CIA and the use of "Enhanced" interogation techniques

[javierdlopez]

http://www.cnsnews.com/public/conten...x?RsrcID=46949

“You have informed us that the interrogation of KSM—once enhanced techniques were employed—led to the discovery of a KSM plot, the ‘Second Wave,’ ‘to use East Asian operatives to crash a hijacked airliner into’ a building in Los Angeles,” says the memo.

Sometimes asking nicely, doesn't have the same effect...

[ChairoNoMe]

http://www.cnsnews.com/public/conten...x?RsrcID=46949

Sometimes asking nicely, doesn't have the same effect...

I have to question the source, for one. Of course the people doing these barbaric acts find all sorts of shoddy justifications, it doesn't make it right. Even if it did seem to work occassionally, even rolling a die repeatedly can occasionally produce the number you were thinking of in your head. For the other times, we get a lot of false leads produced by people who will say anything to get the torturers to stop. This wastes the time of the counter-terrorism officials investigating ridiculous claims that have no merit.

We now know for a fact that torture was used to attempt to produce the widely disputed "evidence" that Al-Qaeda and Iraq were working together.

The more and more that is uncovered about our torture program, the more and more I want the senior officials prosecuted for violating international law. I was shocked to learn that waterboarding was used dozens of times AFTER such techniques were known to not be producing results. Khalid Sheik Mohammed was waterboarded 183 times in March 2003 (183 times in one month!), and Abu Zubaydah was waterboarded 83 times in August 2002. Even the most pro-torture person needs to look at that and realize that if you have to waterboard someone 183 times in a single month to get information it's NOT an effective interrogation tactic. Allegedly, when the C.I.A. officials realized that waterboarding and 100 other kinds of harsh interrogation methods they used were NOT effective, they felt that they might have crossed legal limits, and they called their superiors, who told them despite it not working to keep on doing it. This is unbelievable and barbaric.

In the words of that brave marine vet who called into Rush Limbaugh's radio program: "we aren't Nazi Germany!" It doesn't matter if you believe torture is effective or not, it's AGAINST THE LAW. We prosecuted people in Germany and Japan for WAR CRIMES after WWII for using some of the exact same interrogation tactics that we OURSELVES have used.

You might argue that torture is effective. You might argue TOTAL WAR is effective. Well, why don't we just invade countries believed to be harboring terrorists and just line up a bunch of children and tell the villagers that for every hour they don't tell us where the terrorists are, we'll kill one of the children? HELLO! Because it's BARBARIC! It's because it gives MORE JUSTIFICATION for our enemies to hate us. It puts our OWN POWs in more danger - if we torture, what justification to we have to tell our enemies not to torture OUR POWs?

The whole reason why we have protocols such as the Geneva Conventions is people like Henri Dunant were motivated by the horrors of war he witnessed and he wanted to put a stop to it. With an international standard, countries have more of an incentive to not violate that standard, lest the whole world will turn against them.

Frankly, I am DISGUSTED that you think that our normal interrogation tactics are the same as "asking someone nicely". We can still use discipline against detainees for not cooperating with us, we just can't torture them. It's called building a rapport with detainees so they are pressured to cooperate. It's similar to how you could punish your kids by taking away their privileges, but you can't torture them. I've posted this article by Matthew Alexander a number of times. Perhaps you should actually READ it and let the information sink in.

We know that Matthew Alexander's methods are more effective than waterboarding and other forms of torture. We know this because his methods led to the hunting down and killing of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, "the leader of al-Qaeda in Iraq and the mastermind of the campaign of suicide bombings that had helped plunge Iraq into civil war". You don't get a much more high value target than that.

It seems that you pro-torture folks care less about results, all you want is bloody vengeance. That's the REAL reason. If we let people like you run our prisons, they'd be gulags full of daily torture and depraved conditions. Obviously the reason why we DON'T have such situations because we found out that such depravity is counterproductive to any justice system, let alone any chance of rehabilitation.

[javierdlopez]

I'm just raising the question. So you'd be OK with thousands of Americans dying in lieu of using a technique that is used in the training of American soldiers?

http://www.cnsnews.com/public/Conten...x?rsrcid=46974

No need to freak out man. There's plenty of things about you that I find repulsive as well.

[ChairoNoMe]

I'm just raising the question. So you'd be OK with thousands of Americans dying in lieu of using a technique that is used in the training of American soldiers?

That's either-or faulty logic. You speak as if torture is the only interrogation technique we can use. There are plenty of legal interrogation methods that are far more effective. As far as the soldiers undergoing waterboarding, there's a difference here, as the SERE program is completely VOLUNTARY, and even after you enroll you have complete control over how long the torture session lasts. There are several safety checks and code words to allow the process to stop. We didn't allow the Gitmo detainees the same luxuries. I'm sure after undergoing a few waterboarding sessions you'd probably not be for it, either.

Like I've posted before, Christopher Hitchens experienced the same type of waterboarding that the soldiers in the SERE program experience. Despite him knowing that he wasn't in danger of dying from drowning, despite him knowing that the people would stop the second he dropped the metal rod, when you are in that state of extreme stress your brain goes into survival mode. He said he SWORE he said the code word even though the video shows that he didn't. He said he was SO anxious to get the torturers to stop that he THREW down the metal rod. He's said since the procedure he's had nightmares where he wakes up with a feeling of being smothered to death.

That's why John McCain is against waterboarding and other forms of torture. He's been tortured, he knows how absolutely depraved it is. You might not like me or respect my views but I'd hope that you'd respect the opinion of a war hero (and your presidential candidate) who underwent some of the the most depraved conditions imaginable in service of his country. If he knows from experience that he wouldn't wish that sort of treatment on his own enemies that should speak miles as how horrible experiencing torture is.

This shouldn't be a partisan issue. Torture is wrong, it is a moral argument. It is morally depraved. I find it notable that you can't bring yourself to say the word "torture" - you are using the Orwellian euphemism "enhanced interrogation". I think this alone signifies that deep down you think that torture is wrong.

[javierdlopez]

That's either-or faulty logic. You speak as if torture is the only interrogation technique we can use. There are plenty of legal interrogation methods that are far more effective. As far as the soldiers undergoing waterboarding, there's a difference here, as the SERE program is completely VOLUNTARY, and even after you enroll you have complete control over how long the torture session lasts. There are several safety checks and code words to allow the process to stop. We didn't allow the Gitmo detainees the same luxuries. I'm sure after undergoing a few waterboarding sessions you'd probably not be for it, either.

Like I've posted before, Christopher Hitchens experienced the same type of waterboarding that the soldiers in the SERE program experience. Despite him knowing that he wasn't in danger of dying from drowning, despite him knowing that the people would stop the second he dropped the metal rod, when you are in that state of extreme stress your brain goes into survival mode. He said he SWORE he said the code word even though the video shows that he didn't. He said he was SO anxious to get the torturers to stop that he THREW down the metal rod. He's said since the procedure he's had nightmares where he wakes up with a feeling of being smothered to death.

That's why John McCain is against waterboarding and other forms of torture. He's been tortured, he knows how absolutely depraved it is. You might not like me or respect my views but I'd hope that you'd respect the opinion of a war hero (and your presidential candidate) who underwent some of the the most depraved conditions imaginable in service of his country. If he knows from experience that he wouldn't wish that sort of treatment on his own enemies that should speak miles as how horrible experiencing torture is.

This shouldn't be a partisan issue. Torture is wrong, it is a moral argument. It is morally depraved. I find it notable that you can't bring yourself to say the word "torture" - you are using the Orwellian euphemism "enhanced interrogation". I think this alone signifies that deep down you think that torture is wrong.

I agree, torture is wrong. The problem is that your definition of torture is a lot different than mine. None of these techniques leave any permanent damage. They're not cutting someone's balls off, or shoving a broomstick up someone's ass. They're not cutting someone's hand off, ripping someone's fingernails out or even whipping these guys. They're simply scaring the crap out of them, in hopes that they give up information. And in at least one case, that's precisely what happened.

Christopher Hitchens is a pansy ass reporter. He couldn't even hack it for 2 minutes. I'm not surprised that he didn't find the exercise uncomfortable. It's not meant to be. But they're not actually killing or hurting anyone, are they?

Since when did you become a John McCain fan?

[Chewbacca]

First off, maybe your definition of torture is a lot different than a dictionary's definition of torture.
"The act of inflicting excruciating pain, as punishment or revenge, as a means of getting a confession or information, or for sheer cruelty."

Nothing about permanent damage.

See, my problem with torture is that torture's definition sounds an awful lot like this definition:
"The use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes."
That's the definition of terrorism. Something we are apparently supposed to be fighting.


Second off, I think it is rude of you to call someone a pansy ass for not being able to stand something like that. You may not like his message, but it is pretty mean to mock someone who was sharing his experience with this "interrogation technique."

[javierdlopez]

First off, maybe your definition of torture is a lot different than a dictionary's definition of torture.
"The act of inflicting excruciating pain, as punishment or revenge, as a means of getting a confession or information, or for sheer cruelty."

Nothing about permanent damage.

See, my problem with torture is that torture's definition sounds an awful lot like this definition:
"The use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes."
That's the definition of terrorism. Something we are apparently supposed to be fighting.


Second off, I think it is rude of you to call someone a pansy ass for not being able to stand something like that. You may not like his message, but it is pretty mean to mock someone who was sharing his experience with this "interrogation technique."

My point about this reporter is that of course he's going to find water boarding uncomfortable. That's a given.


So then you think thousands of people should have died in LA? All so this bastard, who was in part responsible for the deaths of thousands of Americans on 9/11, doesn't feel any discomfort? Because that's what we're talking about here...

OK... That sounds completely reasonable to me, I guess.

[ChairoNoMe]

Christopher Hitchens is a pansy ass reporter. He couldn't even hack it for 2 minutes. I'm not surprised that he didn't find the exercise uncomfortable. It's not meant to be. But they're not actually killing or hurting anyone, are they?

He's actually a lot older than you or me, I'm sure a young person would be more resilient than an older person. As for your other points, I pretty much agree with Chewbacca.

Since when did you become a John McCain fan?

I've always admired John McCain. He is definitely a war hero and worthy of my respect. Of course, I don't agree with most of his political views, but I like how he's one of the few Republicans that want to address climate change and obviously his zero tolerance position on torture. When he was running for president however, he got pulled into the dirty politics machine. He didn't really do enough to condemn those in his own party who were saying terrible lies about Obama. I mean, he's supposed to be a maverick, why didn't he say more to the smear mongers in his own party that he didn't want to run a campaign like that? You know that phrase: "power corrupts"? Well, McCain allowed his desire to win to corrupt his message.

But I respect him a lot more now. I thought his concession speech was more of the tone that I had come to expect from him. The few guest appearances he did after the election I enjoyed. I absolutely want him to give his input to the President, and I think that he should take a more active role in trying to find a Republican common ground on some of the President's policies.

[Chewbacca]

So then you think thousands of people should have died in LA? All so this bastard, who was in part responsible for the deaths of thousands of Americans on 9/11, doesn't feel any discomfort? Because that's what we're talking about here...

I am not trying to defend the innocence of a known murderer. I just wonder where we draw the line. Do we torture every prisoner of war we capture? No doubt that would give us an advantage and save lives. But at what price? How can we ask our enemies to abide to the Geneva Convention when we, ourselves, do not?

At some point, torture is a subject that requires every person to really question what their values are. Obviously, we do not share all of the same values. Since the very definition of values make it clear than I cannot change another persons, I will leave it at that.

[jellyworld]

Raimond Gaita on Torture

http://cdn2.libsyn.com/philosophybites/GaitaMixSes.MP3