Merged Senate Report on CIA Torture Program

[thaiboxerken]

No, I think it was bullets to the head.

More seriously, the CIA claims information gained from torture (although they don't call it that) was critical in tracking down Bin Laden. Senate Democrats dispute that. Both sides appear to be less than credible.

No. You are wrong. There is no evidence that torture produced any useful intelligence. Not just about Bin Laden, but ever.

 

[Fudbucker]

False analogy.

A prison sentence is a punishment for an established guilt of a crime committed. It is supposed to impose a degree of suffering. Interrogation is a means for extracting information that may be used to establish guilt in a criminal trial but which is being carried out against someone who is still innocent, and indeed might be used to establish innocence.

It's not an analogy, it's an example of the definition of torture that was given: an individual "commits an act" and is punished with a severe prison sentence, which causes a great deal of mental suffering. According to the definition given, that's torture.

 

[Wudang]

It's not an analogy, it's an example of the definition of torture that was given: an individual "commits an act" and is punished with a severe prison sentence, which causes a great deal of mental suffering. According to the definition given, that's torture.

Would it be easier if we posted the whole document to establish context?
Does the term "due process" mean anything to you?

 

[Fudbucker]

Would it be easier if we posted the whole document to establish context?
Does the term "due process" mean anything to you?

Ahh, so if we apply "due process" we then have the green light to inflict "severe mental suffering"?

There's no way around it: long prison terms result in "severe mental suffering". Whether they're a result of due process or plucking people off the street, it's still "severe mental suffering".

Perhaps the definition of torture is flawed.

 

[I Am The Scum]

Some of you guys seriously need to familiarize yourself with Loki's Wager.

 

[Fudbucker]

Some of you guys seriously need to familiarize yourself with Loki's Wager.

I don't think anyone is saying we can't discuss torture. I'm certainly not saying that.

The definition given so far ("intense mental suffering") applies to long prison terms. Therefore, every country in the world is guilty of torturing its citizens, whether by due process or not.

Yes, "intense mental suffering" can be torture. It can also be part of a country's justice system. That then requires a deep discussion of when it's OK to subject someone to "intense mental suffering". After a trial by jury? After a trial by judge? If the person was captured on the battlefield and sent to a POW camp?

The issue is not nearly as cut-and-dry as some would like it to be.

 

[bit_pattern]

It's not an analogy, it's an example of the definition of torture that was given: an individual "commits an act" and is punished with a severe prison sentence, which causes a great deal of mental suffering. According to the definition given, that's torture.

On second glance, I see you are right in that the definition of torture extends beyond interrogation and into punishment

But a twenty year prison sentence is not torture if the imprisonment complies with the Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners, as cited in the definition in question. That being said, I think a great deal of the way the United States goes about imprisonment probably DOES constitute torture. But the mere act of imprisonment in and of itself is not enough to warrant such a definition

 

[Fudbucker]

On second glance, I see you are right in that the definition of torture extends beyond interrogation and into punishment

But a twenty year prison sentence is not torture if the imprisonment complies with the Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners, as cited in the definition in question. That being said, I think a great deal of the way the United States goes about imprisonment probably DOES constitute torture. But the mere act of imprisonment in and of itself is not enough to warrant such a definition

Look, I don't want us torturing people. The report disgusted me. I expected that Guantanamo would be closed by now. Maybe we should adopt a policy where we don't do anything more than what we allow the police to do when they interrogate people. I don't know. We're supposed to be the country that doesn't torture people. Maybe national security these days requires a certain amount of "enhanced interrogation". I hope not.

 

[tsig]

Look, I don't want us torturing people. The report disgusted me. I expected that Guantanamo would be closed by now. Maybe we should adopt a policy where we don't do anything more than what we allow the police to do when they interrogate people. I don't know. We're supposed to be the country that doesn't torture people. Maybe national security these days requires a certain amount of "enhanced interrogation". I hope not.

So back when we were fighting for national survival in WWII we didn't need to use torture but now we do? It looks like you are advocating that we ignore the law to uphold the law

 

[anglolawyer]

Some of you guys seriously need to familiarize yourself with Loki's Wager.

I could have used that in a recent argument about what 'fairness' means. Thanks.

 

[jimbob]

No. You are wrong. There is no evidence that torture produced any useful intelligence. Not just about Bin Laden, but ever.

Indeed, and the link in my post below showed that it produced wrong intelligence about Al Queada (A confession the person tortured was an aide to Bin Laden (they'd had a flalling out and) and that Al Quaeda was working with Saddam Hussein to distribute WMDs)

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/dec/12/us-torture-shaker-aamer-cia-guantanamo

 

[sunmaster14]

No. You are wrong. There is no evidence that torture produced any useful intelligence. Not just about Bin Laden, but ever.

Exactly which statement(s) in my post were wrong? And I don't suppose you can point to any research or credible source which corroborates your claim that torture has never produced any useful intelligence, can you?

Btw, I have another logical proof that it is inconsistent and illogical to believe that torture doesn't work. I'll present it later in the day.

 

[Tony Stark]

Exactly which statement(s) in my post were wrong? And I don't suppose you can point to any research or credible source which corroborates your claim that torture has never produced any useful intelligence, can you?

Btw, I have another logical proof that it is inconsistent and illogical to believe that torture doesn't work. I'll present it later in the day.

His claim was not that torture has never produced any useful intelligence but rather that there is no evidence that it did. I have never seen any such evidence. Have you?

 

[sunmaster14]

His claim was not that torture has never produced any useful intelligence but rather that there is no evidence that it did. I have never seen any such evidence. Have you?

Fair point. My evidence is that the CIA claims it works. These are experienced people who decided they needed more extreme measures to extract information, and they went to great lengths to obtain the proper authorities. What is Ken's evidence that there is no evidence that torture works? To begin with, he has to prove my evidence is flawed.

 

[Wudang]

Fair point. My evidence is that the CIA claims it works. These are experienced people who decided they needed more extreme measures to extract information, and they went to great lengths to obtain the proper authorities. What is Ken's evidence that there is no evidence that torture works? To begin with, he has to prove my evidence is flawed.

Theleadership of the CIA claimed it worked and provided dubious data to back it. The case of Abu Zubaydah has been fully rebuffed - all the good data came from FBI interrogation using standard techniques when they ganed his cooperation. Then the CIA tortured him anyway. Internally CIA agents repeatedly questioned the effectiveness of torture.

 

[Tony Stark]

Fair point. My evidence is that the CIA claims it works. These are experienced people who decided they needed more extreme measures to extract information, and they went to great lengths to obtain the proper authorities. What is Ken's evidence that there is no evidence that torture works? To begin with, he has to prove my evidence is flawed.

The CIA may have believed at the time that what they were doing would produce useful intel but that is not evidence that it did. The evidence for the claim that there is no evidence that the CIA torturing people produced useful intel is the lack of evidence that the CIA torturing people produced useful intel.

 

[sunmaster14]

The CIA may have believed at the time that what they were doing would produce useful intel but that is not evidence that it did. The evidence for the claim that there is no evidence that the CIA torturing people produced useful intel is the lack of evidence that the CIA torturing people produced useful intel.

My evidence is not just that the CIA claims torture actually produced useful intel in this case, but also that very experienced people at the CIA believed that it would before the program even started (hence the push to get the proper authorization). The CIA had had decades of institutional experience with this stuff. They had done all kinds of experiments and tests, most of which have never seen the light of day.

Many people here believe that CIA operatives wanted to torture people just for fun. I find that to be unrealistically cynical. I have little doubt that many people at the CIA honestly believed that it was an effective way to extract information from an uncooperative and resilient detainee.

I'll also note that there is something of an availability bias in the accounts you hear from interrogators in the press. It's very easy to be against torture in public. It's not so easy to defend it in public. Also, there is another kind of bias which is that people who are morally opposed to torture will feel morally justified in lying about its effectiveness (or lack thereof) in order raise awareness and to build public opposition to it. We see the same sort of effect in other areas of public policy (e.g. the UVA gang rape report or the Michael Brown shooting).

 

[Tony Stark]

My evidence is not just that the CIA claims torture actually produced useful intel in this case, but also that very experienced people at the CIA believed that it would before the program even started (hence the push to get the proper authorization). The CIA had had decades of institutional experience with this stuff. They had done all kinds of experiments and tests, most of which have never seen the light of day.

The CIA was illegally torturing people before 9/11?

Many people here believe that CIA operatives wanted to torture people just for fun. I find that to be unrealistically cynical. I have little doubt that many people at the CIA honestly believed that it was an effective way to extract information from an uncooperative and resilient detainee.

Probably so. But that doesn't mean that they were right.

I'll also note that there is something of an availability bias in the accounts you hear from interrogators in the press. It's very easy to be against torture in public. It's not so easy to defend it in public. Also, there is another kind of bias which is that people who are morally opposed to torture will feel morally justified in lying about its effectiveness (or lack thereof) in order raise awareness and to build public opposition to it. We see the same sort of effect in other areas of public policy (e.g. the UVA gang rape report or the Michael Brown shooting).

Not evidence in that CIA torture produced any valuable intel.

 

[sunmaster14]

Theleadership of the CIA claimed it worked and provided dubious data to back it. The case of Abu Zubaydah has been fully rebuffed - all the good data came from FBI interrogation using standard techniques when they ganed his cooperation. Then the CIA tortured him anyway. Internally CIA agents repeatedly questioned the effectiveness of torture.

My understanding is that the claims about Zubaydah delivering useful information after waterboarding have not been successfully rebutted. The strongest rebuttal comes from the testimony of one man, FBI agent Ali Soufan, who obviously was annoyed that the CIA came in and interfered with his interrogation. I can certainly understand where he's coming from, but I don't accept his claims as gospel. In fact, his perspective seems to be part of a larger turf battle between the FBI and the CIA. On a side note, Soufan has made some rather grandiose claims about how he would have prevented the 9/11 attacks if only the CIA had shared information with him. He certainly seems to have a rather large grudge against the CIA, as does Diane Feinstein.

 

[RandFan]

Look, I don't want us torturing people. The report disgusted me. I expected that Guantanamo would be closed by now. Maybe we should adopt a policy where we don't do anything more than what we allow the police to do when they interrogate people. I don't know. We're supposed to be the country that doesn't torture people. Maybe national security these days requires a certain amount of "enhanced interrogation". I hope not.

Just follow the army field manual on interrogation. There is no need for all of this hand wringing. We actually know how to obtain information. Before the CIA introduced torture we were successful at getting information. Ali Soufan, the man instrumental in getting actionable intelligence from Abu Zubaydah testified that once the CIA started torturing Zubayda he shut up. Soufan cannot even tell you the purpose of the torture as it had nothing to do with getting accurate information.

Those of us on this side of the debate will continue to ask for evidence to support the use of torture. Those on that side of the debate will continue to make claims without evidence that torture A.) works. B.) Is even necessary.