Authoritative report documents US torture

[Craig234]

I have the impression many here are not familiar with the report that recently came out investigating torture and strongly concluding it was widely used by the US.

This is the Constitution Project's report. While I am skeptical of a lot of bi-partian things in today's climate, this report was appropriately so. It was co-chaired by Asa Hutchinson, a former Republican Congressman and US Attorney, and Homeland Security official; one of the members was William Sessions, FBI Director for three presidents of both parties.

Link to the report:

http://detaineetaskforce.org/

Article about the report:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dan-froomkin/torture-report-obama-media_b_3099792.html

Among its findins are that torture was widely used; that US leadership bears responsibility; that the US did not meet its legal oblications to criminalize and prevent torture.

There are several other findings as well, such as our diplomatic promises detainees would not be mistreated were not kept, and that the laywers approving torture were wrong.

Everyone should be familiar with the facts on this issue.

 

[Anarchist420]

I thought it was widely known that Bush had people waterboarded, beaten at Guantanamo Bay Prison, and that he was a blood thirsty war criminal who murdered more than 1mn innocent Iraqis and destabilized their country.

What is not so widely known is how Bush didn't seem to care about reports saying the attacks on 9/11/01 were to happen, if he didn't outright authorize them.

 

[Craig234]

I thought it was widely known that Bush had people waterboarded, beaten at Guantanamo Bay Prison, and that he was a blood thirsty war criminal who murdered more than 1mn innocent Iraqis and destabilized their country.

What is not so widely known is how Bush didn't seem to care about reports saying the attacks on 9/11/01 were to happen, if he didn't outright authorize them.

Bush's torture included a lot more than that.

But I don't call him 'bloodthirsty', I have called him a sociopath in my opinion.

I don't have a firm figure of the Iraqis killed, it's plausibly under a million, and far from all of them were killed by Bush; he has responsibility for most of the dsestabilization, though.

Bush was very negligent about the issue of Al Queda and terrorism, but I'm not convinced he could have done anything to stop the attacks - but he did not authorize them.

That is not an invitation for you to argue he authorized the attacks. That is a derail and not what this topic is about. Truther material is a poison not for my thread.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

That is not an invitation for you to argue he authorized the attacks. That is a derail and not what this topic is about. Truther material is a poison not for my thread.

Perhaps someone can help me. I'm looking for where Craig bought the forum so he can derail his own threads but forbid others from making points or asking questions he doesn't like.

 

[Anarchist420]

Perhaps someone can help me. I'm looking for where Craig bought the forum so he can derail his own threads but forbid others from making points or asking questions he doesn't like.

Thanks He has a point though and I shouldn't have done it... I expected to actually get called out for it on this new forum.

That is not an invitation for you to argue he authorized the attacks. That is a derail and not what this topic is about. Truther material is a poison not for my thread.

Sorry.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Thanks He has a point though and I shouldn't have done it... I expected to actually get called out for it on this new forum.

Sorry.

I appreciate your consideration. For me intent means a great deal. There are others which I believe are less than honest and have no right to call another out. Back to the topic

 

[ichy]

I refuse to buy into this ridiculous notion that torture is never acceptable. If the information gained from torturing one person like KSM saves dozens or hundreds of lives then it is absolutely worth it.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

Once again it seems I need to remind people to read this thread. Comments about the appropriateness of a topic or poster should not be made in threads.

I refuse to buy into this ridiculous notion that torture is never acceptable. If the information gained from torturing one person like KSM saves dozens or hundreds of lives then it is absolutely worth it.

Sure, it's easy to say this when it's the sort of situation that Jack Bauer seemed to find himself in every 5 minutes on "24". The problem is that most of the torture we undertook had absolutely nothing to do with these easy "ticking bomb" scenarios. We did it routinely, and usually not as a part of uncovering imminent threats.

 

[ichy]

Sure, it's easy to say this when it's the sort of situation that Jack Bauer seemed to find himself in every 5 minutes on "24". The problem is that most of the torture we undertook had absolutely nothing to do with these easy "ticking bomb" scenarios. We did it routinely, and usually not as a part of uncovering imminent threats.

Which is why I'm not in favor of torturing people willy-nilly. There's definite potential for a slippery slope and I don't think it's something that should in any way be routine. Even if it's not a "ticking time bomb" there are still situations where using pain to extract information could be useful though and if the intelligence payoff is big enough then the ends absolutely justify the means.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

Even if it's not a "ticking time bomb" there are still situations where using pain to extract information could be useful though and if the intelligence payoff is big enough then the ends absolutely justify the means.

Such as?

 

[John Liberty]

It's hard for me to imagine a circumstance that justifies torture as I define it. I would approve of things like waterboarding to discover the location of things like nerve gases, highly radioactive materials, and nuclear weapons if they are in the hands of persons willing to use them for terrorist attacks.

Techniques like thumbscrews, beatings, whippings, electrocution, limb breaking and the like I think would not be effective.

 

[Craig234]

It's hard for me to imagine a circumstance that justifies torture as I define it. I would approve of things like waterboarding to discover the location of things like nerve gases, highly radioactive materials, and nuclear weapons if they are in the hands of persons willing to use them for terrorist attacks.

Techniques like thumbscrews, beatings, whippings, electrocution, limb breaking and the like I think would not be effective.

I really try to separate the issue of the morality from the effectiveness. Once you say 'it doesn't work', morality is forgotten and the only question is, 'can it ever work'.

So it's very difficult to even discuss the issue of the effectiveness. But, let's say we can for a moment - the report I linked said 'it's not clear any important info was ever obtained from all the torture that was done'. Now, feel free to read the findings in my link on that, but let's not discuss effectiveness unless you have something pretty important to add on it.

What I've heard from the experts is that people will absolutely say anything to try to get the torture to stop at some point - but whether that's reliable info is another question.

In other words, if they think a name or location is wanted, they'll say 'A' name or location.

 

[davmat787]

Does anyone think that in those rare situations where "enhanced interrogation" is called for, it isn't simply outsourced to Jordan or Saudi Arabia so that we can say "see! we don't torture people!". I am referring to present day situations.

And of course they are very familiar with methods far more torturous than water boarding, the so called line we stop at.

So what is worse, doing it ourselves if deemed necessary, or farming it out to a far more inventive country just to say we kept our hands clean?

 

[Craig234]

Does anyone think that in those rare situations where "enhanced interrogation" is called for, it isn't simply outsourced to Jordan or Saudi Arabia so that we can say "see! we don't torture people!". I am referring to present day situations.

And of course they are very familiar with methods far more torturous than water boarding, the so called line we stop at.

So what is worse, doing it ourselves if deemed necessary, or farming it out to a far more inventive country just to say we kept our hands clean?

Read the reports. It documents and criticizes rendition, and points out that we don't 'stop at waterboarding', even if our media coverage does.

Reportedly it points out you're right, that Obama has continued practices of rendition that are one of his problems.

It recommends stopping rendition.

 

[davmat787]

Read the reports. It documents and criticizes rendition, and points out that we don't 'stop at waterboarding', even if our media coverage does.

Reportedly it points out you're right, that Obama has continued practices of rendition that are one of his problems.

It recommends stopping rendition.

I just don't think it is fair for the Obama administration to claim any sort of moral high ground if rendition is still going on. (Not sure if they have, but I do seem to recall a campaign promise in this regard.) Especially when you consider our partner countries have hundreds and hundreds of years of practice. No wonder prisoners shit their pants when threatened with a trip to Saudi Arabia.

 

[Craig234]

I just don't think it is fair for the Obama administration to claim any sort of moral high ground if rendition is still going on. (Not sure if they have, but I do seem to recall a campaign promise in this regard.) Especially when you consider our partner countries have hundreds and hundreds of years of practice. No wonder prisoners shit their pants when threatened with a trip to Saudi Arabia.

I wouldn't worry as much about the 'partisan comparison'. Obama has his wrongs also.

For what it's worth, Obama has taken a number of steps. He did issue an executive order just after he took office that ordered the closure of all CIA 'black sites', which were involved in the torture overseas. He also nullified all of the Bush administration legal rulings they obtained which gave authorization for torture.

In addition, he added a requirement that countries he does rendition to 'provide assurances torture will not take place'.

However, human rights' groups note the lack of transparency who is being sent, and the inability to get any information whether those assurances are being followed.

Here's one story on the topic, Politifact rating Obama 'compromise' on the issue, saying in some more detail what I summarized above:

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...promise/176/end-the-use-of-extreme-rendition/

 

[bshole]

I support torture under NO circumstances. I do not trust my government enough for that kind of power. In addition, I do not believe torture is in the least bit effective. It just makes our civilization barbaric.

While we wait for Dick Cheney, the Pentagon, or the CIA to release evidence that "enhanced interrogation techniques" produced useful, truthful intelligence that could not be obtained without torture, neuroscientists are weighing in on how likely torture is to elicit such information—and they are not impressed.
It's become the conventional wisdom that the tortured will say anything to make the torture stop, and that "anything" need not be truthful as long as it is what the torturers want to hear. But years worth of studies in neuroscience, as well as new research, suggest that there are, in addition, fundamental aspects of neurochemistry that increase the chance that information obtained under torture will not be truthful

http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2009/09/21/the-tortured-brain.html

• The military agency which actually provided advice on harsh interrogation techniques for use against terrorism suspects warned the Pentagon in 2002 that those techniques would produce "unreliable information."

• Army Field Manual 34-52 Chapter 1 says:
  "Experience indicates that the use of force is not necessary to gain the cooperation of sources for interrogation. Therefore, the use of force is a poor technique, as it yields unreliable results, may damage subsequent collection efforts, and can induce the source to say whatever he thinks the interrogator wants to hear."​

• A declassified FBI e-mail dated May 10, 2004, regarding interrogation at Guantanamo states "[we] explained to [the Department of Defense], FBI has been successful for many years obtaining confessions via non-confrontational interviewing techniques." (see also this)

• Brigadier General David R. Irvine, retired Army Reserve strategic intelligence officer who taught prisoner interrogation and military law for 18 years with the Sixth Army Intelligence School, says torture doesn't work

• The CIA's own Inspector General wrote that waterboarding was not "efficacious" in producing information

• A former FBI interrogator -- who interrogated Al Qaeda suspects -- says categorically that torture does not help collect intelligence. On the other hand he says that torture actually turns people into terrorists

http://georgewashington2.blogspot.com/2009/04/top-interrogation-experts-say-torture.html

 

[Craig234]

I support torture under NO circumstances. I do not trust my government enough for that kind of power. In addition, I do not believe torture is in the least bit effective. It just makes our civilization barbaric.

Isn't it hard to say that without it sounding like you WOULD approve it if it were effective?

 

[bshole]

I use the ineffective argument to convince others. I do not need it for myself. The barbarism of torture alone should be enough to convince everybody not to use it. For those whose moral compass allows for torture, the efficacy argument must be used.

Frankly I find it quite confusing to find the steadfast support of torture in the fundamentalist Christian camp. It makes no bit of sense of me.

White, evangelical Christians are both the majority of torture proponents, and the most likely to be cultural conservatives who vote Republican...

http://blog.reidreport.com/2009/05/pew-survey-finds-christians-back-lions.htm
l
Over half of evangelical Christians support torture.
http://www.pewforum.org/Politics-and-Elections/The-Religious-Dimensions-of-the-Torture-Debate.aspx

Scary, sad and depressing.

 

[Mxylplyx]

I refuse to buy into this ridiculous notion that torture is never acceptable. If the information gained from torturing one person like KSM saves dozens or hundreds of lives then it is absolutely worth it.

And how many innocent people, or people with no useful information, are we willing to allow be tortured for every one person with useful information to glean, and that is assuming that there are no other means of extracting the information, which is something widely disputed by many in the interrogation business?

5:1?

100:1?

Would you like to volunteer to be one of those innocents? Sucks, but somebody (besides me of course) has to take one for the team, right? I'm sure those being water boarded would be happy to know that it isn't really torture, so that drowning sensation isn't actually as bad as it seems at the time.

 

[smackababy]

And how many innocent people, or people with no useful information, are we willing to allow be tortured for every one person with useful information to glean, and that is assuming that there are no other means of extracting the information, which is something widely disputed by many in the interrogation business?

5:1?

100:1?

Would you like to volunteer to be one of those innocents? Sucks, but somebody (besides me of course) has to take one for the team, right? I'm sure those being water boarded would be happy to know that it isn't really torture, so that drowning sensation isn't actually as bad as it seems at the time.

Do you think we go around torturing everyone we see? Exactly how many innocent people do you think are / were in Gitmo? If you are a known associate of an organization whose primary target is CIVILIANS in the United States, guess what? You're not an innocent. You might have information that could lead to fewer deaths by the hands of previously mentioned organization. That is justification enough for me to stand behind enhanced interrogation techniques. We don't maim these guys. We don't use brutal, barbaric means to get information from them.

 

[woolfe9998]

I use the ineffective argument to convince others. I do not need it for myself. The barbarism of torture alone should be enough to convince everybody not to use it. For those whose moral compass allows for torture, the efficacy argument must be used.

Frankly I find it quite confusing to find the steadfast support of torture in the fundamentalist Christian camp. It makes no bit of sense of me.



http://blog.reidreport.com/2009/05/pew-survey-finds-christians-back-lions.htm
l
Over half of evangelical Christians support torture.
http://www.pewforum.org/Politics-and-Elections/The-Religious-Dimensions-of-the-Torture-Debate.aspx

Scary, sad and depressing.

In the hypothetical situation where using torture on one person averts a nuclear detonation that would kill 2 million people, would you support its use? I'm not concerned with how unlikely the hypothetical is. I'm testing your moral absolutism here.

 

[smackababy]

In the hypothetical situation where using torture on one person averts a nuclear detonation that would kill 2 million people, would you support its use? I'm not concerned with how unlikely the hypothetical is. I'm testing your moral absolutism here.

I understand you weren't asking me, but I'd support torture of thousands of people if it averted a nuclear device being acquired by a group that we reasonably suspect would use it.

 

[Craig234]

Do you think we go around torturing everyone we see?

No, But 'I didn't murder that other person' isn't much of a defense for murder.

Exactly how many innocent people do you think are / were in Gitmo?

The best estimates I've seen are about 90% - only 7 have been convicted. If memory serves, 600 have already been released, with fewer than 200 remaining and about half of them have been cleared for release - but Congress has blocked the fund for re-entry needed to release them.

If you are a known associate of an organization whose primary target is CIVILIANS in the United States, guess what? You're not an innocent. You might have information that could lead to fewer deaths by the hands of previously mentioned organization. That is justification enough for me to stand behind enhanced interrogation techniques. We don't maim these guys. We don't use brutal, barbaric means to get information from them.

Really, 'associate of an organization'. So, does that include a barber who cuts their hair, a milkman, someone who attends mosque with them, neighbors?

How long does this 'might have information' last? After five years in detention, is there still a mission about to launch they can expose?

How informed are you about the types of torture used and the harm done? I'm guessing not much at all?

So, you're happy for American prisoners to be tortured for information because they 'might' have information that ca save enemy lives, right?

I think it's an immoral position to support torture, including for military information.

There are scenarios that can be concocted that challenge that - like the 'imminent nuclear bomb' - that have never happened and are highly unlikely.

 

[bshole]

In the hypothetical situation where using torture on one person averts a nuclear detonation that would kill 2 million people, would you support its use?

I did not think I was equivocal with what I stated. I think it is a crime against humanity to have a government that condones torture under ANY circumstances. If individuals working for the government decide ON THEIR OWN AND AGAINST THE LAWS OF OUR NATION to torture in an attempt to save lives they may do so at their own legal peril. If their actions save the lives of millions of people, I am sure no jury in the world would convict them.

An act of torture perpetrated by a governmental official should always be a crime brought before a jury to decide if there were mitigating circumstances. The government official has GOT to have some skin in the game..... namely his own hide.