Interrogation Techniques

[Boz]

Abu Ghraib is not the same thing.

Again you are calling them "torturers." I do not subscribe to that. If the attorney general classifies this technique as such, as he has, well then that is the law and I will respect the law, of course.

But right now, personally, all I care about is Boston torturing, yes TORTURING the Canadiens and their lousy anthem booing fans (so much for hope and change around the world), but maybe I'll respond more completely tomorrow.

[Bando]

Apr 22, 2009 17:43:48 GMT -5 Boz said:

Abu Ghraib is not the same thing.

Again you are calling them "torturers." I do not subscribe to that. If the attorney general classifies this technique as such, as he has, well then that is the law and I will respect the law, of course.

But right now, personally, all I care about is Boston torturing, yes TORTURING the Canadiens and their lousy anthem booing fans (so much for hope and change around the world), but maybe I'll respond more completely tomorrow.

You were expecting hockey fans to be less crass? The government can do a lot of things, man, but they can't perform miracles.

[EasyEd]

For the record, I do not consider waterboarding the way we did it to be anywhere close to being torture. There was apparently no water in the lungs so it was more an application of fear. Also, as I said in an earlier post, if waterboarding is torture, then we are torturing our Navy Seals and other Special Forces because their training involves undergoing waterboarding; and, I don't think that is torture either. So, I have no morality issues here.

From multiple sources, including the CIA and the Director of Intelligence, the use of these advanced interrogation techniques, led to the avoidance of an attack on Los Angeles and also gave us a much deeper understanding of our terrorists enemies in Afghanistan/Pakistan and in Iraq. I suspect those techniques helped us and our allies avoid other attacks but info on those has not been released (if they exist). As a consequence, I am all in favor of using advanced interrogation techniques in the future to save lives.

I will take that further. If we believe there is a strong possibility of another attack on the United States where significant loss of life would result, then I am in favor of actually using torture (example: breaking somone's arms or legs) to obtain information to save those lives. A broken bone is not equivalent to loss of lives. It's what's called self defense. I would not kill, however, to avoid such a loss of life.

[strummer8526]

Apr 22, 2009 19:07:02 GMT -5 EasyEd said:

I will take that further. If we believe there is a strong possibility of another attack on the United States where significant loss of life would result, then I am in favor of actually using torture (example: breaking somone's arms or legs) to obtain information to save those lives. A broken bone is not equivalent to loss of lives. It's what's called self defense. I would not kill, however, to avoid such a loss of life.

Turning the other cheek...WITH A VENGEANCE.

[HoyaNyr320]

Apr 22, 2009 19:07:02 GMT -5 EasyEd said:

For the record, I do not consider waterboarding the way we did it to be anywhere close to being torture. There was apparently no water in the lungs so it was more an application of fear. Also, as I said in an earlier post, if waterboarding is torture, then we are torturing our Navy Seals and other Special Forces because their training involves undergoing waterboarding; and, I don't think that is torture either. So, I have no morality issues here.

From multiple sources, including the CIA and the Director of Intelligence, the use of these advanced interrogation techniques, led to the avoidance of an attack on Los Angeles and also gave us a much deeper understanding of our terrorists enemies in Afghanistan/Pakistan and in Iraq. I suspect those techniques helped us and our allies avoid other attacks but info on those has not been released (if they exist). As a consequence, I am all in favor of using advanced interrogation techniques in the future to save lives.

I will take that further. If we believe there is a strong possibility of another attack on the United States where significant loss of life would result, then I am in favor of actually using torture (example: breaking somone's arms or legs) to obtain information to save those lives. A broken bone is not equivalent to loss of lives. It's what's called self defense. I would not kill, however, to avoid such a loss of life.

And that, my friends, is moral relativism.

[Bando]

Apr 22, 2009 19:07:02 GMT -5 EasyEd said:

For the record, I do not consider waterboarding the way we did it to be anywhere close to being torture. There was apparently no water in the lungs so it was more an application of fear. Also, as I said in an earlier post, if waterboarding is torture, then we are torturing our Navy Seals and other Special Forces because their training involves undergoing waterboarding; and, I don't think that is torture either. So, I have no morality issues here.

From multiple sources, including the CIA and the Director of Intelligence, the use of these advanced interrogation techniques, led to the avoidance of an attack on Los Angeles and also gave us a much deeper understanding of our terrorists enemies in Afghanistan/Pakistan and in Iraq. I suspect those techniques helped us and our allies avoid other attacks but info on those has not been released (if they exist). As a consequence, I am all in favor of using advanced interrogation techniques in the future to save lives.

I will take that further. If we believe there is a strong possibility of another attack on the United States where significant loss of life would result, then I am in favor of actually using torture (example: breaking somone's arms or legs) to obtain information to save those lives. A broken bone is not equivalent to loss of lives. It's what's called self defense. I would not kill, however, to avoid such a loss of life.

A few points in response:

1. Waterboarding doesn't involve fluid in the lungs, true. But the body's response to waterboarding is the same as its response to drowning. This is by design. I don't know if you've ever experienced a near-drowning, but the pain is excruciating and the terror is horrifying. If waterboarding isn't torture, then nothing is torture, and we should just start taking red-hot pokers to criminal suspects.

2. Surely even you can see the difference between a special forces officer voluntarily signing up for SERE and a prisoner being tortured, right? One volunteers and knows his colleagues aren't going to kill him. The other is under shackle and thinks he's going to die. If you can't make this distinction, congratulations, you're the most obtuse man in America.

3. To make my position clear, even if torture was 100% effective, I would be against it. That said, until documents are declassified, you're basically taking Bush administration officials' word for it that torture is effective.

Furthermore, as the Slate link posted earlier in the thread shows, Theissen is lying about the Los Angeles plot. The LA plot was broken up in February 2002. KSM wasn't even captured until March 2003. Unless the CIA has perfected time travel, this is complete BS.

Ever further, saying "torture has worked" isn't the same thing as saying "torture reliably works". If any true intel is drowned out by a wave of false positives (that is, something a prisoner would say just to stop being tortured), then torture is practically useless as an interrogation method. We have no real documentation either way, so it would behoove you stop blindly proclaiming that torture works without any evidence of that fact.

4. You bring up once again the ticking time-bomb scenario. This scenario happens all the time on "24", but is very rare in real life. Please enlighten me how waterboarding someone 183 times over an entire month indicates an imminent threat?

[GIGAFAN99]

Apr 22, 2009 20:26:46 GMT -5 Bando said:

Apr 22, 2009 19:07:02 GMT -5 EasyEd said:

For the record, I do not consider waterboarding the way we did it to be anywhere close to being torture. There was apparently no water in the lungs so it was more an application of fear. Also, as I said in an earlier post, if waterboarding is torture, then we are torturing our Navy Seals and other Special Forces because their training involves undergoing waterboarding; and, I don't think that is torture either. So, I have no morality issues here.

From multiple sources, including the CIA and the Director of Intelligence, the use of these advanced interrogation techniques, led to the avoidance of an attack on Los Angeles and also gave us a much deeper understanding of our terrorists enemies in Afghanistan/Pakistan and in Iraq. I suspect those techniques helped us and our allies avoid other attacks but info on those has not been released (if they exist). As a consequence, I am all in favor of using advanced interrogation techniques in the future to save lives.

I will take that further. If we believe there is a strong possibility of another attack on the United States where significant loss of life would result, then I am in favor of actually using torture (example: breaking somone's arms or legs) to obtain information to save those lives. A broken bone is not equivalent to loss of lives. It's what's called self defense. I would not kill, however, to avoid such a loss of life.

3. To make my position clear, even if torture was 100% effective, I would be against it.

Ok, I have to say no WAY would I be against it.

Hell, I'd be in that lineup. If someone told me they have to torture 10 people and it would 100% save hundreds (Americans or otherwise) and I'm one of those 10, I'll take one for the team.

That said, it doesn't conclusively work for those means.

And I know this is an unpopular view but I don't think we should torture, but I'm completely in favor of enemies thinking we would. We like to put rules around international security and warfare but let's face it, that's like telling to women "no hair pulling" in a fight.

So our official position should now be "We don't torture...or do we?" followed by strong dramatic squirrel stare towards anyone who wants to mess with us. And we should name Chuck Norris Director of The What We Might Do To You Agency.

[Bando]

Apr 22, 2009 21:26:27 GMT -5 GIGAFAN99 said:

Apr 22, 2009 20:26:46 GMT -5 Bando said:

3. To make my position clear, even if torture was 100% effective, I would be against it.

Ok, I have to say no WAY would I be against it.

Hell, I'd be in that lineup. If someone told me they have to torture 10 people and it would 100% save hundreds (Americans or otherwise) and I'm one of those 10, I'll take one for the team.

That said, it doesn't conclusively work for those means.

And I know this is an unpopular view but I don't think we should torture, but I'm completely in favor of enemies thinking we would. We like to put rules around international security and warfare but let's face it, that's like telling to women "no hair pulling" in a fight.

So our official position should now be "We don't torture...or do we?" followed by strong dramatic squirrel stare towards anyone who wants to mess with us. And we should name Chuck Norris Director of The What We Might Do To You Agency.

Except that such a posture would make us look like hypocrites every time we criticized North Korea's gulags and the like. "Torture is bad when those guys do it, but fine when America does it. Because we waterboard with eagle tears."

[The Stig]

It would also make it more likely that our enemies would torture captured Americans.

In World War II, even the Nazis - the ultimate scum of the earth - treated American prisoners with relative civility. With a few notable exceptions, they treated them in accordance with the Geneva Convention. Meanwhile, they did all sorts of horrible things to Soviet POW's.

Am I saying that Al Qaeda will treat any Americans that they capture better if we don't torture? No. But if we adopt a "we may or may not torture" stance, then another nation that we're at war with 20 years down the line might adopt a "we may or may not torture American prisoners" stance.

[SFHoya99]

I see Ed and Giga's point, philosophically. It's hard for me to say that, since I've never had to experience it... but generally there's something to the utilitarian argument, isn't there?

Where I come down on the other side is when you get to the practical.

1. The "if we torture, so do they" point.
2. The reliability of results point.
3. And most importantly, the "who gets to decide when we do it" point. It's easy to draw up, as Bando says, the Jack Bauer situation isn't the most common. Where do you draw the line? Who gets to decide where you are on that line? Isn't it something incredibly easily abused?

[GIGAFAN99]

Apr 22, 2009 22:04:57 GMT -5 The Stig said:

Am I saying that Al Qaeda will treat any Americans that they capture better if we don't torture? No.

Bingo. Not dealing with sovereign nations against which there are other possible political consequences. So "rules" mean nothing. If they break them, what's the repercussions? Are we going to place an embargo on them? Not allow them to the join the "United Nations and One Terrorist Organization" group?

Terrorists don't sign accords. Let's keep this in context. It's not a situation that fits easily into our concept of conflict.

[lightbulbbandit]

Apr 22, 2009 22:57:13 GMT -5 GIGAFAN99 said:

Terrorists don't sign accords. Let's keep this in context. It's not a situation that fits easily into our concept of conflict.

Treaties and how or whether they should be applied to terrorist groups has zero to do with the legality of torture. As far as 18 U.S.C. 2340 & 2340A are concerned it is illegal under US law. Maybe good law and maybe bad law, and maybe a malleable definition, but torture is clearly illegal.

[Cambridge]

It doesn't produce reliable results. Two family members and a friend have been through SERE. They are all true patriots and all admitted that the only result is that you want to say anything to make it stop. Waterboarding is absolutely awful. One who is a navy SEAL has also been intentionally drowned in a pool. Waterboarding was worse. All these techniques achieve is a lot of people clouding the system with false positives and affirming your foregone suspicions and conclusions. You can't tell what is accurate and what is just panic induced confessions of nonsense. That's not intelligence, that is stupidity.

Follow up question - is it just ok because it is being used against foreign citizens? I mean what about some of these "right wing nutjobs" who are organizing protests about Obama and the Federal Government? Some of them are suggesting they secede from the Union. Some of them called for an armed revolution. I'm sure they are linked to some militias and terrorist cells. I think we should take a closer look and detain a few of them. Maybe we should implement some of these techniques. Wouldn't want another OKC bombing, now would we?

[HoyaNyr320]

Apr 22, 2009 23:30:38 GMT -5 Cambridge said:

Follow up question - is it just ok because it is being used against foreign citizens? I mean what about some of these "right wing nutjobs" who are organizing protests about Obama and the Federal Government? Some of them are suggesting they secede from the Union. Some of them called for an armed revolution. I'm sure they are linked to some militias and terrorist cells. I think we should take a closer look and detain a few of them. Maybe we should implement some of these techniques. Wouldn't want another OKC bombing, now would we?

Now THIS is something I can be in favor of. Which Fox News anchor gets waterboarded first? ;D (just kidding of course)

BTW... here's an actual fox news reporter volunteering to be waterboarded - you be the judge if this is torture:

Here's to the depravity of man... amazing that we're capable of inventing techniques like this.

[Boz]

I thought that Morning Joe this morning had a very good and reasoned discussion of this issue, with Mika, Chuck Todd and Crazy Old Pat Buchanan.

Don't know if MSNBC has put a clip up (as you might guess, MSNBC is not exactly one of my primary news Web sites), but if they have one I'd recommend viewing.

[SirSaxa]

OpEd by Former FBI Interrogator

The author, Ali Soufan, was an F.B.I. supervisory special agent from 1997 to 2005.

EXCERPTS

FOR seven years I have remained silent about the false claims magnifying the effectiveness of the so-called enhanced interrogation techniques like waterboarding. I have spoken only in closed government hearings, as these matters were classified. But the release last week of four Justice Department memos on interrogations allows me to shed light on the story, and on some of the lessons to be learned.

...

There was no actionable intelligence gained from using enhanced interrogation techniques on Abu Zubaydah that wasn’t, or couldn’t have been, gained from regular tactics. In addition, I saw that using these alternative methods on other terrorists backfired on more than a few occasions — all of which are still classified. The short sightedness behind the use of these techniques ignored the unreliability of the methods, the nature of the threat, the mentality and modus operandi of the terrorists, and due process.

Defenders of these techniques have claimed that they got Abu Zubaydah to give up information leading to the capture of Ramzi bin al-Shibh, a top aide to Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, and Mr. Padilla. This is false. The information that led to Mr. Shibh’s capture came primarily from a different terrorist operative who was interviewed using traditional methods. As for Mr. Padilla, the dates just don’t add up: the harsh techniques were approved in the memo of August 2002, Mr. Padilla had been arrested that May.

...

Fortunately for me, after I objected to the enhanced techniques, the message came through from Pat D’Amuro, an F.B.I. assistant director, that “we don’t do that,” and I was pulled out of the interrogations by the F.B.I. director, Robert Mueller (this was documented in the report released last year by the Justice Department’s inspector general).

..........

It was the right decision to release these memos, as we need the truth to come out. This should not be a partisan matter, because it is in our national security interest to regain our position as the world’s foremost defenders of human rights.

[EasyEd]

A question for those who oppose any form of "torture". Suppose an intruder has tied up your family and has a knife, preparing to kill them. You step into the room with a handgun in your hand. Is it okay for you to shoot the intruder in the leg and cripple him to save your family?

To me, this is the moral equivalent of using "torture" to save lives.

[DrumsGoBang]

Is is morally right to lock that same intruder in a basement where they have to endure complex mind games in order to survive or face horrible pain and death....oh crap that's the Saw movies.

[strummer8526]

Apr 23, 2009 8:50:12 GMT -5 EasyEd said:

A question for those who oppose any form of "torture". Suppose an intruder has tied up your family and has a knife, preparing to kill them. You step into the room with a handgun in your hand. Is it okay for you to shoot the intruder in the leg and cripple him to save your family?

To me, this is the moral equivalent of using "torture" to save lives.

That is the most overly-simplistic view of foreign policy and national defense I have ever heard.

[Boz]

And, of course, there is also the issue of how transparent the administration is actually being.

Like Pete Hoekstra says, if you're going to have sunlight, then have sunlight.

This includes not only the "success" memos that so many are attempting to discredit .... strangely enough without even seeing them yet (how's that work, exactly?), but also the names all of the Congressmen who were briefed, many of whom are acting outraged now, when most likely they went along with this when they learned about the program...repeatedly. Granted, if they had an objection, maybe they were unable to air it publicly, but they could have done so within the confines of all the briefings, which would also be documented. So let's release those too and see how many of these people actually thought it was torture and illegal back then.

Talk about your moral relativism. Personally, as I have stated, I don't think they should be ashamed that they approved of this, but if they're going to act like it's shameful, then let's see what they thought then, and not just now when it serves them politically.

Yes, I'm talking to you, Nancy Pelosi...among others.