View Full Version : CIA: Waterboarding used on 3 suspects
"Waterboarding has been used on only three detainees," Hayden told the Senate Intelligence Committee. It was the first time a U.S. official publicly specified the number of people subjected to waterboarding and named them.
Critics call waterboarding a form of illegal torture. Congress is considering banning the technique.
Those subjected to waterboarding were suspected September 11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and senior al Qaeda leaders Abu Zubaydah and Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, Hayden said at the hearing on threats to the United States.
He said waterboarding has not been used in five years.
"The circumstances are different than they were in late 2001, early 2002," Hayden said. "Very critical to those circumstances was the belief that additional catastrophic attacks against the homeland were imminent. In addition to that, my agency ... had limited knowledge about al Qaeda and its workings. Those two realities have changed."
Hayden told reporters later that the interrogations of Mohammed and Zubaydah were particularly fruitful.link (http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080205/pl_nm/security_usa_waterboarding_dc)
CrossLOPER
02-06-2008, 02:47
Define "fruitful".
If this proves to be true, I'm going to be very relieved.
Uesugi Kenshin
02-06-2008, 03:26
If this proves to be true, I'm going to be very relieved.
Yeah, but it's going to be hard for them to prove to me that waterboarding has only been used three times.
Tribesman
02-06-2008, 03:49
Define "fruitful".
fruitful is when KSM admitted to planning or participating in every outrage that was committed over the past 20+ years .
Yeah, but it's going to be hard for them to prove to me that waterboarding has only been used three times.
Its gonna be harder for you to prove oherwise since the CIA have been destroying evidence .
If this proves to be true, I'm going to be very relieved.
Much ado about nothing comes to mind. We previously heard reports that coercive interrogations were used by the CIA on 14 suspects. Now, apparently, we learn that: actual waterboarding was used only on 3 of the worst; that it was in the aftermath of 9/11; and that it yielded useful intelligence. I think that very few Americans would have a problem with this.
They should've just came out and said this earlier. Could they not do so due to intelligence reasons, due to incompetent leadership or what?
Well, I would wait a while before breaking out the party favors. Some sort of independent confirmation of this would be really nice, especially given the CIA's recent track record.
Papewaio
02-06-2008, 05:49
That it was in the aftermath of 9/11; and that it yielded useful intelligence.
If that intelligence is going on 7 years old surely and that Al Qaeda definitly know we are hunting them down, can't the intelligence gathered be revealed? Like the initial locations or list of connections that have been whacked? Since AQ would know which places have already been raided and which ones have died. Why not join the dots to this used intelligence?
HoreTore
02-06-2008, 07:24
They should've just came out and said this earlier. Could they not do so due to intelligence reasons, due to incompetent leadership or what?
That it has taken so long to come out with this makes me extremely skeptical about the truth in this.
EDIT: Also:
Those subjected to waterboarding were suspected September 11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed
He said waterboarding has not been used in five years.
Khalid Sheikh Mohammed following his March 2003 arrest.
Is the poor CIA boss having trouble with his math again?
Ah well, since they are those really bad guys, it's okay I guess, they're less human than those with the belts strapped on. They just did it on the evil masterminds...
If they didn't use it for five years I guess they switched to another technique five years ago. :sweatdrop:
Not that it matters, but I wouldnt consider the CIA a trustworthy group. Lying and deceiving is what they do.
Vladimir
02-06-2008, 14:21
If it's good enough for the Navy, it's good enough for detainees.
seireikhaan
02-06-2008, 15:36
I don't trust the CIA to be truthful regarding an investigation of their own practices. Frankly, I think its a lie to cover up a larger number of waterboarding uses on captives, and that this just made a plausable, yet not all that outrageous, lie.
HOWEVER, that being said, IF this is true, than I'd be willing to offer a pardon, as I could understand, in those times, why they would've been extra detirmined to get information. HOWEVER, I still think its torture and should not be practiced.
Hmm. There's a bit of a trajectory here. From "We do not torture," to "Waterboarding isn't torture," to "Waterboarding might be torture," to "We only did it a little when we were flustered, and it worked great!"
I definitely want more info, and from more sources.
Not that it matters, but I wouldnt consider the CIA a trustworthy group. Lying and deceiving is what they do.
Yeah, they probably made up the waterboarding altogether... just to keep our attention diverted from the "real" issue. :whip:
Vladimir
02-06-2008, 19:06
Yeah, they probably made up the waterboarding altogether... just to keep our attention diverted from the "real" issue. :whip:
:idea2: Selling crack to inner-city African-Americans to fund their secret wars in South America thereby weakening the United States, paving the way for our domination by the UN? Damn trilatteralists!
KukriKhan
02-06-2008, 20:44
Why don't they just operate the old-fashioned way?
"Don't lie, cheat, steal, assassinate, torture...
But if you do, don't get caught, 'cause we'll have to nail you to the prison door (while making your stay as comfortable as possible, and taking good care of your family, for life)."
What's with all the "sunshine" and transparency in an organization tasked to obtain reliable information for the executive, so the executive doesn't make ignorant mistakes?
This could very well be part of a larger maneuver (http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080206/pl_afp/usintelligencepoliticswhouse_080206161956):
The United States may use waterboarding to question terrorism suspects in the future, the White House said Wednesday, rejecting the widely held belief that the practice amounts to torture.
"It will depend upon circumstances," spokesman Tony Fratto said, adding "the belief that an attack might be imminent, that could be a circumstance that you would definitely want to consider."
"The president will listen to the considered judgment of the professionals in the intelligence community and the judgment of the attorney general in terms of the legal consequences of employing a particular technique," he said. [...]
The spokesman said that the program would continue to operate under US law and "within our legal obligations with respect to" the Geneva Conventions.
Asked whether the White House's reasoning was that torture is illegal, the attorney general has certified that the interrogation practices are legal, therefore those practices are not torture, Fratto replied: "Sure."
It doesn't take a tinfoil hat to look at this development and see something repetitive. Once again, it's not torture, and we only did it three time (honest!), and only against very bad people, and it worked great. So shut up and leave us alone, and please authorize us to do it again.
It's another attempt to legalize their actions, plain and simple, by casting the best possible light on a technique favored by the Spanish Inquisition and the Khmer Rouge. I guess I should not have expected any better.
Tribesman
02-07-2008, 00:58
"It will depend upon circumstances,"
Would those circumatances be along the lines of, when they do it it is neccesary and justifiable , but when others do it it is a war crime .
Vladimir
02-07-2008, 05:34
Speaking of shut up; you'd think these people would keep their traps shut about this kind of stuff. I can't see what possible benefit they can derive from it. In less, they hope the negative press will discourage or ban its practice.
CountArach
02-07-2008, 08:09
If this proves to be true, I'm going to be very relieved.
Come on Lemur, the CIA has never lied to people...
HoreTore
02-07-2008, 09:27
It doesn't take a tinfoil hat to look at this development and see something repetitive. Once again, it's not torture, and we only did it three time (honest!), and only against very bad people, and it worked great. So shut up and leave us alone, and please authorize us to do it again.
What happened to "presumed innocent until proved guilty"?
What happened to "presumed innocent until proved guilty"?
What happened to the boy who cried "Wolf!"?
HoreTore
02-07-2008, 12:26
What happened to the boy who cried "Wolf!"?
He got a billion dollar record deal and married Angelina?
He got a billion dollar record deal and married Angelina?
Now that you say that, it's "presumed innocent until proven guilty".
The point was that they lie, a lot. And this is politics, not a court(well, in court I'd agree with you) so everybody is allowed to have her/his own opinion on the matter and I think they're guilty. ~D
Vladimir
02-07-2008, 14:12
What happened to "presumed innocent until proved guilty"?
What about the BLACK HELICOPTERS!!!
HoreTore
02-07-2008, 17:24
Now that you say that, it's "presumed innocent until proven guilty".
I actually wrote it like that, but edited in the "d" afterwards since it sounded silly with an "n" :laugh4:
The point was that they lie, a lot. And this is politics, not a court(well, in court I'd agree with you) so everybody is allowed to have her/his own opinion on the matter and I think they're guilty. ~D
I was referring to CIA vs. tewwowists, not Lemur :whip:
ie. shouldn't the CIA treat the suspects like innocent men until their found guilty in a court of law? Not like it's ever going to happen, but still...
Vladimir
02-07-2008, 18:05
ie. shouldn't the CIA treat the suspects like innocent men until their found guilty in a court of law? Not like it's ever going to happen, but still...
:inquisitive: Yes, let's revisit the '90s where the major terrorist attacks happened overseas. 1993 being the exception of course.
No, the answer is no for a host of reasons already belabored upon.
HoreTore
02-07-2008, 18:11
:inquisitive: Yes, let's revisit the '90s where the major terrorist attacks happened overseas. 1993 being the exception of course.
No, the answer is no for a host of reasons already belabored upon.
So, you're OK with innocent people getting tortured along with the bad guys, if it keeps you safe?
Vladimir
02-07-2008, 18:16
So, you're OK with innocent people getting tortured along with the bad guys, if it keeps you safe?
There you go again. You're ASSuming they're innocent and that they automatically get tortured. Think on it.
HoreTore
02-07-2008, 18:18
There you go again. You're ASSuming they're innocent and that they automatically get tortured. Think on it.
Mixups happen. That's why we have a court system. And the CIA have already screwed up, ref. the released gitmo prisoners.
Not only is waterboarding not torture, but we're also not going to have any investigations (http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/02/07/mukasey.waterboarding/index.html) into it. So there.
And let's not talk about the use of hypothermia (http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/Investigation/story?id=1322866).
Not only is waterboarding not torture, but we're also not going to have any investigations (http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/02/07/mukasey.waterboarding/index.html) into it. So there.
As much as it disgusts me, I think I see Mukaskey's point. Since the Justice Department cleared it's use, to start busting CIA people on it would be like entrapment. The blame, focus, and investigations should be higher up, but we all know that's not going to happen.
I actually wrote it like that, but edited in the "d" afterwards since it sounded silly with an "n" :laugh4:
~D
I was referring to CIA vs. tewwowists, not Lemur :whip:
ie. shouldn't the CIA treat the suspects like innocent men until their found guilty in a court of law? Not like it's ever going to happen, but still...
Okay, then we agree.
Tribesman
02-08-2008, 00:09
Since the Justice Department cleared it's use, to start busting CIA people on it would be like entrapment.
Not really , since torture constitutes a war crime , just because higher ups ordered it doesn't mean that the operatives would be in the clear .
To quote the commander in chief.
War crimes will be prosecuted. War criminals will be punished. And it will be no defense to say, "I was just following orders."
Though of course Bush didn't really mean that and he certainly didn't mean that it would apply to people who followed his administrations orders .
CrossLOPER
02-08-2008, 00:18
Mixups happen. That's why we have a court system.
BUT YOU HAVE TO DO SOOOOO MUCH WORK!
... and now we see what this was really about (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-torture7feb07,1,3156438.story?track=crosspromo&ctrack=1&cset=true).
The White House said Wednesday that the widely condemned interrogation technique known as waterboarding is legal and that President Bush could authorize the CIA to resume using the simulated-drowning method under extraordinary circumstances.
The surprise assertion from the Bush administration reopened a debate that many in Washington had considered closed. Two laws passed by Congress in recent years -- as well as a Supreme Court ruling on the treatment of detainees -- were widely interpreted to have banned the CIA's use of the extreme interrogation method.
But in remarks that were greeted with disbelief by some members of Congress and human rights groups, White House spokesman Tony Fratto said that waterboarding was a legal technique that could be employed again "under certain circumstances."
Papewaio
02-08-2008, 08:29
So it is okay for AQ to waterboard American troops and it will not be treated as torture but as a standard 'interview'? After all they would be doing it for information pertinent to their survival.
Or an American tourist in China gets waterboarded for walking into a pirated CD shop for information about the suppliers as they are about to move. Remember that its the death penalty in China for piracy so why quibble about waterboarding a buyer when the supplier will get shot and the cost of the bullet sent to his family?
At what point will it not be okay for another country and organisation to waterboard an American? For some countries they will be enforcing their laws on illegal activities, for others it might be for their survival.
Watch out the slope is slippery when its wet.
Banquo's Ghost
02-08-2008, 08:36
So it is okay for AQ to waterboard American troops and it will not be treated as torture but as a standard 'interview'? After all they would be doing it for information pertinent to their survival.
Or an American tourist in China gets waterboarded for walking into a pirated CD shop for information about the suppliers as they are about to move. Remember that its the death penalty in China for piracy so why quibble about waterboarding a buyer when the supplier will get shot and the cost of the bullet sent to his family?
At what point will it not be okay for another country and organisation to waterboard an American? For some countries they will be enforcing their laws on illegal activities, for others it might be for their survival.
Watch out the slope is slippery when its wet.
You're missing the point:
Would those circumstances be along the lines of, when they do it it is neccesary and justifiable , but when others do it it is a war crime .
Might makes right in the neo-con world. Law is for losers.
HoreTore
02-08-2008, 09:50
Not really , since torture constitutes a war crime , just because higher ups ordered it doesn't mean that the operatives would be in the clear .
To quote the commander in chief.
Though of course Bush didn't really mean that and he certainly didn't mean that it would apply to people who followed his administrations orders .
After Nurnberg, people should know that following orders isn't a valid defense for committing crimes.
... and now we see what this was really about (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-torture7feb07,1,3156438.story?track=crosspromo&ctrack=1&cset=true).
Not that this should surprise anyone. The administration has shown that they will pretty much do whatever they want. Signing statements, cheesy legal semantics, "national security" powers, all just ways to get what they want. It's never going to happen, but I would love to see the shenanigans an impeachment would induce. Both because it is deserved, and also to see the crap Bush and Co. would try to pull to avoid/ignore it.
Regarding my previous statement, I understand the whole "following orders" bit, and I'm not defending it. But for the CIA to ask "Is this legal?", be told by the lawyers in the Justice Department, "Yes, knock yourselves out", only to be followed up a few years later with, "Um, about that thing we told you you could do, sorry we have to arrest you for it now", that doesn't fly. It kills an already strained relationship between the CIA and the Justice Department, and it doesn't solve anything since the problem is not with the ops but with the policy.
Wow, WaPo comes out hard today. "A President Who Tortured (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/07/AR2008020703593.html)."
A President Who Tortured
Waterboarding will leave an indelible stain on the legacy of George W. Bush.
"We do not torture."
-- President Bush, Nov. 7, 2005
" Waterboarding has been used on only three detainees. . . . We used it against these three high-value detainees because of the circumstances of the time."
-- CIA Director Michael V. Hayden, Feb. 5, 2008
THE ADMISSION this week by CIA Director Michael V. Hayden that three terrorism suspects were subjected to waterboarding in 2002 and 2003 puts to rest any doubt about whether President Bush authorized torture.
For centuries, civilized countries have considered waterboarding, or simulated drowning, to be torture. The United States rightly condemned as war criminals Japanese soldiers who employed the technique against U.S. personnel during World War II. It prosecuted U.S. military officers who waterboarded prisoners at the turn of the 20th century. The practice, which causes its victims to feel that they are about to die, is unquestionably cruel. Every administration prior to this one has judged it to be prohibited by U.S. law and treaty obligations. It is incontestably a blot on the reputation of this country and a breach of the very values we claim to want to export to the rest of the world.
The administration says it has not used the technique for five years and claims to have used it only on Sept. 11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and al-Qaeda operatives Abu Zubaida and Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri. The acknowledgment is, at least, a change from the administration's previous refusal to answer questions about the practice; it should end contentions by senior officials that they cannot disclose which interrogation techniques are used. Yet in coming clean about its practices, the administration continues to bob and weave to justify the past -- and possibly future -- legality of waterboarding. Director of National Intelligence Michael McConnell, testifying alongside Gen. Hayden before the Senate intelligence committee, declared waterboarding "a legal technique used in a specific set of circumstances. You have to know the circumstances to be able to make the judgment."
Mr. McConnell's statement echoed that of Attorney General Michael B. Mukasey, who told the Senate Judiciary Committee last week that in deciding whether waterboarding is legal, the administration has to weigh "the heinousness of doing it, the cruelty of doing it balanced against the value . . . of what information you might get." Both men are wrong, as any federal court that considered waterboarding would be likely to rule. The legality of abusive treatment depends on "the circumstances" only if the treatment falls short of torture, which is illegal in all instances. Waterboarding is, and always has been, torture.
Gen. Hayden, who in 2006 prohibited waterboarding by CIA agents, seemed to distance himself from the administration's defense of the technique by suggesting that laws passed since 2005 raise doubts about its legality. But even this falls far short of an assurance against future use. Congress must act now to put an end to the continued twisting of the law and fundamental American values. Lawmakers can do so by passing legislation requiring all U.S. interrogators to abide by the techniques authorized in the Army Field Manual, which military officials have said allows them the flexibility they need to gather intelligence. The administration has balked at this restriction, and President Bush may well veto it. If he does, it will be but another stain on his legacy.
Hurin_Rules
02-08-2008, 20:05
Ah well, if they only broke the law and violated their own treaty obligations to torture people THREE times, that makes everything ok then.
Right?
The Senate report on CIA enhanced interrogations (http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/cia-misled-on-interrogation-program-senate-report-says/2014/03/31/eb75a82a-b8dd-11e3-96ae-f2c36d2b1245_story.html) gets voted on tomorrow for release, and it looks to be popcorn-worthy. TL;DR version, we tortured people, got nothing usable, standard interrogation works better, Congress was lied to.
I may have to give Feinstein a small amount of respect after this, as much as it kills me to do so.
Whoa, that's some powerful necromancy.
Whoa, that's some powerful necromancy.
:wizard:
It was the latest thread on the subject I could find that wasn't locked.
HoreTore
04-02-2014, 17:15
http://forums.gotwoot.net/gallery/files/3/1/2/Necro1.jpg
The report covers more than waterboarding, the sleep deprivation, ice water dunk tanks, et al, are supposedly in the report. Not sure about foreign treatment after rendition though. The committee voted to release it, so we should get it in a few months.
Kadagar_AV
04-08-2014, 02:51
Uhm... So what about all the other out-of-country CIA camps, how much has torture been used there?
Quite some years ago, just after the 11/9 spectacle, we had some Swedes (well, people with Swedish citizenship) being manhandled and put on a CIA plane far away.
It didn't fly to Guantanamo.
I think most of the more shady business goes on behind closed curtains.
Ironside
04-08-2014, 08:17
Uhm... So what about all the other out-of-country CIA camps, how much has torture been used there?
Quite some years ago, just after the 11/9 spectacle, we had some Swedes (well, people with Swedish citizenship) being manhandled and put on a CIA plane far away.
It didn't fly to Guantanamo.
I think most of the more shady business goes on behind closed curtains.
The 6,300-page report includes what officials described as damning new disclosures about a sprawling network of secret detention facilities, or “black sites,” that was dismantled by President Obama in 2009.
So at least some of it is going public.
So no real surprises then. The other 5500 pages must be a hoot.
Hayden has the distinction of lying to Congress as the director of the CIA, and the NSA. Put him in charge of the FBI and give him the chance for the hat trick!
Greyblades
12-10-2014, 09:43
I respectfully request that the mods temporarily recind the swearing rule for the remainder of my comments on this topic.
Though moral dillema. Reminds me of the movie Unthinkable. What if you are really sure something will happen and you are running out of time. Let's say your mother has been burried alive and she's running out of oxygine, and you know that the guy that is strapped to the chair knows where, what would you do.
The famous painter George W. Bush (you know who else wanted to be a painter?) and his friend Cheney have apparently lauded the work of the CIA.
It's pretty simple, some people don't understand what it takes to protect freedom and democracy, and some don't.
Also note that the CIA can do whatever they want until the American people say no, and they did nothing more.
It's simple, it's sympathetic and it creates friends.
I think it's all okay and people shouldn't be so angry at awesome Americans who work for the CIA:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xMwdUYnPkA4
http://thecolbertreport.cc.com/videos/cm16zd/philip-mudd
Is there anything new in this report that wasn't covered before?
People need to learn to appreciate what's great about America again.
I do my own little part by watching all episodes of MacGyver again.
HopAlongBunny
12-10-2014, 14:29
PBS has provided a summary of the 500+ page summary of the 5500 page report and a link to a pdf version of the 500 page summary:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/iraq-war-on-terror/the-cia-torture-report-what-you-need-to-know/
http://www.intelligence.senate.gov/study2014/sscistudy1.pdf
Is there anything new in this report that wasn't covered before?
I think the "rectal feedings" were new.
Though moral dillema. Reminds me of the movie Unthinkable. What if you are really sure something will happen and you are running out of time. Let's say your mother has been burried alive and she's running out of oxygine, and you know that the guy that is strapped to the chair knows where, what would you do.
Research has shown that they are more likely to lie then to tell the truth. They would say anything to stop the torture and it is not reliable. Especially if they had some bad agenda as to why they want your mother buried. Tell a few porkies, she dies, they win.
Higher chance of going "Here is £10,000 and you can have it if you show me where she is buried as you get the money when found" but that also has the repercussions that people could copy-cat to get an easy £10,000...
Seamus Fermanagh
12-10-2014, 20:08
Frag's:
With terrorism, you never get to that level. You discover that your intelligence apparatus got it wrong when the truck blows up next to the daycare. Torturing the subject to find where he has buried the girl alive is a Dirty Harry movie plot -- things like that just don't happen in the real terrorist/insurgency confrontation.
Torture practices following 9-11 seemed to have occurred far less frequently than some in the media have mused, but every bit as uselessly as Tiaexz notes above. The report suggests that "extraordinary measures interrogation" generated NOTHING that would not have been generated in virtually just as timely a fashion through standard interrogation techniques.
The report does assert that, for everyone who was conducting these "extraordinary" procedures (and who had been waterboarded themselves as part of the training) there were -- so shocked am I :rolleyes: -- 2 or 3 non-certified/trained functionaries authorizing the use of such methods. Moreover, the interrogators who were so certified were charging quadruple rates for days when such techniques were used -- no conflict of interest there of course :rolleyes:.
Boil it down and you have a collective national frustration tantrum spurring the decision to use such techniques coupled with typical bureaucratic inanity in the management of the policy.
Emphatically NOT "our finest hour." :wall:
Ironside
12-10-2014, 20:25
Though moral dillema. Reminds me of the movie Unthinkable. What if you are really sure something will happen and you are running out of time. Let's say your mother has been burried alive and she's running out of oxygine, and you know that the guy that is strapped to the chair knows where, what would you do.
Then you're a hard man making hard choices and face the consequences of your actions, instead of the wannabies that runs around wishing that they could get the stamp of consequence free approval. That is maybe saving your mother and risk going for prison for it.
You don't create laws that gives a carte blanche for a myriad of situations to cover a hypothetical worst case scenario.
One of the biggest heroes in Gotham city would be the prison guard that murders the Joker. That does not mean that having prison guards being legally able to murder prisoners is anywhere close to a good idea.
I don't know where to draw the line, but I don't think torture is bad by default if it gets the results. We just happen to be at war with some people and the other side has people doing the exact same thing, and a whole lot worse. I can accept a slippery slope to a certain degree when dealing with that. How far, I wouldn't know. I am not calling an ambulance for someone of whom I know is scum, that's basicly the same as killing him really. Slippery slopes are everywhere. Not buying someone who is hungry a sandwich when you just can is also a slippery slope. what is moral can go all sorts of ways. Not buying someone who is hungry a sandwich could be just as bad as torturing someone, or even worse really.
Sir Moody
12-11-2014, 00:15
I don't know where to draw the line, but I don't think torture is bad by default if it gets the results.
But it doesn't - the report clearly states that no suspects who were tortured revealed any new information - in fact they made shit up which the CIA then wasted time investigating.
Kadagar_AV
12-11-2014, 00:18
I don't know where to draw the line
Before torture.
Definitely before torture.
Before torture.
Definitely before torture.
Not sure about that really, if it is a nessecary evil so be it is what I am leaning to. It may be wrong but being wrong is better than letting much worse things just happen because you just aren't capable of torturing someone. I am glad it's not up to me to decide and that I can live in my comfortable bliss. Fully knowing that it happens regardless.
But it doesn't - the report clearly states that no suspects who were tortured revealed any new information - in fact they made shit up which the CIA then wasted time investigating.
Yeah someone will probably say anything, especially after not having slept. I don't know where things go too far really, depends on considerations
CrossLOPER
12-11-2014, 03:42
It may be wrong but being wrong is better than letting much worse things just happen because you just aren't capable of torturing someone.
Like institutionalized torture?
I can live in my comfortable bliss.
Do you read what you write?
HopAlongBunny
12-11-2014, 04:29
The interesting thing is, the CIA's studies from the 1960's found torture to not be effective.
It comes up from time to time as a desire from someone desperate in administration but the results are always the same: no new intelligence or simply false intelligence.
I'm willing to bet the "push" came from outside.
Do you read what you write?
Yeah, and I don't like what I wrote. But I can accept that sometimes it's 'whatever means possible' in certain scenarios. It's no dark fantasy of mine, I am pretty sure I could never torture someone myself, but I can accept it being a necesary evil when the stakes are really high.
Kadagar_AV
12-11-2014, 13:47
Fragony, sometimes your arguments come off as extremely lightweight...
In this case, it seems like you live in a world directed by some Hollywood guy, rather than the real world the rest of us live in.
It's a shame, really.
Seamus Fermanagh
12-11-2014, 14:59
The interesting thing is, the CIA's studies from the 1960's found torture to not be effective.
It comes up from time to time as a desire from someone desperate in administration but the results are always the same: no new intelligence or simply false intelligence.
I'm willing to bet the "push" came from outside.
The question is not whether or not it works -- it would not have been used throughout history if it were utterly ineffective -- but as to whether or not it works in any way more effectively than "standard" interrogation methods. How can you justify using something so dehumanizing if it doesn't in some manner add to the speed or the efficacy of the interrogation? This report, and a number of studies since those of the 1960s, suggest that it doesn't.
Fragony, sometimes your arguments come off as extremely lightweight...
I know that Kads, I am not sure of them myself.
Ironside
12-11-2014, 18:33
The interesting thing is, the CIA's studies from the 1960's found torture to not be effective.
It comes up from time to time as a desire from someone desperate in administration but the results are always the same: no new intelligence or simply false intelligence.
I'm willing to bet the "push" came from outside.
The push came from outside. Finding willing people on the inside was probably easy. I mean, if those people in charge of you, used to work with the phoenix program in Vietnam and thought it was a good idea, but not implemented hard enough, your judgement about torture is going to lapse a bit.
Fisherking
12-11-2014, 19:39
The interesting thing is, the CIA's studies from the 1960's found torture to not be effective.
It comes up from time to time as a desire from someone desperate in administration but the results are always the same: no new intelligence or simply false intelligence.
I'm willing to bet the "push" came from outside.
You bet it did. By someone with something to sell. New torture software or Cheney had the thumbscrew concession.
edit: I oppose torture on two grounds. 1st it goes against the principals this country was founded upon. 2nd that it is legal to us on US Citizens under NDAA.
This country has used it before on its own citizens. I can see it happening again. It ain’t the terrorists that worry me.
Is there any documented report of a ticking bomb stopped by torture?
Paltmull
12-12-2014, 17:42
PBS has provided a summary of the 500+ page summary of the 5500 page report [...]
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/iraq-war-on-terror/the-cia-torture-report-what-you-need-to-know/
[...]
The waterboarding of Abu Zubaydah, the report notes, led him to become “completely unresponsive, with bubbles rising through his open, full mouth.” Zubaydah was waterboarded 83 times and kept in crammed boxes for nearly 300 hours.
..................................................................................
Aside from the absurdity and disgrace of torturing someone in the defence of democracy and freedom; even if it did actually provide useful information, wouldn't there still be a backlash in the long run? Having your fellow countryman, friend or family member treated like this isn't exacly going to make you less inclined to sympathize with the al-Qaeda, is it?
Seamus Fermanagh
12-12-2014, 19:26
Is there any documented report of a ticking bomb stopped by torture?
I don't believe that bombs react to torture very much....
Nor do I, however, we always heard from the pro-torture, what if ticking bomb...bla bla bla. Goes with what is your family is in danger...
Never with what if YOU are the one tortured because you met the wrong person, or were at the wrong place...
In most sensible countries, people whose families are in danger/involved with some "case", are not allowed to handle the situation anyway, precisely because people do a lot of wrong things when they are concerned like that. Most people would do a lot if their family were in danger, but if that were our standard for policing, governing and certain other everyday tasks, we'd be in huge trouble...
Or to say it more precisely for Fragony, our "values" would be worse than what is commonly understood to be sharia law.
Don't want it to be normal, but as a last resort in an exceptionally brutal scenario, I would understand why it was done. Not that I think it helps mind you.
Furunculus
12-13-2014, 19:14
i have no problem in principle with breaking terrorist fingers if it is necessary to save civilian lives.
that said:
it has to be effective in releasing the desired intelligence
it has to be more effective than alternative techniques
it should never be sanctioned by society, and thus only used by government illicitly under specific circumstances where it is deemed essential
however:
it does not appear to be particularly effective
it does not appear to be more effective than alternative techniques
it does not appear to have been possible to prevent institutionalisation of enhanced interrogation techniques, regardless of the lack of sanction
therefore, i will not publicly condone the practice of torture... even if in private i'm fine with the idea of its use in a specific circumstance as the only method to reach a specific desired end.
Kadagar_AV
12-13-2014, 23:47
i have no problem in principle with breaking terrorist fingers if it is necessary to save civilian lives.
that said:
it has to be effective in releasing the desired intelligence
it has to be more effective than alternative techniques
it should never be sanctioned by society, and thus only used by government illicitly under specific circumstances where it is deemed essential
however:
it does not appear to be particularly effective
it does not appear to be more effective than alternative techniques
it does not appear to have been possible to prevent institutionalisation of enhanced interrogation techniques, regardless of the lack of sanction
therefore, i will not publicly condone the practice of torture... even if in private i'm fine with the idea of its use in a specific circumstance as the only method to reach a specific desired end.
You know you reached an argumental low when a socialist swede have to tell you that that, in no way, is a power the state should be trusted to handle.
FOR CRYING OUT LOUD, how damn hard can it be to get?
You can EITHER torture OR be seen as normal/nice.
There is just no effin way in seven hells that a state can run torture programs, AND claim to be on the side of "good".
I of course understand that it is a hard pill to swallow for USAnians, realizing their "home of the free", the democratic bulwark on earth... Is completely rotten from within.
Shame on anyone trying to defend torture. It is by all definitions a human LOW when one cause another human being pain in order to force what one wants.
Furunculus
12-13-2014, 23:57
no, it is simple recognition that britain run's an activist foriegn policy heavily bent around global special forces operations.
we are busting into huts in remote places on a daily basis, and i have no doubt a few fingers get broken here and there.
i simply draw the line between this and a state sanctioned program of internment and interrogation that includes torture.
but let me be clear; i do not want to live in a society that condones its government doing this.
Kadagar_AV
12-14-2014, 00:16
no, it is simple recognition that britain run's an activist foriegn policy heavily bent around global special forces operations.
we are busting into huts in remote places on a daily basis, and i have no doubt a few fingers get broken here and there.
i simply draw the line between this and a state sanctioned program of internment and interrogation that includes torture.
but let me be clear; i do not want to live in a society that condones its government doing this.
Uhhh... So if I read you right, you are OK as long as the population just recognize the torture their nation commit, as long as they don't condone it...
I don't even know where to begin. C'mon, you yourself must see the glaring holes in this line of thought.
The government doesn't have to tell the people.
The British can just trust their king/queen to do it only to filthy foreigners and everything will be fine.
. It is by all definitions a human LOW when one cause another human being pain in order to force what one wants.
Never beaten someone up? Never throwed a single punch?
All right: My aunt, from my father’s side, was tortured by the Milice, the French Gestapo. No need for details. The fact is she was not, repeat not, involve in the Resistance. Never. She didn’t know my father was, or the neighbour’s family (my grand-father -mother’s side-) was.
The Nazi had good reason to torture as some were blowing-up their trains, helped Allies pilots to escape and gave a lot of knowledge about their move, numbers and units, cutting their communication lines, and killing German Occupiers, time to time.
But it was completely useless.
The Gestapo did torture resistant with local success, but the greatest success against French Resistance was achieved by infiltration of the Abwehr (Admiral Canaris), not by Heinrich Gestapo, which was much more successful in deporting children.
The only time torture worked was against political militants (i.e. students) to tell they were socialist/communists, or unionists, and done. Indonesia did it. What a great success, indeed, to torture teenagers/young adults to confess. Same can be said for Chile, Argentina and others democratic states under Pinochet, Videla, or Franco’s Spain.
I don't believe torture actually works, but it's a moral dillema worthy of consideration. I am not convinced that it's always wrong. I can totally see how it can be the lesser of two evils sometimes.
Furunculus
12-14-2014, 10:52
Uhhh... So if I read you right, you are OK as long as the population just recognize the torture their nation commit, as long as they don't condone it...
I don't even know where to begin. C'mon, you yourself must see the glaring holes in this line of thought.
Too much knicker twistage, looking for black and white moral certainties in a muddy world.
I do not want to reach this point:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/defence/11292578/Dont-yell-at-terrorist-suspects-soldiers-told.html
If it negatively affects our foreign policy.
As noted previously; i do not believe it is generally effective, or more effective than alternative methods given time and space.
It is healthy that society at large should reject torture, and be outraged if their government is caught doing it.
I approve wholeheartedly of this attitude, and remain delighted that government fears being caught engaged in immoral acts... even if i am more tolerant of them myself.
It's a muddy world, i don't expect cleanly polarised moral choices. That purity of soul is an option for nations that make the best of the world as they see it, and decidedly not for nations who seek to change the world around them.
Seamus Fermanagh
12-14-2014, 18:30
I don't believe torture actually works, but it's a moral dillema worthy of consideration. I am not convinced that it's always wrong. I can totally see how it can be the lesser of two evils sometimes.
This is internally illogical.
If it is not more efficacious on some level -- then it should not be done as the costs, moral and physical, are known to be higher. Would you spend 5 Euros for an Ice-Cream that you could purchase across the street for 3.50 Euros?
Unless it is demonstrably better at extracting information than are other methods -- and the best that can be said is the it works equally well, not better -- than how can it be rational to endure the greater moral cost to yourself and your personnel (ignore the victim as a presumed "bad guy" if you wish)?
And if you and/or your personnel would NOT endure a greater moral cost in implementing "enhanced interrogation methods," than you would be PRECISELY the kinds of persons who should not be entrusted with that power as you would both enjoy it too much (and therefore do it improperly and denigrate the information validity) and be inclined to make it normal practice.
I bear no love for the persons who engineered the butchery of 9-11-01 or who believe that beheading a journalist somehow constitutes valid political action.
However, as R.G.H. Siu once wrote, "cruelty is the tantrum of frustrated power." Throwing tantrums is not adult behavior.
Weren't several of the tortured people innocent?
This is internally illogica
Not if you are as cynical as I am, cynism gots a logic of it's own. I don't believe in our goodness, men is wolf to men, decency is an illusion.
If you were a character in The Walking Dead, what type of character would you be?
(I am really not that cyninal, just making a case)
Kadagar_AV
12-15-2014, 03:04
Not if you are as cynical as I am, cynism gots a logic of it's own. I don't believe in our goodness, men is wolf to men, decency is an illusion.
If you were a character in The Walking Dead, what type of character would you be?
(I am really not that cyninal, just making a case)
Sorry Frags, being cynical just don't cut it as a defense for the ideas you put forth.
You are defending what is the most vile thing a human can do to another...
You seriously have to make an EXTREMELY good case for why it would be needed to torture someone... All you have contributed with is Hollywood fantasies.
Shame on you.
Convince me why it's always wrong without it just being wrong taken as a given. The Dutch resistance tortured nazi's to get info for the allies. Probably saved a lot of lives. Your whole argument is that it is unacceptable, but you never say why; it's unaccetable, basta. Need a little bit more to chew on.
Papewaio
12-15-2014, 11:54
There are worse things then terrorism, police states are one of those.
Torture by the state is many steps worse then a police state.
Easy way out, I am not pleading for that, I just say that there are scenarios where I can be comfortable with someone being tortured. You on the other hand would be comfortable with the comfortable bliss that is the moral higher ground, knowing that thousands could die, but at least you are morally superior? That's not being moral, that is being narcist, inherently egocentric to not do what should be done when it's the only option left, no matter how much you would hate doing it.
Papewaio
12-15-2014, 12:36
Easy way out, I am not pleading for that, I just say that there are scenarios where I can be comfortable with someone being tortured. You on the other hand would be comfortable with the comfortable bliss that is the moral higher ground, knowing that thousands could die, but at least you are morally superior? That's not being moral, that is being narcist, inherently egocentric to not do what should be done when it's the only option left, no matter how much you would hate doing it.
Torture outside of TV and movies is notoriously volatile (short life span of useful information if any), and is inaccurate. Might as well stick to burning witches at stakes for all the benefit and justice it achieves.
Standard police work has been shown to be far as or more effective then torture as far as information gathering is concerned. Police work also beats torture hands down for hearts and minds. So police work not only resolves the issue more effectively it doesn't create a new or larger generation of fanatics.
The idea of torture to gain freedom is a dumb tautology. It is counter productive and ineffective. It also relies on the premise that the person somehow has ongoing useful operational knowledge when most terrorist groups act in semi independent cells. It just lowers us to their level and like most laws and law enforcement techniques it tends to bleed out into the wider law enforcement apparatus.
I don't think it works either, I am just interested in the higher moral ground that people who are absolutily against it take. I get no answer when asking for it.
Greyblades
12-22-2014, 17:43
I was originally going to go on a swear filled rant but life got in the way and by the time I got back to this the rage had cooled into despair and I didnt feel like it. After a while I decided that saying anything in opposition to torture would be a waste of time as the only people who would ever even attempt to defend it are either psychopaths like chenye or the worst eschelons of Republican die hards, of which this forum is thankfully devoid of.
Instead I think I shall merely rip off a comment I saw on fark and leave it at that.: "It's disturbingly consistent how conservatives support the government hurting and killing people, and are deeply offended by the government doing anything to promote their health and longevity."
It's a moral dillema, derveres introspection of what you are capable yourself, think the Milgram or Asch experiments
Fisherking
12-22-2014, 23:36
The really frightening thing is that I have found most of the police officers I know or have met on line favor torture.
a completely inoffensive name
12-24-2014, 07:09
People are so far removed from unpleasant experiences, they have no intuitive sense of what it means to be tortured.
Furunculus
01-04-2015, 02:10
People are so far removed from unpleasant experiences, they have no intuitive sense of what it means to be tortured.
i grew up in a country where my fathers colleague was murdered by the state, dumped on his wifes doorstep in a hessian sack, and her told if she made a fuss her children would never get an education. this was a state where [that] could be done, without any fear of public opinion.
likewise, my mother had lunch with the presidents wife, herself reputed to have knocked off nearly as many people as the big man himself.
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.