Merged Senate Report on CIA Torture Program

[The Don]

I was addressing what I thought was one of the criticisms of my scenario, i.e. its supposed implausibility. My point wasn't that torture could have prevented the 9/11 attacks but rather that terrorist threats that seem implausible, and only the stuff of Hollywood dreams, maybe aren't so implausible.

Yes, terrorist attacks have been committed which didn't seem plausible beforehand. Perhaps one of the reasons why the attack went ahead is that because it was implausible, the usual processes to identify the threat and attempt to neutralise it were ineffective.

The security services have finite capacity. Even if their funding was increased tenfold they would still have finite (albeit grater capacity). They need to focus their efforts on the greatest threats (most likely to happen and/or greatest impact) rather than attempting to identify all possible threats (not least because that's impossible).

How any of this relates to torture escapes me but I'm sure someone can join the dots for me.

 

[3point14]

9/11 should have been handled and investigated like the crime that it was, not like the act of war that it wasn't.

Now that wouldn't have enabled public support for an invasion of a country totally unrelated to the incident now, would it?

 

[The Don]

Perhaps so. But in reference to WWII this point is one I find interesting: apparently, terrorists like Al-Qaeda and their ilk are worse than Nazis and the SS. Why?

I think that's always been the way, portray your enemy as being thoroughly evil in an attempt to bolster public support for a war and to dehumanise them. The lot we're currently at war with seem always to be worse in some way than anyone we've been at war with in the past.

 

[bit_pattern]

Amazing to see the tone of these posts and what it takes to get people to see the mote in their own eye. Now, take it further. What if ISIS, Al Qaeda etc are the good guys? Why not? They aren't *********** around in your country. You are doing so in theirs. You are propping up Israel, a state of dubious legitimacy, and muscling in on the region because of its oil. You destroyed Iraq and owe it reparation and have connived at the destruction of Syria (and would have destroyed it with shock and awe but for a wave of anti-war feeling). Fine, you're down three buildings and a few thousand civilians but that itself followed years of prior involvement and is a drop in the ocean compared to American-led atrocities. When you finally let go of your sense of moral superiority you might be on the road to regaining it.

Get the facts. Prosecute. Get control of your renegade leaders. Fat chance.

My entire conception of American news media is filtered and condensed through the lens of The Daily Show and I'll tell you I was shocked to see the dismissive apologism and prevarication being expressed in the MSM. Even supposedly "liberal" networks were making the most contradictory and disgusting excuses for this travesty of natural justice. One anchor simultaneously argued that the report could endanger American lives AND that it was nonsense to suggest that torture could radicalise people against America. Made my head spin.

 

[bit_pattern]

Now that wouldn't have enabled public support for an invasion of a country totally unrelated to the incident now, would it?

Ahh, of course, I can see the gaping hole in my logic now

 

[bit_pattern]

http://www.theage.com.au/comment/i-was-an-interrogator-at-abu-ghraib-i-tortured-20141210-1246qf.html

I spent this semester teaching creative writing at Lehigh University, Pennsylvania. I've been a soldier, a police officer and an interrogator. So hearing students call me "professor" and assigning homework was a significant change of pace.

But the course's title, Writing War, kept me from straying too far from the memories that have haunted me over the last decade. I am grateful to Lehigh for the opportunity to teach the course. The school's willingness to put a veteran in the classroom is the very thing the United Statesneeds to be doing to collectively process what the last 13 years of war have wrought. But teaching a class about war reminded me daily that I am no college professor.

I was an interrogator at Abu Ghraib. I tortured.

 

[ponderingturtle]

I was addressing what I thought was one of the criticisms of my scenario, i.e. its supposed implausibility. My point wasn't that torture could have prevented the 9/11 attacks but rather that terrorist threats that seem implausible, and only the stuff of Hollywood dreams, maybe aren't so implausible.



Seems like you didn't finish your question here.

It is implausible. How much surety do you need that an attack is planned, and that the person you are going to torture is in custody and actually has the information? Then there is the issue of will it actually be useful in getting information that will be useful in preventing the attack. That isn't exactly the best situation to waste resources chasing down false leads.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Perhaps so. But in reference to WWII this point is one I find interesting: apparently, terrorists like Al-Qaeda and their ilk are worse than Nazis and the SS. Why? Because during WWII the U.S. and U.K. didn't as a matter of course use torture against their Nazi and SS prisoners. In spite of being involved in a war to the death against the Reich.

Indeed, the story came out earlier this year how British intelligence treated some high value German prisoners very well, putting them up in a posh house. Only the estate had numerous microphones secreted about the place to record the prisoners who felt at ease as a result of being treated so well. Useful intelligence was gained from these efforts.

But that was a war, not a Ticking Time Bomb(tm)

 

[Bikewer]

Only slightly off-topic..... In listening to a whole bunch of NPR interviews with various involved parties over the last couple of days...... I have not heard so much weaseling and hair splitting since the days of ABSCAM.
"Well, it wasn't torture."

"Why not?"

"Because the Justice folks said so." (The Justice folks that were part of the administration....)

"But we have prosecuted people for doing the very thing mentioned, and called it torture."

"We had a legal opinion that it wasn't...."

And so on..... Then there's the arguments about the effectiveness of the "enhanced interrogations", which are even more arcane. We've gone from "We disrupted terror plots and saved lives!" To...."Well, its a matter of connecting the dots, see, and these interrogations may have supplied some of the dots..."

One ex-CIA type talked about "making some of the terrorists uncomfortable." Yeah.... Standing up for three days straight with your hands chained above your head might conceivably be uncomfortable.......

 

[Crossbow]

Only slightly off-topic..... In listening to a whole bunch of NPR interviews with various involved parties over the last couple of days...... I have not heard so much weaseling and hair splitting since the days of ABSCAM.
"Well, it wasn't torture."

"Why not?"

"Because the Justice folks said so." (The Justice folks that were part of the administration....)

"But we have prosecuted people for doing the very thing mentioned, and called it torture."

"We had a legal opinion that it wasn't...."

And so on..... Then there's the arguments about the effectiveness of the "enhanced interrogations", which are even more arcane. We've gone from "We disrupted terror plots and saved lives!" To...."Well, its a matter of connecting the dots, see, and these interrogations may have supplied some of the dots..."

One ex-CIA type talked about "making some of the terrorists uncomfortable." Yeah.... Standing up for three days straight with your hands chained above your head might conceivably be uncomfortable.......

Thanks much, I noticed that as well.

I would like to ask those people who say that 'it was not torture' then why was it stopped?

After all, if the non-torture was so good at getting data, then the non-torture should be a standard procedure as opposed to something that was done in secret, done to only high-value detainees, and so on.

 

[The Don]

Only slightly off-topic..... In listening to a whole bunch of NPR interviews with various involved parties over the last couple of days...... I have not heard so much weaseling and hair splitting since the days of ABSCAM..

I suspect it's another one of those irregular nouns....

My use of these interrogation techniques is entirely legal

Your use of those same techniques is questionable but ultimately justifiable

Their use of those same techniques is a war crime and justifies my use of those techniques

 

[anglolawyer]

Thanks much, I noticed that as well.

I would like to ask those people who say that 'it was not torture' then why was it stopped?

After all, if the non-torture was so good at getting data, then the non-torture should be a standard procedure as opposed to something that was done in secret, done to only high-value detainees, and so on.

And I would like to ask: if torture is OK because it works or because they had it coming, then why pussy foot around? Let's round up their mothers and daughters too and rape them in front of the prisoners, or get them to do it, castrate them etc etc (you get the picture). Have the honesty to tear up the treaty you signed (any downside to openly breaking international treaties? - not for the U.S. apparently, or not right now, but one day maybe) and lose yourselves in a miasma of hate. Or start using some brains and real guts for a change.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Well that's what happens when you break the law. As we learned at Nuremberg, just following orders is not a defence. If for no other reason, THIS is why you should oppose torture: to protect the brave men and women of the intelligence services from the indignity of future prosecution and humiliation. It is unacceptable for their superiors to have demanded this of them.

It is a defense when you are not the loser it seems. Unless embarrassing pictures get out, then of course it isn't a defense as someone needs to be scapegoated.

 

[ponderingturtle]

I'm not for torture, but innocents get caught up in military conflicts. Suppose we had a top Al Queda official surrounded by his family and a predator drone was nearby? Innocents get killed. It's a fact of war. We killed a heck of a lot of innocent people to bring WW2 to an end.

Yep, sometimes the good guys torture innocent people to death. It is their job after all.

 

[ponderingturtle]

That isn't how you fight wars. We knew, when we bombed Germany's war industries, that many many civilians would get killed. We couldn't (and didn't) let that stop us. Later on, we actually started targeting civilians in a vain effort to break German and Japanese moral.

It's a nasty dirty fight we're in. I don't support torture because I'm morally opposed to it, and I think we can inspire others with our actions. But if we have a high value target, surrounded by civilians, sometimes you have to make the call.

I think people understand that civilians get killed in conflicts, and the U.S. generally tries to minimize that to a great degree. This torture report, though, is devastating to our cause. We were supposed to be the kind of country that didn't do that. Yeah, if you messed with us, we'll mess you up worse (and kill innocents in the process), but we did it the honorable way, with bullets and bombs! Torture was always what the "bad guys" did.

Exactly that is why the so called cowardly terrorists of 9/11 were not really different than the brave army air core of WWII burning cities to ash.

 

[sunmaster14]

Amazing to see the tone of these posts and what it takes to get people to see the mote in their own eye. Now, take it further. What if ISIS, Al Qaeda etc are the good guys? Why not?

Well, of course they're the good guys to people who want an Islamic caliphate. Everything's relative. If I believed in one of the more extreme variants of Islam, I would think they were the good guys too. But, you know what? I don't. I like Western culture; I like freedom of speech and thought and education; and I like bacon ... a lot. So, they're enemies of mine. End of story.

They aren't *********** around in your country. You are doing so in theirs. You are propping up Israel, a state of dubious legitimacy, and muscling in on the region because of its oil. You destroyed Iraq and owe it reparation and have connived at the destruction of Syria (and would have destroyed it with shock and awe but for a wave of anti-war feeling).

I see where you're coming from now. ISIS and al Qaeda have a legitimate country that we're mucking around in, but Israel? Well, that "country" has dubious legitimacy, despite the fact that three generations of its citizens have already been born there, it has a strong national identity, a powerful and disciplined army, and a stable parliamentary democracy, with strong rule of law. I won't go into detail about how Israel has contributed more good to the world in terms of technological and scientific advancement than all of the Arab countries, indeed all of the modern Islamic countries put together. But, yeah, sure, it's of dubious legitimacy. You know, just like Iraq and all of the other countries of the Middle East that some arrogant, declining empire carved out in order to cause as much inter-ethnic conflict and strife as possible.

Fine, you're down three buildings and a few thousand civilians but that itself followed years of prior involvement and is a drop in the ocean compared to American-led atrocities. When you finally let go of your sense of moral superiority you might be on the road to regaining it.

Coming from a Brit, I have to say this is pretty rich. England's whole colonial history was built on its inflated sense of moral superiority. In any case, countries protect their national interest, which, first and foremost, means the security of its citizens. A reputation for moral superiority plus $5 couldn't even get you a latte in the Starbucks of global affairs. It counts for close to zero, if not negative. The Chinese don't care. The Russians don't care. The asshats in the Middle East don't care. The only ones who say they care, but really don't, are our supposed allies in Europe. We are restrained by our own sense of morality. That's it. Does that mean we should have done what was done? No, I don't think so. But only because it was unnecessary.

 

[sunmaster14]

Exactly that is why the so called cowardly terrorists of 9/11 were not really different than the brave army air core of WWII burning cities to ash.

The main difference between the 9/11 terrorists and the Air Force bomber crews during WWII is that the former were trying to kill us, and the latter were trying to save us. It's ok to root for your own side. You might even say that it's natural.

 

[anglolawyer]

Well, of course they're the good guys to people who want an Islamic caliphate. Everything's relative. If I believed in one of the more extreme variants of Islam, I would think they were the good guys too. But, you know what? I don't. I like Western culture; I like freedom of speech and thought and education; and I like bacon ... a lot. So, they're enemies of mine. End of story.

Where were all these people before 2001? You created them with your dangerous, unintelligent and counter-productive policies. The right to keep eating bacon (not actually under serious threat btw.) must be one of the more surreal justifications for torture anyone has come up with yet.

I see where you're coming from now. ISIS and al Qaeda have a legitimate country that we're mucking around in, but Israel? Well, that "country" has dubious legitimacy, despite the fact that three generations of its citizens have already been born there, it has a strong national identity, a powerful and disciplined army, and a stable parliamentary democracy, with strong rule of law. I won't go into detail about how Israel has contributed more good to the world in terms of technological and scientific advancement than all of the Arab countries, indeed all of the modern Islamic countries put together. But, yeah, sure, it's of dubious legitimacy. You know, just like Iraq and all of the other countries of the Middle East that some arrogant, declining empire carved out in order to cause as much inter-ethnic conflict and strife as possible.

You can't get me by taking swipes at the UK. Unlike yours, my thinking is not constrained by foolish, one eyed patriotism.

Coming from a Brit, I have to say this is pretty rich. England's whole colonial history was built on its inflated sense of moral superiority. In any case, countries protect their national interest, which, first and foremost, means the security of its citizens. A reputation for moral superiority plus $5 couldn't even get you a latte in the Starbucks of global affairs. It counts for close to zero, if not negative. The Chinese don't care. The Russians don't care. The asshats in the Middle East don't care. The only ones who say they care, but really don't, are our supposed allies in Europe. We are restrained by our own sense of morality. That's it. Does that mean we should have done what was done? No, I don't think so. But only because it was unnecessary.

First, you can cut out the Brit stuff. Like I said, I am not invested in any way in the supposed superiority of the British. The Brits were just as dumb as you.

Now, the rest of the above paragraph (apart from the fanciful highlighted bit) is something I agree with 100%. But you need to stick with it. You aren't better than anyone else, just bigger and richer, so don't pretend otherwise. Btw. you can't win this war of yours. The other guys are willing to die in droves while yours skulk inside their humvees with a populace back home freaking out at the smallest casualty figures. They want a caliphate. You just want bacon with your eggs. Should have thought this thing through.

 

[Bluegill]

Thanks much, I noticed that as well.

I would like to ask those people who say that 'it was not torture' then why was it stopped?

After all, if the non-torture was so good at getting data, then the non-torture should be a standard procedure as opposed to something that was done in secret, done to only high-value detainees, and so on.

Good point! And I guess, taking that a little farther, it could be used in other high-stakes situations. Maybe on both the cops and the witnesses in Ferguson, MO? How about on any suspects in disappearances? Maybe on the friends and families of dangerous suspects who have been on the run for a few days? Maybe we could try it on Dick Cheney to see if he is withholding anything else we need to know about. Sure, it's a slippery slope fallacy--but if it works, it works, and you could save lives!

[edit to add, just to be clear, this is sarcasm, and I am agreeing with Crossbow.]

 

[sunmaster14]

Where were all these people before 2001? You created them with your dangerous, unintelligent and counter-productive policies.

Well, we certainly didn't create them. Winston Churchill was complaining about them over a hundred years ago. I actually agree that some of our dangerous, unintelligent and counterproductive policies allowed them to grow more dangerous. The twist is that the very policies I think are counterproductive are the ones that you recommend. I'm a strong horse guy, and I think we've too often played the weak horse.

The right to keep eating bacon (not actually under serious threat btw.) must be one of the more surreal justifications for torture anyone has come up with yet.

That wasn't a justification for torture. I noted the deliciousness of bacon as a reason (among others) to oppose ISIS and al Qaeda. By the way, the bacon pipeline is pretty secure in the US, but I wouldn't be so sure about certain parts of England. You might want to keep an eye on that sharia state within a state you have growing over there.

You can't get me by taking swipes at the UK. Unlike yours, my thinking is not constrained by foolish, one eyed patriotism.

Well, maybe. Personally, I think that the desire to take swipes at whole populations as if they were jingoistic monoliths is indicative of patriotism at some level. I mean if you don't feel an affinity for your own culture or country, then why would you attribute the opposite feelings to complete strangers? In any case, extrapolating from your geopolitical views, I suspect I'm a bigger fan of the UK than you are (and I am a big fan), so I'm certainly not benefiting from such swipes. Other than to point out that, if in a position to do so, no culture or people or country could resist meddling in other people's affairs around the world. Being too weak to do so is hardly evidence of moral superiority.

<snip>

Btw. you can't win this war of yours. The other guys are willing to die in droves while yours skulk inside their humvees with a populace back home freaking out at the smallest casualty figures. They want a caliphate. You just want bacon with your eggs. Should have thought this thing through.

Oh, we can win this war, and we are winning, if by winning we mean continuing to enjoy freedom and a high standard of living. Just as Israel is winning even though all the usual idiots always say they're losing. The Islamists do not have their caliphate, nor will they, and I will continue to enjoy my bacon with my eggs. Ok, I'll admit that I find going through a security line at the airport to be pretty annoying, but that's an own-goal as near as I can tell.