Bush vetoes ban on harsh interrogation

[toybox99615]

interesting problem

So far the power to be claim they did water-boarding only three times. Yet we are now hearing how its worked thousands of times. Hum looks like time for an explanation. Is it three times as on three persons once, one person three times, maybe three times at one location, or is it some other magical interpretation of what times is?

Here is another question to ponder. If you ask a person hundreds and hundreds of time the same question will that person figure out what information you want to hear? I'd like to hear from those who know a bit about that actual process of interogating someone.

 

[Playboypenguin]

No, not really. The classical definition of torture is the use of physical pain and disfigurement to extract information. Waterboarding causes no physical pain and leaves no injury. Its a purely a psychological tool.

I guess I'm old school, but if it doesn't bleed you, shock you, stick you or bash you, its not torture.

It does not simply defend on one persons interpretation of a dictionary definition. Their are legal guides to such activities and waterboarding, and other means of depriving oxygen, are on those lists.

 

[STAGE 2]

Citing one example is not a statement on the process as a whole. I can cite one example where allowing a person to own a gun was a very bad idea and lead to unnecessary deaths. That does not making owning a gun a negative practice.

Now now PBP. You said...

Show me one true CIA agent that went on the air and said "torture works" and then validated his stance with relevant information and went as far as to state it gets you truthful information.

I provided said example. I also mentioned KSM. Both were instances of terrorists not responding to any other interrogation methods, and then breaking very quickly via waterboarding.

Asking me to provide a single example and then saying a single example is worthless is incredibly disingenuous.

There is all kinds of information and case studies available on the topic. Go read some of it (while weeding out editorials and talking heads trying to validat ethe process) and see what you find. Then see if you think this one unsubstantiated statement invalidates all the tons of information to the contrary.

You're hedging again. Please show me where the CIA (you know, the people actually doing the interrogating) has stated that waterboarding is ineffective.

And I'd also like you to answer my question about how many people you have personally interrogated.

 

[Playboypenguin]

I provided said example. I also mentioned KSM

Oh come on..are you going to claim to actually believe the administration when they say "we did this and even taped it" and then when asked to see the tapes say "Oops, we erased them." Maybe you missed the part where I said "then validated his stance with relevant information."

Plus, he was an "ex-officer" of the CIA when he made those statement and in no way tied to there official policies.

Tell me honestly you believe this type of stuff. That you allow yourself to be so easily led by doubleispeak, innuendo, and falsehoods thrown at you by political talking heads.

 

[STAGE 2]

Oh come on..are you going to claim to actually believe the administration when they say "we did this and even taped it" and then when asked to see the tapes say "Oops, we erased them." Maybe you missed the part where I said "then validated his stance with relevant information."

I don't know. It does seem odd that they would fight so hard to be able to use something that they know is useless. Of course this really is neither here nor there. In every documented case that waterboarding has been used, the CIA has reported that it has produced valid intel.

This seems to fly in the face of your argument that it doesn't work.

Plus, he was an "ex-officer" of the CIA when he made those statement and in no way tied to there official policies.

Being an ex-cia officer does not mean that he has never participated in interrogations, or was not active at the time these interrogations occured.

Tell me honestly you believe this type of stuff. That you allow yourself to be so easily led by doubleispeak, innuendo, and falsehoods thrown at you by political talking heads.

Thats pretty ironic considering your entire argument is a fallacy. You don't have any experience in waterboarding. You still haven't answered my question as to whether you have even interrogated anyone, so I'll take that as a no. You have stated that waterboarding is an utter failure and that no CIA agent has ever endorsed it, which is false. You've said that it has never produced any results which is false.

The only thing that you have left is the statement that the folks high up (which you don't know and have never worked with) don't advocate waterboarding. Well, it seems to me that the CIA is fighting awfully hard to keep it as a tool. Nor have I seen any statements by ANYONE who has used the technique, that it has been ineffective.

So if you could be so kind, could you show me some sort of evidence from the people actually doing the waterboarding that says its not effective?

 

[Playboypenguin]

I don't know. It does seem odd that they would fight so hard to be able to use something that they know is useless. Of course this really is neither here nor there. In every documented case that waterboarding has been used, the CIA has reported that it has produced valid intel.

You seem to be mistaking "defending the right to do" with "protecting ourselves from future repercussions by establishing a precident."

In fact the very man you are quoting has since admitted that waterboarding "is indeed a torturous act" in his ABC interview with Brian Ross.

Thats pretty ironic considering your entire argument is a fallacy. You don't have any experience in waterboarding. You still haven't answered my question as to whether you have even interrogated anyone, so I'll take that as a no

You can keep asking that question all you like and assume whatever you want from the fact that I will not be answering those questions...or any questions regarding the details of my actions while under the orders of my superiors during my stint in MI.

And no, my argument is not a falacy...I do believe it is pretty clear to see that the members of the senate intel committee all pretty much stated that it is not an official practice of the US govt and that it is not a proven technique. John McCain joined them in saying the same thing.

 

[STAGE 2]

You can keep asking that question all you like and assume whatever you want from the fact that I will not be answering those questions...or any questions regarding the details of my actions while under the orders of my superiors during my stint in MI.

I'm not asking for details. I'm simply asking if you have ANY personal experience with interrogation since you held yourself out to be an authority on it. You already stated that you have none with waterboarding. Why answer that question and then hide behind the veil of secrecy with the other.

And no, my argument is not a falacy...I do believe it is pretty clear to see that the members of the senate intel committee all pretty much stated that it is not an official practice of the US govt and that it is not a proven technique. John McCain joined them in saying the same thing.

And again I defer to the fact that the senate intel committee, and John McCain know nothing about, nor have ever interrogated anyone.

The people who use these tools are stating that they are useful, and you keep pointing to folks that have no training or experience with interrogation as evidence that they don't work.

So once again, I ask you to show me where the CIA has stated that waterboarding isn't effective.

 

[Playboypenguin]

So once again, I ask you to show me where the CIA has stated that waterboarding isn't effective.

Both the CIA and MI stress in there training that torture is not a reliable method of intelligence gathering and does more harm than good. I am giving you a first hand account. I would love to hear our first hand experience to the contrary. I hate to break it to you...the intel committee works with the CIA and they understand very well the official stance of the CIA and they have clearly stated time and time again on TV news that torture is not only unaccptible but unreliable.

I love how your only defense is to say "these people have never done it" and offer nothing beyond that. You are trying to play the old..."all I have to do is keep denying it until someone pries my eyes open and force feeds me the information" game...pretty weak. It does not take much common sense or higher reasoning abilities to see through the value of torture. It is pretty eveident that a person will say whatever they have to say to get it to stop.

I do not remember you answering my question...do you deny that I could get you to admit to a crime you did not commit if I was allowed to torture you until you did admit it? Do you not see how that very fact would make any and all information gathered from such techniques highly suspect?

 

[Playboypenguin]

Stage 2

You might want to read this then get back to me.

 

[44 AMP]

Torture ALWAYS works

Thousands of years of human history prove it. Untold millions over the centuries, all "confessed" and died. Some before the "confession", the others after. Heretics, witches, and anyone unlucky enough to fall into the hands of someone who was willing to use torture to get the info they wanted.

Torture ALWAYS works. People ALWAYS "confess".

Now, whether the information obtained is factual, or of any use is another question entirely. Inquisitors of the middle ages knew that the heretics and witches might be false, but even a false confession suited their purposes more than well enough.

So, it all comes down to definitions. Definitions of what is or is not torture, and what is or is not the moral high ground, among others. Sure, there is the completely understandable urge to use 'any means necessary" against the terrorists (scum?!!), but it is , and must be balanced against our public image and legal requirements as the self proclaimed "good guys".

As I see it, there are two basic kinds of torture, physical and mental. Physical torture is the old fashioned kind, easily recognised by the direct application of pain, and ususally results in permant damage and eventual death. The rack, beatings, burnings, rapes, and all the other traditional methods are commomly recognised. And prohibited to US soldiers by our laws and regulations as well as international treaties and accords. These rules however, legally apply to enemy soldiers, that is enemies in uniform. Spies, sabateurs, partisans, terrorists, call them what you will, non-uniformed combatants have traditionally NEVER been protected by international conventions, and have always been tortured and/or shot when caught.
Mental torture is perhaps not quite as old, but it has a long history as well. The famous Chinese water torture is just one example.

People argue both sides, some claiming that only physical torture is torture, and others including the various mental tortures that leave no visible harm. To them, it is all torture. And as the "good guys", the use of any torture by us is abhorrent to them. Good guys don't torture people. That is their philosphy. And so the argument about waterboarding. Torture or a valid interrogation technique? Probably both or neither, depending on your point of view.

When it comes to the "enemy combatants", terrorists, islamofascists, wht ever you call them, we are on very clear legal ground, but very murky moral ground. Since we are at "war" with terrorism (and to this day I can hardly believe that the Congress actually gave the administration what amounts to a blank check), and since the enemy is not the uniformed forces of any nation state, they are not protected by the international accords. Nor are the US citizens, and so our Constitutional rights do not strictly apply to them either. So, we could legally do anything we want with and to them. However, there are moral issues involved, as well as some potential legal ones, dependant on clarification by our legal system. Our moral issue is, of course, that we are the good guys, and we don't do the things that the bad guys do. And then there is the legal argument that even though the detainees are not US citizens, that they do have certain protected rights under our Constitution, since they are in US custody.

So, here we are, endlessly arguing about what we can do to these people (and still retain the moral high ground) and what we should do to these people to get what we need from them (valid information on their actions, organizations and personnel). What I don't understand is what prevents us (legally or otherwise) from using drugs and/or hypnosis? Given what we know and can do, I have a hard time understanding how drugs/hypnosis could be any less effective in obtaining information than "torture". While there is no "truth serum" as such, there are plenty of drugs out there that make you more than happy to talk about nearly everything, and I would think that any decent interrogater would be able to get much useful information, and do so with out all this argument about waterboarding, or anything else that could be described to be torture. Why don't we do this? Is there some legal reason (law? treaty?)

Of course, we could just keep them in a plywood box (just large enough not to be "torture", feed them nothing but cornflakes and water, and play an endless loop of Donnie & Marie singing "Puppy Love".

They would probably beg be waterboarded.

 

[Playboypenguin]

Of course, we could just keep them in a plywood box (just large enough not to be "torture", feed them nothing but cornflakes and water, and play an endless loop of Donnie & Marie singing "Puppy Love".

If you think that us torture you just have no appreciation of the finer things in life.

 

[STAGE 2]

Both the CIA and MI stress in there training that torture is not a reliable method of intelligence gathering and does more harm than good. I am giving you a first hand account.

A first hand account of what? Certianly not interrogation techniques. While I agree with you that torture in the classical sense is not a completely reliable method of information, waterboarding is not torture in the classical sense. If I were to call it anything (not that I agree with this) at most it is some sort of hybrid.

It is FAR too simplistic to just lump it in with traditional methods of torture and then say that its all a wash because the old methods are unreliable.

I would love to hear your first hand experience to the contrary.

I have no first hand experience at coercive interrogation unless you count cross examination. However from what I have been able to gather from this conversation, your experience is no more profound than mine. Sitting somewhere and having someone tell you that X doesn't work or that Y isn't reliable isn't first hand experience of anything.

But this begs the question, did the folks telling you this specifically mention waterboarding or did they just speak about torture generally.

I hate to break it to you...the intel committee works with the CIA and they understand very well the official stance of the CIA and they have clearly stated time and time again on TV news that torture is not only unaccptible but unreliable.

And the CIA doesn't consider waterboarding to be torture. Therefore, there is nothing incongruent about what you just wrote.

I love how your only defense is to say "these people have never done it" and offer nothing beyond that. You are trying to play the old..."all I have to do is keep denying it until someone pries my eyes open and force feeds me the information" game...pretty weak. It does not take much common sense or higher reasoning abilities to see through the value of torture. It is pretty eveident that a person will say whatever they have to say to get it to stop.

No, I've offered Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, Abu Zubayda and Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri. These three gentlemen were waterboarded, divulged truthful useful information directly as a result of waterboarding. There have been several CIA officials that have confirmed this fact.

You, on the contrary, are the one making the blanket unsupported assertions. All I've heard is that "this doesn't work". Well, it seems it does. I've also heard "all the top people agree it doesn't work". Yet you have refused to provide ANY source where ANY CIA agent/operative/official/spokesman has stated this.

In fact, all the director of the CIA has called this type of interrogation, an "irreplacable tool" in combatting terrorism. Thats about as "top" as you get.

As far as your treatise goes, from what little I read, its not really applicable. It doesn't address the subject of waterboarding at all. As such its not applicable to this conversation

I do not remember you answering my question...do you deny that I could get you to admit to a crime you did not commit if I was allowed to torture you until you did admit it? Do you not see how that very fact would make any and all information gathered from such techniques highly suspect?

I dont know. I suppose it depends on the person and what methods of torture you used. However this is neither here nor there. It is not my position that torture is reliable. It is my position that waterboarding has been effective. Something doesn't have to work 100% of the time to be effective.

However to address your specific point, even John McCain and other POW's admitted to finally releasing information to the Viet Cong after the torture they were put through. Everyone has their breaking point. And while I'm not advocating hooking anyone up to car batteries, since we are able to hold these terrorists indefinitely, the more coercive techniques we apply, the more true information we are going to get.

 

[nobody_special]

Unregistered, I love your sarcasm.

I am very concerned that some people in this country seem to find it acceptable to cause acute distress in someone who is in custody -- under complete control and thus helpless. Not only does the prisoner suffer, but harm is also done to the conscience of the interrogating parties. The moral consequences of going down this road are beyond troubling, they are heinous.

This is the sort of thing that is supposed to make us different from them. It's why we're the "good guys." And if the practice is continued, such tactics will be increasingly viewed as acceptable. Frankly, I don't want to live in a society which condones this sort of uncivilized behavior.

 

[nobody_special]

It is FAR too simplistic to just lump it in with traditional methods of torture and then say that its all a wash because the old methods are unreliable.

No, it really isn't too simplistic. Waterboarding works in the same way as other forms of torture: induce enough pain and fear to cause the subject to panic, and in his desire to cause the torture to end, divulge information. The problem is, there's no way to guarantee the accuracy of information obtained from someone in a panic and under threat.

 

[Playboypenguin]

Sure you could. However as a US citizen, I have rights that a foreign terrorist, picked up in a foreign country, and held in a foreign prison doesn't have.

How in the world do you rationalize that having rights they do not have changes the outcome of torture???

When people are tortured they will tell you anything. That makes the information worthless. Plus, it destroys your own credibilty not to mention the effect it has on the mindset of the people doing the torture.

Did you read the link I provided you?

 

[STAGE 2]

How in the world do you rationalize that having rights they do not have changes the outcome of torture???

When people are tortured they will tell you anything. That makes the information worthless. Plus, it destroys your own credibilty not to mention the effect it has on the mindset of the people doing the torture.

Did you read the link I provided you?

I edited my post, and I did read your link. Again, it says nothing about waterboarding.

You can't use something that does not address a topic and hold up the absence of that topic as support for your position. That is a fallacy.

 

[Playboypenguin]

Good lord...the whole thing discusses the use of torture and the fact that it is not an effective tool. So now you want to play a game of semantics. I have given you my personal experiences and backed it up with govt studies and opinions of noted experts but you chose to believe what you want to believe despite your lack of personal experience or valid information. Now you are just living in a state of deliberate ignorance and denial in which neither I, nor anyone else, could possibly reach you.

 

[STAGE 2]

This is the sort of thing that is supposed to make us different from them. It's why we're the "good guys." And if the practice is continued, such tactics will be increasingly viewed as acceptable. Frankly, I don't want to live in a society which condones this sort of uncivilized behavior.

Then our nation should be thankful that there are people willing to get some dirt under their fingernails so that the rest of us can continue on believing the notion that you can deal with evil people with white gloves.

No, it really isn't too simplistic. Waterboarding works in the same way as other forms of torture: induce enough pain and fear to cause the subject to panic, and in his desire to cause the torture to end, divulge information. The problem is, there's no way to guarantee the accuracy of information obtained from someone in a panic and under threat.

Read what you just wrote. Waterboarding does not cause pain. It is a psychological response designed to trick your brain into believing you're drowning. This is no doubt frightening, however it is painless. There is no physical injury. This is what separates waterboarding from torture.

As far as accuracy goes, there are plenty of ways to guarantee its accuracy. Like I said, these people aren't going anywhere. If the info turns out to be false, then back to the dunk tank they go. However, the reports suggest that the information obtained by waterboarding is effective and truthful.

I have yet to see anyone present any specific evidence to contradict this. "It doesn't work" isn't evidence.

 

[Playboypenguin]

deleted---no point in continuing this discussion with someone that just contradicts without basis.

 

[nobody_special]

Then our nation should be thankful that there are people willing to get some dirt under their fingernails so that the rest of us can continue on believing the notion that you can deal with evil people with white gloves.

That's a false dichotomy. First, these particular individuals are no longer a threat. Second, I never suggested that "white gloves" must be used on those who are a threat.

Read what you just wrote. Waterboarding does not cause pain. It is a psychological response designed to trick your brain into believing you're drowning. This is no doubt frightening, however it is painless. There is no physical injury. This is what separates waterboarding from torture.

Though I take some issue with your statement that this is painless (water up the nose, at the very least), it doesn't matter. The issue isn't, strictly speaking, pain. Making someone believe that they're drowning is essentially a threat of death, not too far removed from fake execution, which is also considered a form of torture.

As far as accuracy goes, there are plenty of ways to guarantee its accuracy. Like I said, these people aren't going anywhere. If the info turns out to be false, then back to the dunk tank they go.

That guarantees nothing; you could well just get another lie.

However, the reports suggest that the information obtained by waterboarding is effective and truthful. I have yet to see anyone present any specific evidence to contradict this. "It doesn't work" isn't evidence.

And the CIA destroyed the "evidence" that might have verified those reports. Oops... I don't find that claim to be credible, and I've seen no evidence for it's validity.