CIA Admits It Destroyed Tapes Of Harsh Interrogation

[chucky2]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: chucky2
No, I don't need to research it more. We've already discussed what we all need to know:

1.) Waterboard is effective on hardcore detainees we know to possess valuable intelligence information.

BULLSHIT! The vast majority of experts on terrorism agree that torture does not produce reliable results. The subject will always break, but they'll tell you anything you want them to say to stop the torture.

I suggest we subject chucky to waterboarding until he cracks and admits he's wrong. It should take no more than about ten seconds.

2.) As far as we know, no one in our care that has been subjected to physical harm when we waterboarded them.

BULLSHIT! Starting with "as far as we know..." we DON'T know because the CIA destroyed the tapes... the only tapes that existed... as far as we know. Then, there's this small matter that we DON'T know whether anyone in our < gag > "care" has suffered physical harm because the criminals doing the harm won't admit it, and they deleted the only tapes that exist to prove it... as far as we know.

3.) End of story.

BULLSHIT! This isn't going to go away, but considering how willing you are to trash the Constitutional rights guaranteed to all American citizens, you should consider giving up your citizenship and moving to some repressive dictatorship where I'm sure you'll feel right at home. As an American, YOU SUCK! :thumbsdown: :| :thumbsdown:

I see they fixed the Harvey filter so it could respond to this thread...looks like they fixed the BDS'er filter too....funny those were linked....

Chuck

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: chucky2
No, I don't need to research it more. We've already discussed what we all need to know:

1.) Waterboard is effective on hardcore detainees we know to possess valuable intelligence information.

BULLSHIT! The vast majority of experts on terrorism agree that torture does not produce reliable results. The subject will always break, but they'll tell you anything you want them to say to stop the torture.

I suggest we subject chucky to waterboarding until he cracks and admits he's wrong. It should take no more than about ten seconds.

2.) As far as we know, no one in our care that has been subjected to physical harm when we waterboarded them.

BULLSHIT! Starting with "as far as we know..." we DON'T know because the CIA destroyed the tapes... the only tapes that existed... as far as we know. Then, there's this small matter that we DON'T know whether anyone in our < gag > "care" has suffered physical harm because the criminals doing the harm won't admit it, and they deleted the only tapes that exist to prove it... as far as we know.

3.) End of story.

BULLSHIT! This isn't going to go away, but considering how willing you are to trash the Constitutional rights guaranteed to all American citizens, you should consider giving up your citizenship and moving to some repressive dictatorship where I'm sure you'll feel right at home. As an American, YOU SUCK! :thumbsdown: :| :thumbsdown:

1. Show us a single shred of evidence that information we got from the three scumbags we waterboarded was false. Go ahead.

2. Show us medical evidence waterboarding produces long term physical damage. Go ahead.

3. It's not end of story because you have yet to answer the challenge with anything other than conjecture and fluff. And your usual thoughtless copy and pasting to every reply.

Go ahead. Show us.

edit wow quoting is messed up bad

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: chucky2
No, I don't need to research it more. We've already discussed what we all need to know:

1.) Waterboard is effective on hardcore detainees we know to possess valuable intelligence information.

BULLSHIT! The vast majority of experts on terrorism agree that torture does not produce reliable results. The subject will always break, but they'll tell you anything you want them to say to stop the torture.

I suggest we subject chucky to waterboarding until he cracks and admits he's wrong. It should take no more than about ten seconds.

2.) As far as we know, no one in our care that has been subjected to physical harm when we waterboarded them.

BULLSHIT! Starting with "as far as we know..." we DON'T know because the CIA destroyed the tapes... the only tapes that existed... as far as we know. Then, there's this small matter that we DON'T know whether anyone in our < gag > "care" has suffered physical harm because the criminals doing the harm won't admit it, and they deleted the only tapes that exist to prove it... as far as we know.

3.) End of story.

BULLSHIT! This isn't going to go away, but considering how willing you are to trash the Constitutional rights guaranteed to all American citizens, you should consider giving up your citizenship and moving to some repressive dictatorship where I'm sure you'll feel right at home. As an American, YOU SUCK! :thumbsdown: :| :thumbsdown:

1. Show us a single shred of evidence that information we got from the three scumbags we waterboarded was false. Go ahead.

2. Show us medical evidence waterboarding produces long term physical damage. Go ahead.

3. It's not end of story because you have yet to answer the challenge with anything other than conjecture and fluff. And your usual thoughtless copy and pasting to every reply.

Go ahead. Show us.

edit wow quoting is messed up bad

You can't show a moral leper anything to do with morality any more than you can show a blind person colors. You are morally blind.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: chucky2
No, I don't need to research it more. We've already discussed what we all need to know:

1.) Waterboard is effective on hardcore detainees we know to possess valuable intelligence information.

BULLSHIT! The vast majority of experts on terrorism agree that torture does not produce reliable results. The subject will always break, but they'll tell you anything you want them to say to stop the torture.

I suggest we subject chucky to waterboarding until he cracks and admits he's wrong. It should take no more than about ten seconds.

2.) As far as we know, no one in our care that has been subjected to physical harm when we waterboarded them.

BULLSHIT! Starting with "as far as we know..." we DON'T know because the CIA destroyed the tapes... the only tapes that existed... as far as we know. Then, there's this small matter that we DON'T know whether anyone in our < gag > "care" has suffered physical harm because the criminals doing the harm won't admit it, and they deleted the only tapes that exist to prove it... as far as we know.

3.) End of story.

BULLSHIT! This isn't going to go away, but considering how willing you are to trash the Constitutional rights guaranteed to all American citizens, you should consider giving up your citizenship and moving to some repressive dictatorship where I'm sure you'll feel right at home. As an American, YOU SUCK! :thumbsdown: :| :thumbsdown:

1. Show us a single shred of evidence that information we got from the three scumbags we waterboarded was false. Go ahead.

2. Show us medical evidence waterboarding produces long term physical damage. Go ahead.

3. It's not end of story because you have yet to answer the challenge with anything other than conjecture and fluff. And your usual thoughtless copy and pasting to every reply.

Go ahead. Show us.

edit wow quoting is messed up bad

You can't show a moral leper anything to do with morality any more than you can show a blind person colors. You are morally blind.

Wow. Very insightful post there. As usual, zero substance. If you cant answer, throw the morality card? lol sucks to be you.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Harvey
Topic Title: CIA Admits It Destroyed Tapes Of Harsh Interrogation
Topic Summary: Who's Watching Over Who's Watching Over You?

The Bushwhackos are LIARS, MURDERERS and TRAITORS.

OP

Do you have a theory on why this GOP administration is able to get away with all this?

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: chucky2
No, I don't need to research it more. We've already discussed what we all need to know:

1.) Waterboard is effective on hardcore detainees we know to possess valuable intelligence information.

BULLSHIT! The vast majority of experts on terrorism agree that torture does not produce reliable results. The subject will always break, but they'll tell you anything you want them to say to stop the torture.

I suggest we subject chucky to waterboarding until he cracks and admits he's wrong. It should take no more than about ten seconds.

2.) As far as we know, no one in our care that has been subjected to physical harm when we waterboarded them.

BULLSHIT! Starting with "as far as we know..." we DON'T know because the CIA destroyed the tapes... the only tapes that existed... as far as we know. Then, there's this small matter that we DON'T know whether anyone in our < gag > "care" has suffered physical harm because the criminals doing the harm won't admit it, and they deleted the only tapes that exist to prove it... as far as we know.

3.) End of story.

BULLSHIT! This isn't going to go away, but considering how willing you are to trash the Constitutional rights guaranteed to all American citizens, you should consider giving up your citizenship and moving to some repressive dictatorship where I'm sure you'll feel right at home. As an American, YOU SUCK! :thumbsdown: :| :thumbsdown:

1. Show us a single shred of evidence that information we got from the three scumbags we waterboarded was false. Go ahead.

2. Show us medical evidence waterboarding produces long term physical damage. Go ahead.

3. It's not end of story because you have yet to answer the challenge with anything other than conjecture and fluff. And your usual thoughtless copy and pasting to every reply.

Go ahead. Show us.

edit wow quoting is messed up bad

You can't show a moral leper anything to do with morality any more than you can show a blind person colors. You are morally blind.

Wow. Very insightful post there. As usual, zero substance. If you cant answer, throw the morality card? lol sucks to be you.

You are another brick in the wall.....

You have no insight and can't be reached by any. When you find a turd on the lawn you don't try to argue with it, you just pitch it in the garbage or behind a bush somewhere until it decomposes into something useful.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

1. Show us a single shred of evidence that information we got from the three scumbags we waterboarded was false. Go ahead.

2. Show us medical evidence waterboarding produces long term physical damage. Go ahead.

3. It's not end of story because you have yet to answer the challenge with anything other than conjecture and fluff. And your usual thoughtless copy and pasting to every reply.

Go ahead. Show us.

edit wow quoting is messed up bad

1.) How would anyone go about doing what you asked? They don't release what information they got from him. That's the stupidest question I've seen in this thread yet, and that's not easily done. You're just willing to take their word for it that what they did was A-OK, and it had to be done. Amazingly enough, CIA interrogators aren't willing to come out and say "not only did we commit a federal crime, but it was a waste of time to boot!" Shocking. Strangely enough, this doesn't bother you one bit.

2.) No problem. Oh, and I know you don't consider severe psychological damage to be a problem, but just in case you've decided to become human in the last few hours here's a good article that has in it a description of the mental effects. in the New Yorker. Of course I'm just waiting for you to come back and say "okay, now prove that OUR waterboarding does this!" Which is a horrible argument and you know it.

Your argument seems to mostly consist of trusting government agencies when they tell you that they didn't do anything wrong while they were operating with no oversight. (!?!?!?!!?!!!?!)

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

1. Show us a single shred of evidence that information we got from the three scumbags we waterboarded was false. Go ahead.

Let's start with the fact that TORTURE IS ILLEGAL. The use of torture violates the laws of the United States of America, international laws and our legally binding obligations under the Geneva Conventions.

Moving on to your request for "a single shred of evidence"... Unless YOU are one of the torturers, we don't have any direct knowledge of what those toturtured prisoners said. What we do know is that the vast majority of experts on terrorism state that any "information" derived from torture is unreliable because the person being tortured will say anything to stop the immediate acts of torture to which he is being subjected. Since moral dwarfs and ethical midgets like you support the ILLEGAL acts of your TRAITOR IN CHIEF and his criminal cabal of MURDERERS, TORURERS and TRAITORS, here's that "single shred of evidence" you asked for. Remember, you only asked for "a single shred," not an encyclopedia:

CIA's Harsh Interrogation Techniques Described
Sources Say Agency's Tactics Lead to Questionable Confessions, Sometimes to Death

By BRIAN ROSS and RICHARD ESPOSITO
Nov. 18, 2005

Harsh interrogation techniques authorized by top officials of the CIA have led to questionable confessions and the death of a detainee since the techniques were first authorized in mid-March 2002, ABC News has been told by former and current intelligence officers and supervisors.

They say they are revealing specific details of the techniques, and their impact on confessions, because the public needs to know the direction their agency has chosen. All gave their accounts on the condition that their names and identities not be revealed. Portions of their accounts are corrobrated by public statements of former CIA officers and by reports recently published that cite a classified CIA Inspector General's report.
.
.
The techniques are controversial among experienced intelligence agency and military interrogators. Many feel that a confession obtained this way is an unreliable tool. Two experienced officers have told ABC that there is little to be gained by these techniques that could not be more effectively gained by a methodical, careful, psychologically based interrogation. According to a classified report prepared by the CIA Inspector General John Helgerwon and issued in 2004, the techniques "appeared to constitute cruel, and degrading treatment under the (Geneva) convention," the New York Times reported on Nov. 9, 2005.

It is "bad interrogation. I mean you can get anyone to confess to anything if the torture's bad enough," said former CIA officer Bob Baer.

Larry Johnson, a former CIA officer and a deputy director of the State Department's office of counterterrorism, recently wrote in the Los Angeles Times, "What real CIA field officers know firsthand is that it is better to build a relationship of trust ? than to extract quick confessions through tactics such as those used by the Nazis and the Soviets."

One argument in favor of their use: time. In the early days of al Qaeda captures, it was hoped that speeding confessions would result in the development of important operational knowledge in a timely fashion.

However, ABC News was told that at least three CIA officers declined to be trained in the techniques before a cadre of 14 were selected to use them on a dozen top al Qaeda suspects in order to obtain critical information. In at least one instance, ABC News was told that the techniques led to questionable information aimed at pleasing the interrogators and that this information had a significant impact on U.S. actions in Iraq'

According to CIA sources, Ibn al Shaykh al Libbi, after two weeks of enhanced interrogation, made statements that were designed to tell the interrogators what they wanted to hear. Sources say Al Libbi had been subjected to each of the progressively harsher techniques in turn and finally broke after being water boarded and then left to stand naked in his cold cell overnight where he was doused with cold water at regular intervals.

His statements became part of the basis for the Bush administration claims that Iraq trained al Qaeda members to use biochemical weapons. Sources tell ABC that it was later established that al Libbi had no knowledge of such training or weapons and fabricated the statements because he was terrified of further harsh treatment.

"This is the problem with using the waterboard. They get so desperate that they begin telling you what they think you want to hear," one source said.

Originally posted by: blackangst1

2. Show us medical evidence waterboarding produces long term physical damage. Go ahead.

Are you an MD? If not, I'll take the word of the Physicians for Human Rights in this report over your know nothing sycophantic blather. I left the footnote numbers in place so you want to pursue the sources if you want to refute them:

LEAVE NO MARKS
Enhanced Interrogation Techniques and the Risk of Criminality
August 2007
.
.
(p. 3)

Some of the enhanced techniques, particularly waterboarding, hitting, induced hypothermia, and stress positions are capable of causing ?severe? or ?serious? physical pain and suffering, the intentional infliction of which violates the ?torture? and ?cruel or inhuman treatment? provisions of the WCA. Each of the techniques can also cause significant psychological harm. According to one recent study, in fact, the significance of the harm caused by non-physical, psychological abuse is virtually identical to the significance of the harm caused by physical abuse.21
.
.
(p. 5)

Defenders of the use of severely coercive treatment in interrogation settings argue that such techniques are ?aggressive? and ?tough? but not particularly harmful. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld was reported to dismiss concerns about the use of prolonged standing by noting that he himself spent most of the day standing at a desk.29 Others have compared some permitted sexualized techniques to those used by college fraternities in hazing practices.30 Some have even ?tested? techniques such as waterboarding under controlled conditions and falsely concluded that the technique is not that harmful.31 Such arguments fail to acknowledge the actual context in which abuse takes place and the cumulative effects associated with the use of multiple techniques of interrogation. Moreover, they ignore the fact that these techniques have been historically designed and used by the CIA and other U.S. personnel to cause states of debility, dependency and dread in the detainee.

In fact, an extensive body of medical and psychological literature and experience with victims of torture and abuse show that although ?enhanced? interrogation techniques may not result in visible scars, they often cause severe and long-lasting physical and mental harm. This is directly related to the purpose of these techniques: to ?break? detainees, mentally and physically.32 The medical consequences of such abuse have been well documented through years of research and treatment of survivors of violence and severe trauma.33 According to a recent study, abuse during captivity that does not emphasize physical pain ? such as psychological manipulation, forms of deprivation, humiliation and stress positions ? causes as much mental pain and traumatic stress as does torture designed to inflict physical pain.34
.
.
(p. 17)

4. Waterboarding (mock drowning)
.
.
The United States has historically prosecuted waterboarding as a war crime: in 1947, the United States convicted a Japanese military officer of a war crime and sentenced him to fifteen years of hard labor for using a form of waterboarding against a U.S. civilian.139
.
.
(p. 18)

Physical Pain or Suffering

During ?simulated? drowning, hypoxia (shortage of oxygen in the body) caused by deprivation of adequate oxygen can and probably does occur. At the same time, a dramatic physiologic stress response, with tachycardia (rapid heart beat), hyperventilation (rapid respiratory rate) and labored breathing (airway obstruction and breathlessness) is almost unavoidable. The stress resulting from this technique could induce the obstruction of blood flow to the heart (cardiac ischemia) or irregular heart beat (arrhythmia) in vulnerable individuals. Brief oxygen deprivation can cause neurological damage.

Complications of near asphyxiation include bleeding into the skin (known as petechiae), nosebleeds, bleeding from the ears, congestion of the face, infections of the mouth, and acute or chronic respiratory problems. 145 Studies show that even more than a decade after the event, survivors of suffocation torture continue to suffer from pain in the back and head.146 Breathing fluid into the lungs can result in aspiration pneumonia which can be fatal.

Mental Pain or Suffering

Studies indicate that simulated drowning ? calculated as it is to ?disrupt profoundly the senses?? can also cause severe psychological harm, in violation of the ?torture? and ?cruel or inhuman treatment? provisions of the WCA.147 The experience of near-suffocation is also associated with the development of predominantly respiratory panic attacks, high levels of depressive symptoms,148 and prolonged posttraumatic stress disorder.149 This literature is consistent with clinical experience: clinicians who treat torture survivors at the Bellevue/NYU Program for Survivors of Torture have observed that survivors of water torture and other orms of near-asphyxiation suffer from long-lasting trauma. 150
.
.
Medical findings suggest that waterboarding results in both ?severe? and ?serious? mental pain and suffering as defined by the WCA and the Torture Act. Studies suggest that waterboarding and other forms of torture by suffocation have been found to result in both ?prolonged? and ?non-transitory mental harm,? such as posttraumatic stress disorder. Waterboarding is designed to create the sensation of drowning and thus is likely ?calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or the personality.?157
.
.
(p. 43)

Appendix B: Overview of the Medical Consequences of Torture and Cruel Treatment
.
.
(p. 45)

Physical Consequences

Empirical evidence has shown that the most important physical consequences in torture survivors involve pain in multiple sites that is long-lasting. Most frequent pains experienced by the survivors are in the head, neck, shoulder girdle, and the lower back.359 These disabilities often remain years after release from detention and limit the survivors? capacity to do anything other than light work. These pains have been associated with beating and painful stress positions, and confinement in cramped, damp, unsanitary conditions.360

It must be noted that torture is often designed to maximize stress and physical pain without causing serious physical injury or death. In advocating for various aggressive interrogation procedures, a working group established in the Department of Defense by Secretary Donald Rumsfeld argued that the removal of prisoners? clothing would create ?a feeling of helplessness and dependence? and that slapping a prisoner ? ?a quick glancing slap to the fleshy part of the cheek or stomach? ? could be useful ?as shock measures.? 361

It is important to note that, ?the absence of ? physical evidence should not be construed to suggest that torture did not occur, since such acts of violence against persons frequently leave no marks or permanent scars.?362

Originally posted by: blackangst1

3. It's not end of story because you have yet to answer the challenge with anything other than conjecture and fluff. And your usual thoughtless copy and pasting to every reply.

Go ahead. Show us.

The end of the story is that torture, including waterboarding, is ILLEGAL, IMMORAL and INEFFECTIVE. Unless you can prove you have the expertise and the experience to challenge those facts, you can always volunteer to be waterboarded to prove it didn't damage YOU.

Why do I suspect you're too chickenshit to do that? :roll:

Go ahead. Show us. :thumbsdown: :| :thumbsdown:

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: blackangst1

1. Show us a single shred of evidence that information we got from the three scumbags we waterboarded was false. Go ahead.

2. Show us medical evidence waterboarding produces long term physical damage. Go ahead.

3. It's not end of story because you have yet to answer the challenge with anything other than conjecture and fluff. And your usual thoughtless copy and pasting to every reply.

Go ahead. Show us.

edit wow quoting is messed up bad

1.) How would anyone go about doing what you asked? They don't release what information they got from him. That's the stupidest question I've seen in this thread yet, and that's not easily done. You're just willing to take their word for it that what they did was A-OK, and it had to be done. Amazingly enough, CIA interrogators aren't willing to come out and say "not only did we commit a federal crime, but it was a waste of time to boot!" Shocking. Strangely enough, this doesn't bother you one bit.

2.) No problem. Oh, and I know you don't consider severe psychological damage to be a problem, but just in case you've decided to become human in the last few hours here's a good article that has in it a description of the mental effects. in the New Yorker. Of course I'm just waiting for you to come back and say "okay, now prove that OUR waterboarding does this!" Which is a horrible argument and you know it.

Your argument seems to mostly consist of trusting government agencies when they tell you that they didn't do anything wrong while they were operating with no oversight. (!?!?!?!!?!!!?!)

1. These rhetorical questions are asked almost on a daily basis on this board. I dont think it's an unusual request. With as much publicity as this subject has gotten, I would think some statement somewhere would have been made about false statements made by the 3 asshats we have admittedly waterboarded. But, alas, all we have is statements made to the opposite. Not a good argument for you softies. Sorry. Burden of proof is on you, and you have nothing but speculation.

2. Per the article you linked, "Long term effects included panic attacks, depression, and PTSD". Gimme a break. Big fucking deal. Oohhhh we hurt his feelings!

My argument has not so much with trusting gov't agencies as much as it does the facts we have available to us. And the facts are, it got positive results. And there is no evidence whatsoever it has happened on a widespread scale, or more than the three times admitted by the CIA. Again, the rest is SPECULATION. Which is a very weak argument.

Do I get all excited about torturing anyone willey-nilley? Hell no. But, at least in the cases provided, it was a last minute last resort effort-that worked.

We can agree to disagree on this last stement, but there are MANY things that the public just doesnt need to know. I agree our government should be accountable to it's people, but there are some things we hire to them to do and we really dont want to know about it. Issues like these are one of them. For poeple like you who claim all this damage that *may* have been done to the motherfuckers we used waterboarding on, your sympathy is a joke. These poeple dont respond to please and thank you. They dont respond to pats on the back. We try niceties first, and we got nada. You just dont understand they think differently than we do.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

1. These rhetorical questions are asked almost on a daily basis on this board. I dont think it's an unusual request. With as much publicity as this subject has gotten, I would think some statement somewhere would have been made about false statements made by the 3 asshats we have admittedly waterboarded. But, alas, all we have is statements made to the opposite. Not a good argument for you softies. Sorry. Burden of proof is on you, and you have nothing but speculation.

2. Per the article you linked, "Long term effects included panic attacks, depression, and PTSD". Gimme a break. Big fucking deal. Oohhhh we hurt his feelings!

My argument has not so much with trusting gov't agencies as much as it does the facts we have available to us. And the facts are, it got positive results. And there is no evidence whatsoever it has happened on a widespread scale, or more than the three times admitted by the CIA. Again, the rest is SPECULATION. Which is a very weak argument.

Do I get all excited about torturing anyone willey-nilley? Hell no. But, at least in the cases provided, it was a last minute last resort effort-that worked.

We can agree to disagree on this last stement, but there are MANY things that the public just doesnt need to know. I agree our government should be accountable to it's people, but there are some things we hire to them to do and we really dont want to know about it. Issues like these are one of them. For poeple like you who claim all this damage that *may* have been done to the motherfuckers we used waterboarding on, your sympathy is a joke. These poeple dont respond to please and thank you. They dont respond to pats on the back. We try niceties first, and we got nada. You just dont understand they think differently than we do.

1.) So you are saying that a request for evidence was a rhetorical request for evidence? This is extremely confusing. You expect government agencies to report the failures of the illegal things they are doing. Strange.

That all being said though, pulitzer prize winning journalist Ron Suskind wrote a book on this, and here's what he had to say about the prevalence of false statements given under torture (and the incredible amount of wasted manpower because of them from the WaPo review)

They strapped Abu Zubaydah to a water-board, which reproduces the agony of drowning. They threatened him with certain death. They withheld medication. They bombarded him with deafening noise and harsh lights, depriving him of sleep. Under that duress, he began to speak of plots of every variety -- against shopping malls, banks, supermarkets, water systems, nuclear plants, apartment buildings, the Brooklyn Bridge, the Statue of Liberty. With each new tale, "thousands of uniformed men and women raced in a panic to each . . . target." And so, Suskind writes, "the United States would torture a mentally disturbed man and then leap, screaming, at every word he uttered."

Guess how many of those plots turned out to be real? There's your false info big guy. Shocking.

2.) You also don't understand PTSD apparently if you're willing to shrug it off. That's really disturbing to me. I did notice that you conveniently ignored the parts about lung and brain damage though.

3.) Nothing in anything I have read says that we tried "niceties" first on these people. Do you have some sort of evidence showing that conventional interrogation techniques (that have worked against the most hardened insurgents incredibly well in the past) somehow didn't work on these 'super terrorists', thus necessitating torturing them?

Your continuing mischaracterization of what real, professional interrogation methods are like must either come from complete ignorance of the subject, or from a desire to willfully mischaracterize them. Either way I'm not impressed. I am quite impressed by your apparent deep psychological understanding of the Super Terrorists however where you somehow know that they don't think like we do, or that they are somehow immune to all but the harshest torture. Can you please link the psychological profiles and examinations that you are using to make these incredible assertions?

EDIT: Quotes

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: blackangst1

1. These rhetorical questions are asked almost on a daily basis on this board. I dont think it's an unusual request. With as much publicity as this subject has gotten, I would think some statement somewhere would have been made about false statements made by the 3 asshats we have admittedly waterboarded. But, alas, all we have is statements made to the opposite. Not a good argument for you softies. Sorry. Burden of proof is on you, and you have nothing but speculation.

2. Per the article you linked, "Long term effects included panic attacks, depression, and PTSD". Gimme a break. Big fucking deal. Oohhhh we hurt his feelings!

My argument has not so much with trusting gov't agencies as much as it does the facts we have available to us. And the facts are, it got positive results. And there is no evidence whatsoever it has happened on a widespread scale, or more than the three times admitted by the CIA. Again, the rest is SPECULATION. Which is a very weak argument.

Do I get all excited about torturing anyone willey-nilley? Hell no. But, at least in the cases provided, it was a last minute last resort effort-that worked.

We can agree to disagree on this last stement, but there are MANY things that the public just doesnt need to know. I agree our government should be accountable to it's people, but there are some things we hire to them to do and we really dont want to know about it. Issues like these are one of them. For poeple like you who claim all this damage that *may* have been done to the motherfuckers we used waterboarding on, your sympathy is a joke. These poeple dont respond to please and thank you. They dont respond to pats on the back. We try niceties first, and we got nada. You just dont understand they think differently than we do.

1.) So you are saying that a request for evidence was a rhetorical request for evidence? This is extremely confusing. You expect government agencies to report the failures of the illegal things they are doing. Strange.

That all being said though, pulitzer prize winning journalist Ron Suskind wrote a book on this, and here's what he had to say about the prevalence of false statements given under torture (and the incredible amount of wasted manpower because of them from the WaPo review)

They strapped Abu Zubaydah to a water-board, which reproduces the agony of drowning. They threatened him with certain death. They withheld medication. They bombarded him with deafening noise and harsh lights, depriving him of sleep. Under that duress, he began to speak of plots of every variety -- against shopping malls, banks, supermarkets, water systems, nuclear plants, apartment buildings, the Brooklyn Bridge, the Statue of Liberty. With each new tale, "thousands of uniformed men and women raced in a panic to each . . . target." And so, Suskind writes, "the United States would torture a mentally disturbed man and then leap, screaming, at every word he uttered."

Guess how many of those plots turned out to be real? There's your false info big guy. Shocking.

2.) You also don't understand PTSD apparently if you're willing to shrug it off. That's really disturbing to me. I did notice that you conveniently ignored the parts about lung and brain damage though.

3.) Nothing in anything I have read says that we tried "niceties" first on these people. Do you have some sort of evidence showing that conventional interrogation techniques (that have worked against the most hardened insurgents incredibly well in the past) somehow didn't work on these 'super terrorists', thus necessitating torturing them?

Your continuing mischaracterization of what real, professional interrogation methods are like must either come from complete ignorance of the subject, or from a desire to willfully mischaracterize them. Either way I'm not impressed. I am quite impressed by your apparent deep psychological understanding of the Super Terrorists however where you somehow know that they don't think like we do, or that they are somehow immune to all but the harshest torture. Can you please link the psychological profiles and examinations that you are using to make these incredible assertions?

EDIT: Quotes

The assertion that Abu Zubaydah is a "mentally disturbed man" is a joke. Do I think waterboarding has failed in the past? Of course. Do I think we have used inhumane methods in the past? Of course.

But for the sake of this thread we are talking about three individuals who are lower than humane. And in this case, it DID work. If it didnt, please provide the proof.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: blackangst1
The assertion that Abu Zubaydah is a "mentally disturbed man" is a joke. Do I think waterboarding has failed in the past? Of course. Do I think we have used inhumane methods in the past? Of course.

But for the sake of this thread we are talking about three individuals who are lower than humane. And in this case, it DID work. If it didnt, please provide the proof.

You asked for false statements, that is an example of false statements. Will you admit that you were wrong on that?

Again one of the primary arguments against torture is not that you won't get accurate information, but that it will be clouded by reams of inaccurate information. This would appear to be a perfect example.

Also torture shouldn't be dependent on who they are, it should be about who we are. Any decent human being should agree with that.

 

[RightIsWrong]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

But for the sake of this thread we are talking about three individuals who are lower than humane. And in this case, it DID work. If it didnt, please provide the proof.

You have been shown by a few posters that there was false information given by the subject and that it detracted valuable resources by sending them on wild goose chases.

Now, how about you show evidence that it ACTUALLY DID WORK!!

A link to a plot that was terminated or higher up marks captured as a direct result of the "testimony" gathered from waterboarding any of these three would be sufficient.

 

[Moonbeam]

What does it profit a man that he gain the world and lose his immortal soul. What does it profit a man that he life because he turned himself into a piece of shit. Virtue is it's own reward, and its only reward some smirk, but what a reward it is. A just and virtuous man is a King in this empty world and fills it with divine meaning. The evil man is a vain and empty ego that lives in fear of ego death.

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: Harvey
BULLSHIT! The vast majority of experts on terrorism agree that torture does not produce reliable results. The subject will always break, but they'll tell you anything you want them to say to stop the torture.

Absolutely true. It only makes sense that a subject will say ANYTHING to stop the "torture".

We will disagree vehemently about waterboarding being torture - I don't believe it is, and I think leaving it on the table (whether we actually use it or not) is a valuable weapon in our arsenal. But there is no question that information obtained from waterboarding is questionable at best and a very high probability that it is inaccurate.

One question for you though, Harvey. Let me put out a hypothetical. Let's say that you are the man in charge - the one who will have to say Yes or No when the request to use such techniques on a subject comes through. And let us say that you (yourself) have a high degree of confidence that the subject has knowledge that might save thousands (or more) American lives. Can you honestly say you would say No?

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: Harvey
BULLSHIT! The vast majority of experts on terrorism agree that torture does not produce reliable results. The subject will always break, but they'll tell you anything you want them to say to stop the torture.

Absolutely true. It only makes sense that a subject will say ANYTHING to stop the "torture".

We will disagree vehemently about waterboarding being torture - I don't believe it is, and I think leaving it on the table (whether we actually use it or not) is a valuable weapon in our arsenal.

You also disagree with every opinion publicly I've seen or heard stated by every expert on terrorism and interrogation since this grusome fiasco began.

One question for you though, Harvey. Let me put out a hypothetical. Let's say that you are the man in charge - the one who will have to say Yes or No when the request to use such techniques on a subject comes through. And let us say that you (yourself) have a high degree of confidence that the subject has knowledge that might save thousands (or more) American lives. Can you honestly say you would say No?

Yes, I can honestly say I would say, no.

Even if it weren't ILLEGAL, both under U.S. and international law, it would still be wasting precious time because I could have confidence in getting a response, but there would be no way to know if the "information" obtained would be true or useful in any way. In fact, a well trained terrorist would probably try to concoct the most plausible story he could invent that would send our guys in the wrong direction.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

Originally posted by: blackangst1

But for the sake of this thread we are talking about three individuals who are lower than humane. And in this case, it DID work. If it didnt, please provide the proof.

You have been shown by a few posters that there was false information given by the subject and that it detracted valuable resources by sending them on wild goose chases.

Now, how about you show evidence that it ACTUALLY DID WORK!!

A link to a plot that was terminated or higher up marks captured as a direct result of the "testimony" gathered from waterboarding any of these three would be sufficient.

Re-read the article. It's provided.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

But for the sake of this thread we are talking about three individuals who are lower than humane. And in this case, it DID work. If it didnt, please provide the proof.

If you're talking about the article by John Kiriakou, the CIA agent who reported the waterboarding of Abu Zubayda, you don't know that, regardless of what the article said. Kiriakou has explicitly denied that he participated in the waterboarding or that he was even present at the interrogation. He's not an eye witness. He only said he was informed about what happened.

We have the report of one guy with unknown and possibly mixed motives telling the story he wants made public, and nothing more.

 

[RightIsWrong]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

Originally posted by: blackangst1

But for the sake of this thread we are talking about three individuals who are lower than humane. And in this case, it DID work. If it didnt, please provide the proof.

You have been shown by a few posters that there was false information given by the subject and that it detracted valuable resources by sending them on wild goose chases.

Now, how about you show evidence that it ACTUALLY DID WORK!!

A link to a plot that was terminated or higher up marks captured as a direct result of the "testimony" gathered from waterboarding any of these three would be sufficient.

Re-read the article. It's provided.

There is absolutely nothing in that article in the OP that states a single person or threat that was captured or mitigated because of the torture tactics.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: Harvey
BULLSHIT! The vast majority of experts on terrorism agree that torture does not produce reliable results. The subject will always break, but they'll tell you anything you want them to say to stop the torture.

Absolutely true. It only makes sense that a subject will say ANYTHING to stop the "torture".

We will disagree vehemently about waterboarding being torture - I don't believe it is, and I think leaving it on the table (whether we actually use it or not) is a valuable weapon in our arsenal. But there is no question that information obtained from waterboarding is questionable at best and a very high probability that it is inaccurate.

One question for you though, Harvey. Let me put out a hypothetical. Let's say that you are the man in charge - the one who will have to say Yes or No when the request to use such techniques on a subject comes through. And let us say that you (yourself) have a high degree of confidence that the subject has knowledge that might save thousands (or more) American lives. Can you honestly say you would say No?

I think that in such a case the person making that decision should make it pubic and with the assurance he will pay the full legal price for what he does. He can go ahead and do the torture but must be shot right after for treason. This will assure that only those with a real degree of confidence that the subject has knowledge that might save thousands and a real degree of concern for those thousands of lives will torture anybody. It will also provide the standard to our enemies as to what kind of torture requirements we demand from them torturing our prisoners.