Waterboarding: sometimes it's necessary

[Sinsear]

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: eskimospy
And yet the veteran interrogator of 3 wars and 30 years that they brought in to clean up the Army's interrogators says that torture is stupid and pointless. In fact, he specifically mentioned the way these people operated as fit for 'amateurs'.

So... yeah.

but it worked, so yeah....

It worked? How? What did we learn using waterboarding that prevented another terrorist attack?

Oh, wait. It's classified. They can't tell us. I guess we have to take their work for it.

Yep; either that or you can apply for a job with the CIA, obtain a TS clearance for the right areas and you can find out for yourself. Until then, yes, you do have to take their word for it.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: eskimospy
And yet the veteran interrogator of 3 wars and 30 years that they brought in to clean up the Army's interrogators says that torture is stupid and pointless. In fact, he specifically mentioned the way these people operated as fit for 'amateurs'.

So... yeah.

but it worked, so yeah....

It worked? How? What did we learn using waterboarding that prevented another terrorist attack?

Oh, wait. It's classified. They can't tell us. I guess we have to take their work for it.

soooo only info that would prevent a terrorist attack is helpful? Read the article again junior.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: outriding

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: outriding

Originally posted by: blackangst1
I believe it DOES work.

Do you have any proof to back up that statement?

a quick google search says otherwise.

Text

Sure. A quick read of the OP will suffice lol. Get lost from top to here?

What really captured me was this:

Allah had visited him in his cell during the night and told him to cooperate

The man is off his rocker.

So .000001% of the time it works if the man you are torturing is a looney.

I believe in this case the success rate is 3/3. Not 1 in 100,000.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: blackangst1
And you dont think the lead who did this 10 part series is credible? Where's the evidence against him? A general who wasnt even there? Are you implying the positive results of this is all made up and lies? Where's your evidence?

So I'm taking that to mean that you have no reason whatsoever for what you said earlier about the colonel not being credible.

As for your source I do. You realize that the interview is coming from someone who is trying to justify behavior that he himself participated in, right? Can you see why his viewpoint might be somewhat self interested? He also implies a desperate timeframe that has no known historical precedent (that I am aware of) even in times of war, and what he says goes against the ideas of the overwhelming majority of professional interrogators.

The thing is, the guy you are quoting even says he doesn't think we should do it anymore, and freely admits to an atmosphere of panic in the CIA at the time they did it. That's not very persuasive evidence as to the soundness of his judgement.

Man, THAT sure sounds like a good reason to support something.

 

[outriding]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: outriding

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: outriding

Originally posted by: blackangst1
I believe it DOES work.

Do you have any proof to back up that statement?

a quick google search says otherwise.

Text

Sure. A quick read of the OP will suffice lol. Get lost from top to here?

What really captured me was this:

Allah had visited him in his cell during the night and told him to cooperate

The man is off his rocker.

So .000001% of the time it works if the man you are torturing is a looney.

I believe in this case the success rate is 3/3. Not 1 in 100,000.

Later in the interview.

Brian Ross: "Did it compromise American principles? Or did it save American lives? Or both?"

John Kiriakou: "I think both.

So we will never know if there was any good that came out of this.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: blackangst1
And you dont think the lead who did this 10 part series is credible? Where's the evidence against him? A general who wasnt even there? Are you implying the positive results of this is all made up and lies? Where's your evidence?

So I'm taking that to mean that you have no reason whatsoever for what you said earlier about the colonel not being credible.

As for your source I do. You realize that the interview is coming from someone who is trying to justify behavior that he himself participated in, right? Can you see why his viewpoint might be somewhat self interested? He also implies a desperate timeframe that has no known historical precedent (that I am aware of) even in times of war, and what he says goes against the ideas of the overwhelming majority of professional interrogators.

The thing is, the guy you are quoting even says he doesn't think we should do it anymore, and freely admits to an atmosphere of panic in the CIA at the time they did it. That's not very persuasive evidence as to the soundness of his judgement.

Man, THAT sure sounds like a good reason to support something.

But, he did say, it was the right thing at the right time, even though he had issues with it.

It worked. Period. It doesnt mean we use it often (which we dont) it just means WHEN we use it, it works. THATS undeniable.

 

[chucky2]

Originally posted by: outriding

Later in the interview.

Brian Ross: "Did it compromise American principles? Or did it save American lives? Or both?"

John Kiriakou: "I think both.

So we will never know if there was any good that came out of this.

Congratulations: You have just failed reading comprehension.

What Kiriakou said by both was that it both compromised American principles (what American would want to have to torture, unless absolutely necessary???), and it saved American lives.

So the good that came out of it was saved American lives (which means, torture worked), and the bad was that it compomised American principles (bad).

Chuck

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: blackangst1
...
Everyone is a perfect armchair quarterback.
...

And what the fuck do you think YOU'RE doing? Jesus Christ, get down off your high horse for a second and think about the fact that you're speaking out of your ass just as much as anyone else here. Have you been hiding the fact that you're an intelligence officer who specializes in interrogation techniques? Because otherwise, what you "believe" doesn't have what I'd call a lot of credibility.

The fact that professionals who actually have more responsibility than opening their big traps on the Internet are divided about the issue tells me it's worth a little debate. And the fact that people like you almost always talk about torture in terms of being "tough" with the bad guys makes me wonder about your motives. And while I don't think we have to keep our prisoners at the Waldorf or anything, I think there are moral lines that expediency alone does not provide a good enough reason for crossing.

But most of all, I hate this debate because it's so silly. Every time someone brings it up, it's like you guys just got done watching some bad TV show or movie and think that's what it takes to fight the bad guys. Real life isn't '24', but you wouldn't know it listening to this stupid-ass debate.

 

[Rainsford]

By the way, in the midst of imaging that Jack Bauer is going to save us all, I think the two most important points of the story here went unremarked. Beyond the actual torture itself, these points are really at the heart of the debate over waterboarding and other methods of "harsh interrogation".

The first thing worth noting is that, despite statements to the contrary, the waterboarding was NOT "necessary". The article says there was a sense of urgency post-9/11, and that justified the waterboarding, but it didn't say that waterboarding produced any useful information that couldn't have been obtained through other means. There was nothing gained from torturing anybody, it was an over-reaction based on a non-specific fear and poorly considered information. This is not a success of torture, this is a failure...we tortured this guy for no particular reason. No ticking time bomb was stopped, no hero was racing against the clock to avert disaster.

And that's the thing, that kind of scenario is way more likely than any movie plot scenario. That's the second thing worth noting, and it really ties into the first...what was said in the article, "What happens if we don't waterboard a person, and we don't get that nugget of information, and there's an attack". If that sentence doesn't scare the shit out of you, then I suggest you reach into your head and replace the 7-watt bulb that powers your brain. Like we needed any reminding, but real life is not TV. The ticking time bomb scenario is bullshit, we have someone who knows coming right out and telling us that. Intelligence doesn't work like that, there isn't some guy in a room who knows the code to disarm the nuke hidden in New York. It's fishing for information, trying to get as much of it as possible in the hope that some of it might be useful somehow. And that's exactly what that quote suggests, that waterboarding isn't for extracting life-or-death information you KNOW the prisoner has, but a technique to get information he MIGHT have. And if we're doing that, there is no reason not to approve it as a routine interrogation technique.

It's not that the slope is slippery so much as it is extremely steep. There is a very fine line with being OK with torture in extraordinary circumstances and being OK with it in most circumstances. Mostly because the "ticking time bomb" is a myth and intelligence work is almost all routine, and the policies and laws and ethical standards governing that work need to be adapted to REALITY, not the fantasy of some overly excitable Hollywood writer. All the more so because, as blackangst1 points out (and thoroughly fails to understand) is that we DON'T really know the extent to which the things being carried out in our name work. So if we just take it on faith that the secret benefits outweigh the very public costs, well, that just opens the door up for pretty much anything, doesn't it?

 

[chucky2]

Originally posted by: Rainsford
By the way, in the midst of imaging that Jack Bauer is going to save us all, I think the two most important points of the story here went unremarked. Beyond the actual torture itself, these points are really at the heart of the debate over waterboarding and other methods of "harsh interrogation".

The first thing worth noting is that, despite statements to the contrary, the waterboarding was NOT "necessary". The article says there was a sense of urgency post-9/11, and that justified the waterboarding, but it didn't say that waterboarding produced any useful information that couldn't have been obtained through other means. There was nothing gained from torturing anybody, it was an over-reaction based on a non-specific fear and poorly considered information. This is not a success of torture, this is a failure...we tortured this guy for no particular reason. No ticking time bomb was stopped, no hero was racing against the clock to avert disaster.

And that's the thing, that kind of scenario is way more likely than any movie plot scenario. That's the second thing worth noting, and it really ties into the first...what was said in the article, "What happens if we don't waterboard a person, and we don't get that nugget of information, and there's an attack". If that sentence doesn't scare the shit out of you, then I suggest you reach into your head and replace the 7-watt bulb that powers your brain. Like we needed any reminding, but real life is not TV. The ticking time bomb scenario is bullshit, we have someone who knows coming right out and telling us that. Intelligence doesn't work like that, there isn't some guy in a room who knows the code to disarm the nuke hidden in New York. It's fishing for information, trying to get as much of it as possible in the hope that some of it might be useful somehow. And that's exactly what that quote suggests, that waterboarding isn't for extracting life-or-death information you KNOW the prisoner has, but a technique to get information he MIGHT have. And if we're doing that, there is no reason not to approve it as a routine interrogation technique.

It's not that the slope is slippery so much as it is extremely steep. There is a very fine line with being OK with torture in extraordinary circumstances and being OK with it in most circumstances. Mostly because the "ticking time bomb" is a myth and intelligence work is almost all routine, and the policies and laws and ethical standards governing that work need to be adapted to REALITY, not the fantasy of some overly excitable Hollywood writer. All the more so because, as blackangst1 points out (and thoroughly fails to understand) is that we DON'T really know the extent to which the things being carried out in our name work. So if we just take it on faith that the secret benefits outweigh the very public costs, well, that just opens the door up for pretty much anything, doesn't it?

The bolded is absolutely not what he said...I'll let you edit the rest of your post now.

Chuck

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: chucky2

Originally posted by: Rainsford
By the way, in the midst of imaging that Jack Bauer is going to save us all, I think the two most important points of the story here went unremarked. Beyond the actual torture itself, these points are really at the heart of the debate over waterboarding and other methods of "harsh interrogation".

The first thing worth noting is that, despite statements to the contrary, the waterboarding was NOT "necessary". The article says there was a sense of urgency post-9/11, and that justified the waterboarding, but it didn't say that waterboarding produced any useful information that couldn't have been obtained through other means. There was nothing gained from torturing anybody, it was an over-reaction based on a non-specific fear and poorly considered information. This is not a success of torture, this is a failure...we tortured this guy for no particular reason. No ticking time bomb was stopped, no hero was racing against the clock to avert disaster.

And that's the thing, that kind of scenario is way more likely than any movie plot scenario. That's the second thing worth noting, and it really ties into the first...what was said in the article, "What happens if we don't waterboard a person, and we don't get that nugget of information, and there's an attack". If that sentence doesn't scare the shit out of you, then I suggest you reach into your head and replace the 7-watt bulb that powers your brain. Like we needed any reminding, but real life is not TV. The ticking time bomb scenario is bullshit, we have someone who knows coming right out and telling us that. Intelligence doesn't work like that, there isn't some guy in a room who knows the code to disarm the nuke hidden in New York. It's fishing for information, trying to get as much of it as possible in the hope that some of it might be useful somehow. And that's exactly what that quote suggests, that waterboarding isn't for extracting life-or-death information you KNOW the prisoner has, but a technique to get information he MIGHT have. And if we're doing that, there is no reason not to approve it as a routine interrogation technique.

It's not that the slope is slippery so much as it is extremely steep. There is a very fine line with being OK with torture in extraordinary circumstances and being OK with it in most circumstances. Mostly because the "ticking time bomb" is a myth and intelligence work is almost all routine, and the policies and laws and ethical standards governing that work need to be adapted to REALITY, not the fantasy of some overly excitable Hollywood writer. All the more so because, as blackangst1 points out (and thoroughly fails to understand) is that we DON'T really know the extent to which the things being carried out in our name work. So if we just take it on faith that the secret benefits outweigh the very public costs, well, that just opens the door up for pretty much anything, doesn't it?

The bolded is absolutely not what he said...I'll let you edit the rest of your post now.

Chuck

Sure it is. Not in so many words, of course, but the message was clear enough. They were jumping at shadows for fear of missing that critical nugget of life-saving information after 9/11.

He TOLD us why they were OK with waterboarding, and it sure as hell wasn't for the reasons most members of the public seem to think. This is simply more confirmation, if you needed it, that '24' is not a documentary. That was my entire point, that while the "ticking time bomb" is the most often cited reason to allow torture (even among people who should know better), the reality is that it is not why torture sometimes takes place. If you think the fear of maybe missing some bit of information is a good enough justification, that's OK, make that argument. But that's not why people seem to support torture, and on something this big, I don't think it's too much to expect people to argue about reality instead of fantasy.

 

[chucky2]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Sure it is. Not in so many words, of course, but the message was clear enough. They were jumping at shadows for fear of missing that critical nugget of life-saving information after 9/11.

He TOLD us why they were OK with waterboarding, and it sure as hell wasn't for the reasons most members of the public seem to think. This is simply more confirmation, if you needed it, that '24' is not a documentary. That was my entire point, that while the "ticking time bomb" is the most often cited reason to allow torture (even among people who should know better), the reality is that it is not why torture sometimes takes place. If you think the fear of maybe missing some bit of information is a good enough justification, that's OK, make that argument. But that's not why people seem to support torture, and on something this big, I don't think it's too much to expect people to argue about reality instead of fantasy.

The points we should be gleaning from his comments are not that waterboarding is something that should never be done, it's that a.) it works and b.) it should only be done when necessary.

The issue seems to be when to decide it's necessary. After 9/11, there was no way to know what was going to be coming down the pipe next. They could have allowed air flights again and Whamo we could have taken another one in the face. Thankfully that didn't happen, but it could have. Better to employ waterboarding then and find out all you can just in case there was something coming more on the way.

I can understand the want to get away from waterboarding now that 9/11 has passed, it can be argued both ways. The problem though is just like we didn't know about 9/11, there could be something else planned for us. So when that high value detainee gets brought in....and he just doesn't give a flying F what you're saying to him because he knows you can't do jack sh1t to him (Thanks Media and Congress!!!), how exactly do the Don't waterboard ZOMG it's T0RTurRe!!! people plan to get the information that is known he possesses out of his brain?

I say 35 seconds of mental torture with no physical effects for a known hardcore high value terrorist, properly conducted and supervised, is effective and prudent.

Or we could ask him nicely....I'm sure that works....

Chuck

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: chucky2

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Sure it is. Not in so many words, of course, but the message was clear enough. They were jumping at shadows for fear of missing that critical nugget of life-saving information after 9/11.

He TOLD us why they were OK with waterboarding, and it sure as hell wasn't for the reasons most members of the public seem to think. This is simply more confirmation, if you needed it, that '24' is not a documentary. That was my entire point, that while the "ticking time bomb" is the most often cited reason to allow torture (even among people who should know better), the reality is that it is not why torture sometimes takes place. If you think the fear of maybe missing some bit of information is a good enough justification, that's OK, make that argument. But that's not why people seem to support torture, and on something this big, I don't think it's too much to expect people to argue about reality instead of fantasy.

The points we should be gleaning from his comments are not that waterboarding is something that should never be done, it's that a.) it works and b.) it should only be done when necessary.

It DOESN'T work! Read the article. It got him to TALK, that is not the same as "working". Working implies that it achieved the goal of obtaining vital information that could not have been obtained in the necessary time some other way. I still don't think that's a high enough bar for torturing people, but at least I can see the argument there.

My problem with this is that you're defining "working" as obtaining information, at all. There is nothing in the article to suggest it was necessary or that it was more or less effective than any other information gathering method, but because it got him to talk, you're saying that makes it OK. By that logic, we should always use waterboarding...on everyone. The fact that we were afraid there MIGHT be some vital information is not a good enough justification, IMHO, because some nebulous fear seems a little too easy to apply to every situation.

And like I said, the example of why waterboarding is necessary is almost always given as it being the only way to obtain time sensitive information necessary to save lives. I don't see that happening here, do you?

The issue seems to be when to decide it's necessary. After 9/11, there was no way to know what was going to be coming down the pipe next. They could have allowed air flights again and Whamo we could have taken another one in the face. Thankfully that didn't happen, but it could have. Better to employ waterboarding then and find out all you can just in case there was something coming more on the way.

Don't you find that kind of logic a little scary? "Just in case" opens the door for a LOT of shit I think we'd be better off without, because by its very definition it doesn't require very solid reasoning or evidence. I understand that's how the intelligence business works, you don't know what you're going to find when you tip over a rock...but for that very reason, the methods you use to tip that rock over should be limited. After all, "just in case" can't possibly be limited to select individuals. If we KNEW who knew things and who didn't, we wouldn't need to waterboard people "just in case". So what starts as just a few guys can very easily become a routine tactic.

I can understand the want to get away from waterboarding now that 9/11 has passed, it can be argued both ways. The problem though is just like we didn't know about 9/11, there could be something else planned for us. So when that high value detainee gets brought in....and he just doesn't give a flying F what you're saying to him because he knows you can't do jack sh1t to him (Thanks Media and Congress!!!), how exactly do the Don't waterboard ZOMG it's T0RTurRe!!! people plan to get the information that is known he possesses out of his brain?

I say 35 seconds of mental torture with no physical effects for a known hardcore high value terrorist, properly conducted and supervised, is effective and prudent.

Or we could ask him nicely....I'm sure that works....

Chuck

Don't be stupid, there has been a ton of stuff written on effective interrogation techniques. And you know HOW you get information out of the brains of bad guys? By using YOUR brain. Acting like the only alternative is offering the bad guys milk and cookies or torturing them is beyond stupid. Educate yourself, THEN talk.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
Well one thing for sure, if John Kirakou ever end up in the Hague for war crimes, his own words just lost him any defense he could now mount.

Its now premeditated crimes against humanity, in short the worst of the worst.

Learn to read:
"Now retired, Kiriakou, who declined to use the enhanced interrogation techniques, says he has come to believe that water boarding is torture but that perhaps the circumstances warranted it"

To me that line implies that this man did not do any waterboarding himself.
Read the OP again and you will see that he speaks of the people who did the waterboarding and the event itself in the third person every time.

Plus this guy lead the team that captured Zubaydah which means he most likely had little to do with his questioning. Caught him and turned him over to someone else most likely and then moved on to the next target.

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: chucky2

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Sure it is. Not in so many words, of course, but the message was clear enough. They were jumping at shadows for fear of missing that critical nugget of life-saving information after 9/11.

He TOLD us why they were OK with waterboarding, and it sure as hell wasn't for the reasons most members of the public seem to think. This is simply more confirmation, if you needed it, that '24' is not a documentary. That was my entire point, that while the "ticking time bomb" is the most often cited reason to allow torture (even among people who should know better), the reality is that it is not why torture sometimes takes place. If you think the fear of maybe missing some bit of information is a good enough justification, that's OK, make that argument. But that's not why people seem to support torture, and on something this big, I don't think it's too much to expect people to argue about reality instead of fantasy.

The points we should be gleaning from his comments are not that waterboarding is something that should never be done, it's that a.) it works and b.) it should only be done when necessary.

The issue seems to be when to decide it's necessary. After 9/11, there was no way to know what was going to be coming down the pipe next. They could have allowed air flights again and Whamo we could have taken another one in the face. Thankfully that didn't happen, but it could have. Better to employ waterboarding then and find out all you can just in case there was something coming more on the way.

I can understand the want to get away from waterboarding now that 9/11 has passed, it can be argued both ways. The problem though is just like we didn't know about 9/11, there could be something else planned for us. So when that high value detainee gets brought in....and he just doesn't give a flying F what you're saying to him because he knows you can't do jack sh1t to him (Thanks Media and Congress!!!), how exactly do the Don't waterboard ZOMG it's T0RTurRe!!! people plan to get the information that is known he possesses out of his brain?

I say 35 seconds of mental torture with no physical effects for a known hardcore high value terrorist, properly conducted and supervised, is effective and prudent.

Or we could ask him nicely....I'm sure that works....

Chuck

:thumbsup:

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: chucky2
...

Or we could ask him nicely....I'm sure that works....

Chuck

:thumbsup:

I find it interesting that a comment similar to this is made every single time this debate comes up, and you guys always treat it like it's some sort of profound insight. I assume you're not stupid enough to think that's what folks like me are arguing for, or that "kid gloves" are the only other option...so there must be some other reason you guys always bring this up.

And I think I know why, it's all about image. Being pro-torture isn't about effective or smart intelligence gathering. It's not about how best to protect the country. It's about having a really spectacularly opposed reaction to anything that even remotely smacks of looking "weak". Or, rather, it's about wanting to get behind anything that looks "strong". All the more so because this is really a treat for you guys, it's a way to look "strong on terror" that doesn't require you to, you know, actually DO anything.

The funny part is you completely missed the point of this article. While I still disagree with the individual being quoted, his opinion on torture seems far less enthusiastic than the opinions you guys seem to hold. Whatever side of the debate you come down on, "woo, torture!" seems a little inappropriate.

 

[manowar821]

People will say anything to stop the torture, and that anything can just as easily be a lie.

Torture has no place in civilized society. It's supporters have no place in civilized society.

 

[chucky2]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: chucky2

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Sure it is. Not in so many words, of course, but the message was clear enough. They were jumping at shadows for fear of missing that critical nugget of life-saving information after 9/11.

He TOLD us why they were OK with waterboarding, and it sure as hell wasn't for the reasons most members of the public seem to think. This is simply more confirmation, if you needed it, that '24' is not a documentary. That was my entire point, that while the "ticking time bomb" is the most often cited reason to allow torture (even among people who should know better), the reality is that it is not why torture sometimes takes place. If you think the fear of maybe missing some bit of information is a good enough justification, that's OK, make that argument. But that's not why people seem to support torture, and on something this big, I don't think it's too much to expect people to argue about reality instead of fantasy.

The points we should be gleaning from his comments are not that waterboarding is something that should never be done, it's that a.) it works and b.) it should only be done when necessary.

It DOESN'T work! Read the article. It got him to TALK, that is not the same as "working". Working implies that it achieved the goal of obtaining vital information that could not have been obtained in the necessary time some other way. I still don't think that's a high enough bar for torturing people, but at least I can see the argument there.

Rainsford: It works. It broke him, then the next guy, and we got the mastermind behind 9/11. Arguing it doesn't work is like saying you don't need to use a torch when tarring a roof...you can use a Bic lighter instead. Sure, we could use a Bic to heat that tar up, but it's probably going to take a long time.

My problem with this is that you're defining "working" as obtaining information, at all. There is nothing in the article to suggest it was necessary or that it was more or less effective than any other information gathering method, but because it got him to talk, you're saying that makes it OK. By that logic, we should always use waterboarding...on everyone. The fact that we were afraid there MIGHT be some vital information is not a good enough justification, IMHO, because some nebulous fear seems a little too easy to apply to every situation.

The point is, is that they didn't know if it was necessary or not. In the interest of maybe deterring another 9/11 (that's us killed btw, remember???), they made that choice. That's exactly what he said in the article. And that's exactly why we have people that do what they do, and other people that make those calls.

And you just touched on why something like waterboarding needs to be done in a controlled manner with criteria being met, and prior approval sought. It shouldn't be done to every low level guy who decided F the American's, I'm Jihad'ing baby!!! and popped a few off at us on a normal patrol in Iraq. We all know that's not what anyone is advocating, tempting as it may be due to it cutting through the BS bravado in a time saving manner...

And like I said, the example of why waterboarding is necessary is almost always given as it being the only way to obtain time sensitive information necessary to save lives. I don't see that happening here, do you?

You keep using present knowledge on past events: They didn't know.

Do you understand that??? You are talking about people at the top making calls in the face of a very fresh 9/11...you're going to tell me that if you were in the same position, with a high value detainee that you knew had the info you wanted, yet he was playing games because he didn't F'ing care, that you'd be like, Cool, lets just keep asking him nicely each day...make sure he has fresh sheets....new Koran....etc??? Please....you'd be like, What, it's day 50 and he laughed at you again? Waterboard that MF'r and see if he talks. <24 hours later and finally learning you were finally done F'ing around> Yes, I wish to cooperate now...

But, hey, waterboarding doesn't work.... :roll:

Don't you find that kind of logic a little scary? "Just in case" opens the door for a LOT of shit I think we'd be better off without, because by its very definition it doesn't require very solid reasoning or evidence. I understand that's how the intelligence business works, you don't know what you're going to find when you tip over a rock...but for that very reason, the methods you use to tip that rock over should be limited.

What you just said makes absolutely no sense. None. When I tip over that rock, I want all the info there. All of it. I don't want some...I don't want what he's willing to feed me. I want to know everything. Then I take that and compare it with what I already know and find the similarities...and the differences. Then you can go back and play mind games. For sure though they weren't playing mind games with the interrogators after being waterboarded. Sorta cuts right through the bravado doesn't it?

After all, "just in case" can't possibly be limited to select individuals. If we KNEW who knew things and who didn't, we wouldn't need to waterboard people "just in case". So what starts as just a few guys can very easily become a routine tactic.

Again, no one is talking about rolling out waterboarding to every squad in Iraq. I think everyone realizes by now it's a special tactic used either in a serious large scale emergency, and/or when you have a high value detainee who you know/very strongly suspect holds valuable information and that person decides he ain't talking.

Don't be stupid, there has been a ton of stuff written on effective interrogation techniques. And you know HOW you get information out of the brains of bad guys? By using YOUR brain. Acting like the only alternative is offering the bad guys milk and cookies or torturing them is beyond stupid. Educate yourself, THEN talk.

Stupid would be to shelve what appears a very effective, non-physically damaging, technique. That's how I use my brain...try the nice stuff first, and when that doesn't work, try the not nice (yet not real physical torture) stuff next.

Chuck

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: chucky2
...

Or we could ask him nicely....I'm sure that works....

Chuck

:thumbsup:

I find it interesting that a comment similar to this is made every single time this debate comes up, and you guys always treat it like it's some sort of profound insight. I assume you're not stupid enough to think that's what folks like me are arguing for, or that "kid gloves" are the only other option...so there must be some other reason you guys always bring this up.

And I think I know why, it's all about image. Being pro-torture isn't about effective or smart intelligence gathering. It's not about how best to protect the country. It's about having a really spectacularly opposed reaction to anything that even remotely smacks of looking "weak". Or, rather, it's about wanting to get behind anything that looks "strong". All the more so because this is really a treat for you guys, it's a way to look "strong on terror" that doesn't require you to, you know, actually DO anything.

The funny part is you completely missed the point of this article. While I still disagree with the individual being quoted, his opinion on torture seems far less enthusiastic than the opinions you guys seem to hold. Whatever side of the debate you come down on, "woo, torture!" seems a little inappropriate.

Pro-torture? Please, Rainsford, you're better than that. What if I used the word pro-confession instead? It's like accusing someone of being pro-abortion and the other claiming they're actually pro-choice.

Let's not play that word game.

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: chucky2
...

Or we could ask him nicely....I'm sure that works....

Chuck

:thumbsup:

I find it interesting that a comment similar to this is made every single time this debate comes up, and you guys always treat it like it's some sort of profound insight. I assume you're not stupid enough to think that's what folks like me are arguing for, or that "kid gloves" are the only other option...so there must be some other reason you guys always bring this up.

And I think I know why, it's all about image. Being pro-torture isn't about effective or smart intelligence gathering. It's not about how best to protect the country. It's about having a really spectacularly opposed reaction to anything that even remotely smacks of looking "weak". Or, rather, it's about wanting to get behind anything that looks "strong". All the more so because this is really a treat for you guys, it's a way to look "strong on terror" that doesn't require you to, you know, actually DO anything.

The funny part is you completely missed the point of this article. While I still disagree with the individual being quoted, his opinion on torture seems far less enthusiastic than the opinions you guys seem to hold. Whatever side of the debate you come down on, "woo, torture!" seems a little inappropriate.

You remind of the hardcore anti abortion folks that call "pro-choice" people "pro-abortion".

Edit - looks like TLC beat me to it.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: chucky2

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: chucky2

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Sure it is. Not in so many words, of course, but the message was clear enough. They were jumping at shadows for fear of missing that critical nugget of life-saving information after 9/11.

He TOLD us why they were OK with waterboarding, and it sure as hell wasn't for the reasons most members of the public seem to think. This is simply more confirmation, if you needed it, that '24' is not a documentary. That was my entire point, that while the "ticking time bomb" is the most often cited reason to allow torture (even among people who should know better), the reality is that it is not why torture sometimes takes place. If you think the fear of maybe missing some bit of information is a good enough justification, that's OK, make that argument. But that's not why people seem to support torture, and on something this big, I don't think it's too much to expect people to argue about reality instead of fantasy.

The points we should be gleaning from his comments are not that waterboarding is something that should never be done, it's that a.) it works and b.) it should only be done when necessary.

It DOESN'T work! Read the article. It got him to TALK, that is not the same as "working". Working implies that it achieved the goal of obtaining vital information that could not have been obtained in the necessary time some other way. I still don't think that's a high enough bar for torturing people, but at least I can see the argument there.

Rainsford: It works. It broke him, then the next guy, and we got the mastermind behind 9/11. Arguing it doesn't work is like saying you don't need to use a torch when tarring a roof...you can use a Bic lighter instead. Sure, we could use a Bic to heat that tar up, but it's probably going to take a long time.

My problem with this is that you're defining "working" as obtaining information, at all. There is nothing in the article to suggest it was necessary or that it was more or less effective than any other information gathering method, but because it got him to talk, you're saying that makes it OK. By that logic, we should always use waterboarding...on everyone. The fact that we were afraid there MIGHT be some vital information is not a good enough justification, IMHO, because some nebulous fear seems a little too easy to apply to every situation.

The point is, is that they didn't know if it was necessary or not. In the interest of maybe deterring another 9/11 (that's us killed btw, remember???), they made that choice. That's exactly what he said in the article. And that's exactly why we have people that do what they do, and other people that make those calls.

And you just touched on why something like waterboarding needs to be done in a controlled manner with criteria being met, and prior approval sought. It shouldn't be done to every low level guy who decided F the American's, I'm Jihad'ing baby!!! and popped a few off at us on a normal patrol in Iraq. We all know that's not what anyone is advocating, tempting as it may be due to it cutting through the BS bravado in a time saving manner...

And like I said, the example of why waterboarding is necessary is almost always given as it being the only way to obtain time sensitive information necessary to save lives. I don't see that happening here, do you?

You keep using present knowledge on past events: They didn't know.

Do you understand that??? You are talking about people at the top making calls in the face of a very fresh 9/11...you're going to tell me that if you were in the same position, with a high value detainee that you knew had the info you wanted, yet he was playing games because he didn't F'ing care, that you'd be like, Cool, lets just keep asking him nicely each day...make sure he has fresh sheets....new Koran....etc??? Please....you'd be like, What, it's day 50 and he laughed at you again? Waterboard that MF'r and see if he talks. <24 hours later and finally learning you were finally done F'ing around> Yes, I wish to cooperate now...

But, hey, waterboarding doesn't work.... :roll:

Don't you find that kind of logic a little scary? "Just in case" opens the door for a LOT of shit I think we'd be better off without, because by its very definition it doesn't require very solid reasoning or evidence. I understand that's how the intelligence business works, you don't know what you're going to find when you tip over a rock...but for that very reason, the methods you use to tip that rock over should be limited.

What you just said makes absolutely no sense. None. When I tip over that rock, I want all the info there. All of it. I don't want some...I don't want what he's willing to feed me. I want to know everything. Then I take that and compare it with what I already know and find the similarities...and the differences. Then you can go back and play mind games. For sure though they weren't playing mind games with the interrogators after being waterboarded. Sorta cuts right through the bravado doesn't it?

After all, "just in case" can't possibly be limited to select individuals. If we KNEW who knew things and who didn't, we wouldn't need to waterboard people "just in case". So what starts as just a few guys can very easily become a routine tactic.

Again, no one is talking about rolling out waterboarding to every squad in Iraq. I think everyone realizes by now it's a special tactic used either in a serious large scale emergency, and/or when you have a high value detainee who you know/very strongly suspect holds valuable information and that person decides he ain't talking.

Don't be stupid, there has been a ton of stuff written on effective interrogation techniques. And you know HOW you get information out of the brains of bad guys? By using YOUR brain. Acting like the only alternative is offering the bad guys milk and cookies or torturing them is beyond stupid. Educate yourself, THEN talk.

Stupid would be to shelve what appears a very effective, non-physically damaging, technique. That's how I use my brain...try the nice stuff first, and when that doesn't work, try the not nice (yet not real physical torture) stuff next.

Chuck

This post does nothing other then prove Rainsford right. You simply don't know what you're talking about, and nothing people are saying to you seems to be making the slightest dent.

 

[ProfJohn]

London got hit twice by the same group in about a weeks time.

Do you think waterboarding would have been a good idea if they had caught a member of that group?

Imagine we catch a known terrorist in the country tomorrow and have evidence that he is in the final planning stages of an attack. When he refused to talk someone asks to waterboard him and is told no so we miss any information that might stop the attack and a week later an attack takes place that kills a few dozen people.

How would you like to be the guy that said "no"?

How quick do you think members of congress will go in front of any mic they can find and proclaim that we need to use any means nessecary to prevent another attack?

 

[chucky2]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

I find it interesting that a comment similar to this is made every single time this debate comes up, and you guys always treat it like it's some sort of profound insight. I assume you're not stupid enough to think that's what folks like me are arguing for, or that "kid gloves" are the only other option...so there must be some other reason you guys always bring this up.

And I think I know why, it's all about image. Being pro-torture isn't about effective or smart intelligence gathering. It's not about how best to protect the country. It's about having a really spectacularly opposed reaction to anything that even remotely smacks of looking "weak". Or, rather, it's about wanting to get behind anything that looks "strong". All the more so because this is really a treat for you guys, it's a way to look "strong on terror" that doesn't require you to, you know, actually DO anything.

The funny part is you completely missed the point of this article. While I still disagree with the individual being quoted, his opinion on torture seems far less enthusiastic than the opinions you guys seem to hold. Whatever side of the debate you come down on, "woo, torture!" seems a little inappropriate.

I never, ever, said I was enthusiastic about it. I think it absolutely sucks that we have to do that to another human being. Torture should be the absolute last resort, and only when necessary. But the fact is that, no matter how much people want to sugar coat it, when someone isn't talking, what other way do you have to break that silence???

Lets say I'm the detainee, and you're the interrogator: The first day you walk in, do your thing, and I just spit in your face. I do that each time we talk. Fine, you stand behind me. Then I just don't talk. Now, I know the US has signed the GC, so you can't torture me. You probably don't know who I am, so, WTF are you going to really threaten me with??? Or, I just lie to you and don't give a flying F if you find out about it or not.

That's a hardcore terrorist. He doesn't give a F. Do you understand that????

Now, this whole time...you know I've got info that is going to seriously help the WoT. But, I ain't talking. And, each day that drags on, that info is less and less valuable. Until one day, maybe you eat another 9/11. Or worse.

But, don't waterboard me because Hey, I might not really like that, and that's a GC violation.... :roll:

You get this attitude Rainsford because people propose these lofty interrogation techniques - all which presumably failed on these waterboarded dudes, and which waterboarding succeeded at rapidly - on the basis of having infinite time and infinite carelessness whether you truly get the info or not. If not, or if it takes a few years, Ah, no big deal....

These high value terrorists have chosen their path in life....I'm not going to feel sorry they experience supervised waterboarding that makes them re-think their situation in life, all without any physical harm.

Chuck

 

[chucky2]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

This post does nothing other then prove Rainsford right. You simply don't know what you're talking about, and nothing people are saying to you seems to be making the slightest dent.

See my reply to him above.

Chuck

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
London got hit twice by the same group in about a weeks time.

Do you think waterboarding would have been a good idea if they had caught a member of that group?

Imagine we catch a known terrorist in the country tomorrow and have evidence that he is in the final planning stages of an attack. When he refused to talk someone asks to waterboard him and is told no so we miss any information that might stop the attack and a week later an attack takes place that kills a few dozen people.

How would you like to be the guy that said "no"?

How quick do you think members of congress will go in front of any mic they can find and proclaim that we need to use any means nessecary to prevent another attack?

Gaaaaaahhhhhh, this is like Groundhog day. There are documented cases (Abu Zubaydah) of us waterboarding people and having them let fly a torrent of made up plots and things that we wasted thousands and thousands of man hours chasing down for no reason. What if we waterboarded someone and then used vital police resources to track down a false lead that could have been used to prevent an attack? Would you want to be the person who was responsible for that?

Jesus Christ people, READ up and learn about this topic before coming out with this macho tough guy torture crap. It is MORALLY REPUGNANT, but more importantly it is UNRELIABLE. Stop pretending this is a good solution.