy are reluctant to concede the obvious, however, because they know when it comes down to a policy question, the answer isn't so easy.

[badlydrawn]

Abu Ghraib was not directed by the White House. I think some think the CIA or contractors for the CIA contributed to what happened by suggesting treatment, but I really don't know enough about the situation to comment.

http://www.studentnews.cnn.com/2009/US/ ... index.html

The Senate Armed Forces Committee released a report Tuesday, five days after the memos were released, stating that senior Bush administration officials authorized aggressive interrogation techniques on suspected terrorists, despite concerns from military psychologists and attorneys.

The report points to then-Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld's approval of such techniques -- including stress positions, removal of clothing, use of phobias (such as fear of dogs), and deprivation of light and auditory stimuli -- in December 2002 for detainees at the U.S. prison in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. His OK prompted interrogators in Afghanistan and Iraq to adopt the aggressive techniques.

The guidance was delivered to Abu Ghraib by then-Maj. Gen. Geoffrey Miller, who was summoned to Baghdad from Guantanamo to evaluate the prison system.

[flaco17]

Abu Ghraib was not directed by the White House. I think some think the CIA or contractors for the CIA contributed to what happened by suggesting treatment, but I really don't know enough about the situation to comment.

http://www.studentnews.cnn.com/2009/US/ ... index.html

The Senate Armed Forces Committee released a report Tuesday, five days after the memos were released, stating that senior Bush administration officials authorized aggressive interrogation techniques on suspected terrorists, despite concerns from military psychologists and attorneys.

The report points to then-Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld's approval of such techniques -- including stress positions, removal of clothing, use of phobias (such as fear of dogs), and deprivation of light and auditory stimuli -- in December 2002 for detainees at the U.S. prison in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. His OK prompted interrogators in Afghanistan and Iraq to adopt the aggressive techniques.

The guidance was delivered to Abu Ghraib by then-Maj. Gen. Geoffrey Miller, who was summoned to Baghdad from Guantanamo to evaluate the prison system.

The WH authorization was "for detainees at the U.S. prison in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba." But an interesting and relevant connection between WH and Abu Ghraib nevertheless, if it's true.