GOP candidates say we should go back to torture

[LifelongHawk]

Not in a land with reasonable laws.

Useless: "Admit you are a secret agent, and we will stop; hurting you."
Useful: "Tell us where the bomb is located, and if you are lying, we will come back and hurt you some more."

You apparently think 24 is a documentary. Clancy has a scene where Ryan ties C4 to a guys balls and wraps a fuse around his body and lights it afire. The guy tells him where the bomb is (or whatever fictional information was sought) before the fuse detonates the C4. Lots of neat fantasies about necessary and effective use of torture in fiction.

If you care to discuss the issue based upon reality rather than the fantasy land of movies and books, try again, oh self-appointed arbiter of the reasonableness of laws.

 

[sijoint]

I think we should just deliberately kill thousands of innocent civilians over there. Why should we handcuff ourselves to a code. Maybe we could hijack some Saudi planes and fly them into the huge crowds in Mecca during the hajj.

Naaa,.....this way is more effective..............start over.

Bush, Carson, and Rubio have all said that we should be able to used enhanced interrogation techniques to pump captives for information and that we shouldn't limit our options at all to get this information. Pretty creepy stuff.

http://www.salon.com/2015/08/14/gop...bigger_jeb_bush_and_ben_carson_join_the_fray/

Our interrogation/torture techniques are so far inferior to ISIS.......they're already throwing gays off of rooftops and loppinf off peoples heads.....the most we've done is waterboarding? As usual, Obama is a worhless Commander in Chief, leader, behind the times.

 

[naturalmwa]

Naaa,.....this way is more effective..............start over.

Our interrogation/torture techniques are so far inferior to ISIS.......they're already throwing gays off of rooftops and loppinf off peoples heads.....the most we've done is waterboarding? As usual, Obama is a worhless Commander in Chief, leader, behind the times.

Help me understand this. You seem to think cutting a guy's head off with get you good Intel? You don't see a problem there?

 

[Lone Clone]

You apparently think 24 is a documentary. Clancy has a scene where Ryan ties C4 to a guys balls and wraps a fuse around his body and lights it afire. The guy tells him where the bomb is (or whatever fictional information was sought) before the fuse detonates the C4. Lots of neat fantasies about necessary and effective use of torture in fiction.

If you care to discuss the issue based upon reality rather than the fantasy land of movies and books, try again, oh self-appointed arbiter of the reasonableness of laws.

No, I don't think 24 is a documentary. You are the one who is talking about fiction. I'm talking about reality. What I think is that the people who participate in these interrogations know more about it than anonymous posters on internet message boards.

As I pointed out, it isn't dependable or even maybe useful in cases like applied to John McCain, where the point was to get him to admit to war crimes. Obviously, the victim will say whatever he thinks will make the discomfort stop. When the objective is to obtain verifiable information, the situation is completely different. In that case the victim knows that lying does him no good, other than perhaps to delay the next round....and that lying may make the next round worse.

History if replete with examples of torture achieving the desired ends. You have to be divorced from reality to think it can't work; you'd have to believe that threats don't work, when of course every sane person knows that quite often, they do.

 

[Vroom_C14]

I don't completely disagree. We can't handle the truth. But the truth is way more complicated than simply let psyops waterboard and then we get all the answers. After we waterboard, suddenly Turkey won't let our planes fly from their bases and the Dutch won't share intel. Support in congress for the new weapon system dries up and recruits no longer see joining the military as horrible and it becomes the domain of the psychopath. And when one of our new psycho recruits gets captured, you can bet we won't be getting him back in one piece.

IMO, we should not protect these sorts of orders. If they get handed down, then the order giver should fall on his sword and take the punishment publically. If we want to maintain the idea of the heroic citizen soldier fighting fro freedom, we can't also be the guys with the gulag. Were all losing our minds over an enemy who if we face reality is not really very dangerous. ISIS is a JV team playing a bunch of Jr. high girls. But they sure are more fun to talk about than a bunch of unfunded entitlement mandates.

Interesting quote from the potus. ISIS is not the jv squad

Isn't there a third option? You know, abiding by the rule of law, occupying the moral high ground, and protecting our security - by not torturing.

Torturing hurts us more than it hurts them. On multiple fronts, start with the Stanford study that concludes that the torturOR is emotionally harmed in a significant way. Go to every scientific inquiry ever, to my knowledge, which conclude that torture doesn't work (and if there was a single instance of success it would be trumpeted daily)(shoot, like the Gul strawman above false claims of success are trumpeted until abandoned factually-none abide). Add in the Abu Ghraib debacle and its horrible graphics, plus our public statements glorifying torture, and we breed hatred and resentment and more terrorists.

Only positive thing torture does is make some of us feel better....even though it hurts us, doesn't work, and makes us less safe.

As I stated before, sometimes when your enemy plays dirty you have to as well. It's not preferred but there comes a time when it is needed. Like it or not.

 

[Vroom_C14]

D

Help me understand this. You seem to think cutting a guy's head off with get you good Intel? You don't see a problem there?

Do you think the next guy in line doesn't see that head roll and say oh shit! I'll tell you whatever...

 

[sijoint]

Help me understand this. You seem to think cutting a guy's head off with get you good Intel? You don't see a problem there?

Obama doesn't care about the gays being dropped off buildings or heads being lopped off?.......but is soooo concerned about Islamic terrorists being held at the Gitmo Country Club....and now wants to bring them to SC and Kansas. Why doesn't he care for US citizens first. His intelligence priority is conservatives/Republicans.......giving $1.9 Million to AT&T to collect data on US citizens.

 

[naturalmwa]

Interesting quote from the potus. ISIS is not the jv squad

As I stated before, sometimes when your enemy plays dirty you have to as well. It's not preferred but there comes a time when it is needed. Like it or not.

And as I said before, playing dirty makes you a dirty player. That's the objection. Some of us like to be the good guys and want our nation to play to a higher standard. America, unlike most every nation on the planet is supposed to stand for ideas and principles. We aren't just a geographical area or ethnic group. We are exceptional because we play by the rules and win anyway. Give that up and you kill America.

 

[Vroom_C14]

Would you want all measures (aside from beheading) used on someone that had Intel on where your kid/brother/sister was being held?

 

[naturalmwa]

D

Do you think the next guy in line doesn't see that head roll and say oh shit! I'll tell you whatever...

I think he thinks that guy you just killed might have the answers as he makes up the first story that pops in his head.

 

[Vroom_C14]

And as I said before, playing dirty makes you a dirty player. That's the objection. Some of us like to be the good guys and want our nation to play to a higher standard. America, unlike most every nation on the planet is supposed to stand for ideas and principles. We aren't just a geographical area or ethnic group. We are exceptional because we play by the rules and win anyway. Give that up and you kill America.

If only you knew how dirty we do play, that's a lot of what is kept from the publics eye, and rightfully so.

 

[naturalmwa]

Obama doesn't care about the gays being dropped off buildings or heads being lopped off?.......but is soooo concerned about Islamic terrorists being held at the Gitmo Country Club....and now wants to bring them to SC and Kansas. Why doesn't he care for US citizens first. His intelligence priority is conservatives/Republicans.......giving $1.9 Million to AT&T to collect data on US citizens.

He is concerned about US citizens first. That's why he isn't sending them to die for the head rollers. Do you ever think through these positions?

 

[Vroom_C14]

I think he thinks that guy you just killed might have the answers as he makes up the first story that pops in his head.

Really? Not sure your line of thinking, if you were next in line would you talk or just let them chop (or in your case) throw you from the top of a bldg?

 

[Vroom_C14]

He is concerned about US citizens first. That's why he isn't sending them to die for the head rollers. Do you ever think through these positions?

If he is so concerned about US citizens why did he not demand the US folks in Iran to be released as part of the "deal"?

 

[Bob Pelini_]

Bush, Carson, and Rubio have all said that we should be able to used enhanced interrogation techniques to pump captives for information and that we shouldn't limit our options at all to get this information. Pretty creepy stuff.

http://www.salon.com/2015/08/14/gop...bigger_jeb_bush_and_ben_carson_join_the_fray/

The enemy cuts peoples heads off? I totally agree with Bush, Carson and Rubio.

 

[naturalmwa]

Really? Not sure your line of thinking, if you were next in line would you talk or just let them chop (or in your case) throw you from the top of a bldg?

Every tortured person talks, that's not the problem. But if you can't see that chopping off heads isn't a good interrogation technique then you have already lost your head.

 

[naturalmwa]

If he is so concerned about US citizens why did he not demand the US folks in Iran to be released as part of the "deal"?

 

[Vroom_C14]

Every tour here'd person talks, that's not the problem. But if you can't see that chopping off heads isn't a good interigation technique then you have already lost your head.

Sure said not what....

 

[FullTilt]

No, I don't think 24 is a documentary. You are the one who is talking about fiction. I'm talking about reality. What I think is that the people who participate in these interrogations know more about it than anonymous posters on internet message boards.

As I pointed out, it isn't dependable or even maybe useful in cases like applied to John McCain, where the point was to get him to admit to war crimes. Obviously, the victim will say whatever he thinks will make the discomfort stop. When the objective is to obtain verifiable information, the situation is completely different. In that case the victim knows that lying does him no good, other than perhaps to delay the next round....and that lying may make the next round worse.

History if replete with examples of torture achieving the desired ends. You have to be divorced from reality to think it can't work; you'd have to believe that threats don't work, when of course every sane person knows that quite often, they do.

Jesus. They actually did review all of this and come to conclusions. You guys should start reading up on it, it isn't new information.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-30405918

First three sentences.......

Two psychologists hired by the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) to develop enhanced interrogation procedures lacked the relevant experience, a new report finds.
The contractors had no background in counterterrorism, yet were paid more than $80m (£51m) for their services.
The CIA also allowed the men to assess the effectiveness of their own interrogation programme.

 

[FullTilt]

Really? Not sure your line of thinking, if you were next in line would you talk or just let them chop (or in your case) throw you from the top of a bldg?

Seriously read the information that was provided and stop with what you think might be provided.......

“Those who were engaged in the analysis followed the evidence. What it confirmed is what I was always told by US military psychologists, that torture produces information, but it does not produce reliable information.”

 

[FullTilt]

Jesus. They actually did review all of this and come to conclusions. You guys should start reading up on it, it isn't new information.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-30405918

First three sentences.......

Two psychologists hired by the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) to develop enhanced interrogation procedures lacked the relevant experience, a new report finds.
The contractors had no background in counterterrorism, yet were paid more than $80m (£51m) for their services.
The CIA also allowed the men to assess the effectiveness of their own interrogation programme.

.............
I have a feeling you don't like to read Lone Clone so I will post some more to help you out..................

But the report says "neither psychologist had any experience as an interrogator, nor did either have specialised knowledge of al-Qaeda, a background in counterterrorism, or any relevant cultural or linguistic expertise".

And yet, the two men were said to have personally participated in the interrogation of some of the CIA's "most significant" detainees.

 

[Vroom_C14]

Seriously read the information that was provided and stop with what you think might be provided.......

“Those who were engaged in the analysis followed the evidence. What it confirmed is what I was always told by US military psychologists, that torture produces information, but it does not produce reliable information.”

Well holding their hand and giving them massages doesn't work either. My father-in-law was in psyops, he stated the tactics work on many and provides useful leads. So I wwill go with my source and you can go with yours.

 

[FullTilt]

Well holding their hand and giving them massages doesn't work either. My father-in-law was in psyops, he stated the tactics work on many and provides useful leads. So I wwill go with my source and you can go with yours.

Vroom I would love if you and your father-in-law would read the book The Black Banners by Ali Soufan. I would be interested to hear both of your thoughts and arguments against his views. I'm not saying he is correct but I obviously have taken his side. Maybe you could persuade me otherwise. I will paste his intro bio from Wikipedia below but one section I think is important I will post first. I'm glad we had this back and forth. I think regardless of side, these are good discussions to have. Have a good day.

Most notably, he claimed in his testimony that his interrogation of Abu Zubaydah had resulted in actionable intelligence, such as the identity of convicted terrorist José Padilla; and that thereafter, when waterboarding was performed on Abu Zubaydah, the flow of intelligence stopped. Soufan's statement contradicts the one made in the "torture memos," which were intent on making a legal case in favor of — and justification for — the use of waterboarding and other so-called "enhanced interrogation techniques" (EITs).

Ali H. Soufan (born July 8, 1971) is a Lebanese-American former FBIagent who was involved in a number of high-profile anti-terrorism cases both in the United States and around the world. A New Yorker article in 2006 described Soufan as coming closer than anyone to preventing the September 11 attacks, even implying that he would have succeeded had the CIA been willing to share information with him.[2] He resigned from the FBI in 2005 after publicly chastising the CIA for not sharing intelligence with him, which could have prevented the attacks. In 2011, he published a memoir, which includes some historical background on al-Qaeda: The Black Banners: The Inside Story of 9/11 and the War Against al-Qaeda.[

 

[FullTilt]

Well holding their hand and giving them massages doesn't work either. My father-in-law was in psyops, he stated the tactics work on many and provides useful leads. So I wwill go with my source and you can go with yours.

Serious question that I hope doesn't sound dickish - Do you think your father-in-law is a better source than the Senate report that reviewed 13 years of EIT? Or do you just not trust the report? If so, what are your reasons?

 

[LifelongHawk]

And as I said before, playing dirty makes you a dirty player. That's the objection. Some of us like to be the good guys and want our nation to play to a higher standard. America, unlike most every nation on the planet is supposed to stand for ideas and principles. We aren't just a geographical area or ethnic group. We are exceptional because we play by the rules and win anyway. Give that up and you kill America.

I tend to agree with this intellectually, but understand and accept the response in theory that sometimes dirty may be necessary for greater goals. The ends don't necessarily justify the means, but in some situations they may. But one objection is not the end of the inquiry (if you are capable of depth of thought), this is about more than theory, see FullTilt's posts above.

Torture is not like common threats. Old Clone thinks torture works because he quit drinking when his wife threatened to leave him if he didn't. The threat of a death sentence, or lengthy prison term, or divorce, are examples that can be effective coercion. Doesn't mean the threat to waterboard you, again, activates the same reaction or is a fair analogy.

To extend the sports analogy, playing dirty not only makes you a dirty player, but also makes you lose the game and face more dirty players in the future.

 

[Bob Pelini_]

When trying to extract information from the enemy you use anything and everything until you find something that works.

 

[LifelongHawk]

Serious question that I hope doesn't sound dickish - Do you think your father-in-law is a better source than the Senate report that reviewed 13 years of EIT? Or do you just not trust the report? If so, what are your reasons?

It feels good.

 

[FullTilt]

When trying to extract information from the enemy you use anything and everything until you find something that works.

The report finds that CIA detainees subjected to what were then called “enhanced interrogation techniques” either produced no intelligence, or they “fabricated information, resulting in faulty intelligence”. It says that the CIA’s own interrogators “assessed that the most effective method for acquiring intelligence from detainees, including from detainees the CIAconsidered to be the most ‘high-value’, was to confront the detainees with information already acquired by the intelligence community”.

 

[thewop]

Bush, Carson, and Rubio have all said that we should be able to used enhanced interrogation techniques to pump captives for information and that we shouldn't limit our options at all to get this information. Pretty creepy stuff.

http://www.salon.com/2015/08/14/gop...bigger_jeb_bush_and_ben_carson_join_the_fray/

I fully agree with the candidates. Even if it's an ISIS/Jihadi exception where we only do it to them. If another American is beheaded because we wouldn't pull out all the stops with a top level ISIS prisoner, then the blood is on our hands as much as it is theirs. I'm not saying resort to beheading them like they do, but they can certainly do without a fingernail or two if it gets us what we need to save a few lives.

 

[FullTilt]

I fully agree with the candidates. Even if it's an ISIS/Jihadi exception where we only do it to them. If another American is beheaded because we wouldn't pull out all the stops with a top level ISIS prisoner, then the blood is on our hands as much as it is theirs. I'm not saying resort to beheading them like they do, but they can certainly do without a fingernail or two if it gets us what we need to save a few lives.

The report finds that CIA detainees subjected to what were then called “enhanced interrogation techniques” either produced no intelligence, or they “fabricated information, resulting in faulty intelligence”. It says that the CIA’s own interrogators “assessed that the most effective method for acquiring intelligence from detainees, including from detainees theCIAconsidered to be the most ‘high-value’, was to confront the detainees with information already acquired by the intelligence community”.

 

[thewop]

The report finds that CIA detainees subjected to what were then called “enhanced interrogation techniques” either produced no intelligence, or they “fabricated information, resulting in faulty intelligence”. It says that the CIA’s own interrogators “assessed that the most effective method for acquiring intelligence from detainees, including from detainees theCIAconsidered to be the most ‘high-value’, was to confront the detainees with information already acquired by the intelligence community”.

Of course you try that first, but at the end of the day, if it works once, and it cost 200 jihadi's fingernails and a few more got a little wet, it's worth it. If you're suggesting we should trade American lives for Jihadi fingernails, I'll take the American lives before you can blink.

 

[FullTilt]

Of course you try that first, but at the end of the day, if it works once, and it cost 200 jihadi's fingernails and a few more got a little wet, it's worth it. If you're suggesting we should trade American lives for Jihadi fingernails, I'll take the American lives before you can blink.

I'm suggesting what the report shows, that EIT produces either no intelligence or fabricated information. Don't try to turn this into some sort of patriotic thing.

 

[Lone Clone]

.............
I have a feeling you don't like to read Lone Clone so I will post some more to help you out..................

But the report says "neither psychologist had any experience as an interrogator, nor did either have specialised knowledge of al-Qaeda, a background in counterterrorism, or any relevant cultural or linguistic expertise".

And yet, the two men were said to have personally participated in the interrogation of some of the CIA's "most significant" detainees.

I read, but I see no relevance to anything I wrote. Maybe you have me confused with another poster. If the comment about drinking was directed at me, you are too much of an asshole for me to care one way or the other, anyway.

 

[thewop]

I'm suggesting what the report shows, that EIT produces either no intelligence or fabricated information. Don't try to turn this into some sort of patriotic thing.

I'm saying that I consider 1 in 200 yielding good information to save 1 life worth it, yet this report would still show failure if that were the case. I do not agree that the report, despite its showing, should dictate our policy. I'm not suggesting we should ignore the Geneva Convention for those who also recognize it, but ISIS/Jihadi terrorists don't fall into that category. If you wish to believe I'm "turning it into some kind of patriotic thing," you have that right.

 

[Lone Clone]

I'm saying that I consider 1 in 200 yielding good information to save 1 life worth it, yet this report would still show failure if that were the case. I do not agree that the report, despite its showing, should dictate our policy. I'm not suggesting we should ignore the Geneva Convention for those who also recognize it, but ISIS/Jihadi terrorists don't fall into that category. If you wish to believe I'm "turning it into some kind of patriotic thing," you have that right.

That report isn't the ultimate word, or even close to it. As I said before, history is full of examples of torture working. I'm reading a book now about the Doolittle raid that includes an example. Just about any history book you want to read that relates to prisoners of war will have examples. The people who conducted the interrogations of Al Qaeda members believe it worked.

As I said before, there are different stuations; in some cases it can be valuable, in others it cannot. And the question of when, if ever, America should use it is a separate one.

It's just ridiculous to deny that enhanced interrogation techniques can be valuable in obtaining some kinds of information.

And there's also yet another issue, which is the definition of "torture." Some people claim waterboarding as practiced by the U.S. in recent years qualifies; others do not. And people who are ignorant claim it's what was practiced decades ago and found to be torture, such as by U.S. soldiers against Filipinos, which was a radically different procedure.

 

[FullTilt]

I read, but I see no relevance to anything I wrote. Maybe you have me confused with another poster. If the comment about drinking was directed at me, you are too much of an asshole for me to care one way or the other, anyway.

Don't believe I put any comment about drinking in any form. Not sure what you are referencing there.

You had stated: What I think is that the people who participate in these interrogations know more about it than anonymous posters on internet message boards.

I was just pointing out that the people who were in charge of EIT were not "experts" in any form of the word.

 

[FullTilt]

I'm saying that I consider 1 in 200 yielding good information to save 1 life worth it, yet this report would still show failure if that were the case. I do not agree that the report, despite its showing, should dictate our policy. I'm not suggesting we should ignore the Geneva Convention for those who also recognize it, but ISIS/Jihadi terrorists don't fall into that category. If you wish to believe I'm "turning it into some kind of patriotic thing," you have that right.

What if the other 199 times it leads us to lose valuable time in order to gather information (many times the turnaround time before information is lost is very quick)? What if those other 199 times cause us to lose 2 American lives by using these methods instead of better methods?

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

It appears to work:

About a third of the CIA detainees were subjected to what the agency euphemistically called enhanced interrogation techniques.

The purpose of the enhanced interrogation techniques was to take someone who was refusing to cooperate with us and to accelerate the process by which we would move from a zone of defiance to a zone of cooperation.

Former CIA Director Gen. Michael Hayden

"They range from something as innocuous as the 'attention grasp' or 'facial grasp,' you know, grabbing somebody by the lapels or grabbing them by the chin, to a variety of things that have to do with sleep or diet or stress positions," former CIA Director Gen. Michael Hayden said.

In the most extreme cases, detainees were subjected to waterboarding, in which they experience what it's like to drown.

Among those who provided information while under CIA control was Hassan Gul, a senior al-Qaida operative from Pakistan. According to the detainee documents, Gul told interrogators that Kuwaiti traveled with bin Laden. A senior U.S. official says the information Gul provided was key to identifying Kuwaiti as bin laden's courier.

But he may have provided it under stress.

A 2005 document indicates that Gul was one of the CIA detainees subjected to "enhanced interrogation techniques." He is now free.

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, a mastermind of the Sept. 11 attacks and one of three CIA detainees subjected to waterboarding, indirectly confirmed information about Kuwaiti

Interesting info, so thanks, but what's your point?

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

Would you want all measures (aside from beheading) used on someone that had Intel on where your kid/brother/sister was being held?

Nice. Way to create the tough case to justify the general practice.

We aren't talking about 1 person who we know for certain has the info that will save lives that that person was complicit in putting in jeopardy. Even those who oppose torture may be swayed in such a case. Instead, we are talking about whether it's justified to torture thousands of people, some of whom may be totally innocent, and many of whom will have no information that we, upon contemplation, would say is particularly useful.

Let me throw a hard case back at you. Suppose the person you plan to torture to get the info to save your sister is not actually complicit. He knows the info you want but has been told by the terrorists that they will kill his whole family if he tells you anything.

Because it's your sister, you may feel justified to torture an innocent person and condemn other innocents to save your sister's life. Tough call. But is that hard case how you should be making policy?

 

[thewop]

What if the other 199 times it leads us to lose valuable time in order to gather information (many times the turnaround time before information is lost is very quick)? What if those other 199 times cause us to lose 2 American lives by using these methods instead of better methods?

see my previous comment, I'm not recommending going straight to torture. I'm simply not ruling it out as a permissible option.