CIA: Waterboarding used on 3 suspects

Quote:

---

"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

Define "fruitful".

If this proves to be true, I'm going to be very relieved.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

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.

Quote:

---

Define "fruitful".

---

fruitful is when KSM admitted to planning or participating in every outrage that was committed over the past 20+ years .

Quote:

---

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 .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by article

Those subjected to waterboarding were suspected September 11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by article

He said waterboarding has not been used in five years.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by article

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.

If it's good enough for the Navy, it's good enough for detainees.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by holybandit

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

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!

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:

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.

Quote:

---

"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 .

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

If this proves to be true, I'm going to be very relieved.

---

Come on Lemur, the CIA has never lied to people...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

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"?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

What happened to "presumed innocent until proved guilty"?

---

What happened to the boy who cried "Wolf!"?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

What happened to the boy who cried "Wolf!"?

---

He got a billion dollar record deal and married Angelina?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

What happened to "presumed innocent until proved guilty"?

---

What about the BLACK HELICOPTERS!!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

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...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vladimir

: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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vladimir

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 into it. So there.

And let's not talk about the use of hypothermia.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

Not only is waterboarding not torture, but we're also not going to have any investigations 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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

I actually wrote it like that, but edited in the "d" afterwards since it sounded silly with an "n" :laugh4:

---

~D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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 .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

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.

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."

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Papewaio

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

... and now we see what this was really about.

---

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."

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.

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 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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rvg

Whoa, that's some powerful necromancy.

---

:wizard:

It was the latest thread on the subject I could find that wasn't locked.

http://forums.gotwoot.net/gallery/fi...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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV

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.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by the article

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!

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/video...zd/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.

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/frontl...-need-to-know/

http://www.intelligence.senate.gov/s...sscistudy1.pdf

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

Is there anything new in this report that wasn't covered before?

---

I think the "rectal feedings" were new.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

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...

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

I don't know where to draw the line

---

Before torture.

Definitely before torture.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sir Moody

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

I can live in my comfortable bliss.

---

Do you read what you write?

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CrossLOPER

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HopAlongBunny

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV

Fragony, sometimes your arguments come off as extremely lightweight...

---

I know that Kads, I am not sure of them myself.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HopAlongBunny

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HopAlongBunny

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HopAlongBunny

PBS has provided a summary of the 500+ page summary of the 5500 page report [...]

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontl...-need-to-know/
[...]

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Report summary summary

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brenus

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Furunculus

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.