Torture: getting Cheney to admit to the Tate murders...

[theprestige]

Whereas psychological torture doesn't hurt anyone, right?

Of course it does. That's kind of the point.

But compared to, say, biting off parts of someone's face until they talk, waterboarding sure looks a lot easier for both the interrogator and the subject to recover from, both physically and psychologically.

For myself, I would question them as you would any other criminal.

This is a whole other can of worms right here. Warfare and Criminal Justice are two totally different things, with totally different goals, totally different constraints, and totally different rules.

You know - evidence, motive, presumption of innocence until proven innocent. ETA: guilty - I meant to say guilty here. I assume you folks guessed that...

It isn't just coincidence that torture isn't used by civil authorities to question suspects.

Well, not in any civilised countries...[/QUOTE]

I'm not sure an enemy soldier should be entitled to the protections of the criminal justice system, simply because he's clever enough to take of his uniform, divorce himself from the chain of command, and refrain from signing the Geneva Convention.

Nor do I think the military should be bound by the requirements of the criminal justice system, to conduct meticulous investigations, to make sure all evidence follows the proper chain of custody, to make no searches or seizures without warrants, to not detain "suspects" without formally charging them, not execute people who have not been formally convicted of a capital offense by a jury of their peers, etc.

The battlefield is not a court of law.

But let me understand: Are you now agreeing that torture does, indeed, work? And you're moving on to the proposition that even though it works, you would still not use it?

Because that's okay. I think a morally sound, principled case can be made for using torture in some extreme situations. You think differently. I'm content to leave it at that, and let the people, and their duly appointed representatives determine policy one way or the other.

But this thread is more about whether or not torture--specifically waterboarding--works.

 

[Cicero]

So I take it you have never lied or exaggerated in your life? Because according to your logic, if you have, then everything else you've said since is tainted.

There has to be some mental disorder at work to pathologically lie about being a SEAL and being in combat. It is not as if the guy is exaggerating his bench press poundage or repetitions. If you find Ventura a credible person that is your prerogative, but don't cry ad homenem because Ventura's interviews over the last 25 years have revealed him to be an ignominious cartoon figure. Do you really need the likes of Ventura to shore-up the "waterboarding is torture" verse?

 

[varwoche]

... there is a fundamental difference between training US soldiers and torturing a POW. That difference is one of choice.

Not just choice. The soldiers are in a controlled situation and know they are in a controlled situation.

Why this needs to be explained to anyone is beyond me.

 

[Cicero]

Not just choice. The soldiers are in a controlled situation and know they are in a controlled situation.

Why this needs to be explained to anyone is beyond me.

But Ventura doesn't make any such distinction. He said it was torture (just as Hitch did), even though he consented to it.

 

[I Ratant]

My apologies. I guess I didn't grasp that torture only produces completely trustworthy information. It sort of puts the whole Gulag Achapelago and the Inquesition into a new light...bunch of guilty whiners.

.
The Inquisition was somewhat unique in jurisprudence, in that the accusation was sufficient for conviction.
Torture was used to flesh out (or de-flesh, depending on the process) the need to have something from the victim other than vigorous denials.
I believe Torquemeda is the envy of DAs every where, with his 100% conviction record.

 

[INRM]

Special forces soldiers and fighter-pilots among probably others are trained in order to resist torture because not everybody follows the law and sometimes tortures soldiers.

This is not to say that torture is acceptable.


Jesse Ventura having experienced it first hand would be in a position to judge if it's torture or not. With that said, if you torture virtually anybody enough they'll confess to pretty much anything.


INRM

 

[Cicero]

Special forces soldiers and fighter-pilots among probably others are trained in order to resist torture because not everybody follows the law and sometimes tortures soldiers.

This is not to say that torture is acceptable.


Jesse Ventura having experienced it first hand would be in a position to judge if it's torture or not. With that said, if you torture virtually anybody enough they'll confess to pretty much anything.


INRM

The reason they gave L pills to agents is because eventually anyone can be broken by torture. But the L pills were not to prevent the agents from divulging phony confessions, it was to insure they wouldn't divulge bona fide intel.

 

[NobbyNobbs]

There has to be some mental disorder at work to pathologically lie about being a SEAL and being in combat. It is not as if the guy is exaggerating his bench press poundage or repetitions. If you find Ventura a credible person that is your prerogative, but don't cry ad homenem because Ventura's interviews over the last 25 years have revealed him to be an ignominious cartoon figure. Do you really need the likes of Ventura to shore-up the "waterboarding is torture" verse?

Whether or not he lied about being a SEAL, it is a point of fact that he has experienced waterboarding firsthand and is therefore more qualified to discuss it than either you or I.

 

[theprestige]

Whether or not he lied about being a SEAL, it is a point of fact that he has experienced waterboarding firsthand and is therefore more qualified to discuss it than either you or I.

So a SERE instructor who has experienced torture as well as used it would be even more qualified than Jesse Ventura?

And a SERE psychologist who's made a deep and extensive study of the torture methods used by the CIA and their effects, including direct supervision of CIA interrogation sessions and close examination of their subjects, would perhaps be supremely quailfied?

What if either of these people believe torture is sometimes appropriate? Are they still more qualified than you or I?

What about on the legal side of the question? Would, I don't know, some kind of legal expert--maybe even a lawyer--be more qualified to discuss the legal basis for torture than either you or I?

Or does the appeal to authority only count when the authority in question agrees with your predetermined opinion on the matter?

 

[Praktik]

But it does raise the obvious question; why are Greenwald and some of the posters here pointing to Jesse Ventura, when they should be pointing to Zelikow? It is an enormous tactical error because Ventura can be laughed off while somebody like Zelikow cannot.

Greenwald has pointed to Zelikow.

Here: Democratic complicity and what "politicizing justice" really means

And in the very article you linked to:

"Former aide to Condoleezza Rice and former 9/11 Commission Executive Director Philip Zelikow yesterday became the latest to join Ventura by calling for investigations into torture, telling Laura Rozen: "When there is this kind of collective failure, we need to learn from what happened"
...
These are the people -- Gen. McCaffrey, Gen. Taguba, Col. Wilkerson, Philip Zelikow, Jesse Ventura, Ambassador Pickering, Director Sessions -- that our little David Ignatiuses deceitfully dismiss as "liberal score-settlers" and that our David Broders and John Barrys accuse of lying by masking their Hard Left thirst for partisan vengeance with false pretenses about a belief in the rule of law and contrived disgust at torture.​

 

[BTMO]

Of course it does. That's kind of the point.

But compared to, say, biting off parts of someone's face until they talk, waterboarding sure looks a lot easier for both the interrogator and the subject to recover from, both physically and psychologically.


This is a whole other can of worms right here. Warfare and Criminal Justice are two totally different things, with totally different goals, totally different constraints, and totally different rules.

You know - evidence, motive, presumption of innocence until proven innocent. ETA: guilty - I meant to say guilty here. I assume you folks guessed that...

It isn't just coincidence that torture isn't used by civil authorities to question suspects.

Well, not in any civilised countries...

I'm not sure an enemy soldier should be entitled to the protections of the criminal justice system, simply because he's clever enough to take of his uniform, divorce himself from the chain of command, and refrain from signing the Geneva Convention.

Nor do I think the military should be bound by the requirements of the criminal justice system, to conduct meticulous investigations, to make sure all evidence follows the proper chain of custody, to make no searches or seizures without warrants, to not detain "suspects" without formally charging them, not execute people who have not been formally convicted of a capital offense by a jury of their peers, etc.

The battlefield is not a court of law.

Oh, sorry - I wasn't aware that Guantanamo Bay was a "battlefield". I thought it was an American military base, bizarrely situated on an island that most Americans aren't permitted to visit due to embargoes with the ruling regime, as retribution for an incident that occured 50+ years ago. And where a torture holiday camp could be set up without being a) on American soil b) a place where military law and international conventions could be ignored and c) the media could be excluded.

Whatever DID happen to Lynndie England, btw?

Hell, the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbour, and Germany killed millions of Jews, and they are good friends and trading partners now - but not little Cuba... but I digress.

These people weren't interrogated on a battlefield, in the heat of battle. They were interrogated over a period of years, well away from the battlefield, in another part of the world, and in many cases, they had (military) lawyers appointed for show trials.

An Australian named David Hicks (some of his story here) was released a year or so ago, on condition that he kept his mouth shut about what happened at Guantanamo. I understand that his American military lawyer resigned in disgust over the condtions of the camp, and treatment of the prisoners there...

Incidentally, I believe that on the battlefield, you shoot at other soldiers. You don't stop shooting until they surrender. When they do, you treat them with dignity and respect, and if you decide to interrogate them, you do so without torture.

But let me understand: Are you now agreeing that torture does, indeed, work? And you're moving on to the proposition that even though it works, you would still not use it?

I believe what I have always believed about torture. It is unreliable, and it is barbaric.

Yes, it might work. So might lining up members of the person's family and shooting their knees out, then their genitals, then their brains. And keep doing this until you get a confession.

Hell - it might save lives. I sure it could be justified in all sorts of ways.

And to me, that is part of the problem. Use of torture is a "slippery slope" type of activity. Justification for using it gets easier if you can rename it - or if you can convince the folks back home that there is value in it... and no one was really hurt. Well, no one that matters.

I mentioned Hicks and England above. Two very minor players in this whole saga.

Hicks demonstrates (to me) that waterboarding wasn't the only torture that was occuring in Guantonamo and elsewhere, and England demonstrates that it was entrenched, systematic and commonplace.

I also believe she and her compatriats were nothing more than scapegoats, and that mistreatment of prisoners was policy.

Because that's okay. I think a morally sound, principled case can be made for using torture in some extreme situations. You think differently. I'm content to leave it at that, and let the people, and their duly appointed representatives determine policy one way or the other.

But this thread is more about whether or not torture--specifically waterboarding--works.

Actually, it was whether Jesse Ventura could get Dick Cheney to confess to the Tate murder. Suggesting that confessions obtained under torture were unreliable at best.

And I maintain what I have always maintained. It is unreliable (yes, which means it works sometimes), barbaric and has no place in the modern world.

 

[GreNME]

Whatever DID happen to Lynndie England, btw?

Three years prison sentence, let out after 17 months on good behavior. Best line of the interview: "In war, you don't rat on your buddies. There were only seven of us charged, but believe me, there were a lot more behind the pictures. But we didn't rat anybody out."

 

[corplinx]

While the 9/11 truther business makes me lose a lot of respect for Ventura, it doesn't necessarily mean the man is wrong every single time he opens his mouth. Ad hominem is, by definition, attacking the arguer instead of the argument- which is exactly what you are doing here.

Expect people to point at Jesse Ventura and laugh instead of discussing the argument, since the argument is beating a dead horse at this point. It's been done. Over and over.

 

[Brainster]

Greenwald has pointed to Zelikow.

Here: Democratic complicity and what "politicizing justice" really means

And in the very article you linked to:

"Former aide to Condoleezza Rice and former 9/11 Commission Executive Director Philip Zelikow yesterday became the latest to join Ventura by calling for investigations into torture, telling Laura Rozen: "When there is this kind of collective failure, we need to learn from what happened"
...
These are the people -- Gen. McCaffrey, Gen. Taguba, Col. Wilkerson, Philip Zelikow, Jesse Ventura, Ambassador Pickering, Director Sessions -- that our little David Ignatiuses deceitfully dismiss as "liberal score-settlers" and that our David Broders and John Barrys accuse of lying by masking their Hard Left thirst for partisan vengeance with false pretenses about a belief in the rule of law and contrived disgust at torture.​

Sorry I did not make it entirely clear that Greenwald linked to Zelikow, but what does Gleen lead with?

Jesse Ventura was on CNN with Larry King on Monday night and this exchange occurred, illustrating how simple, clear and definitively non-partisan is the case for investigations and prosecutions for those who ordered torture (video below)....

Now I know that Greenwald is not the product of a classical education but back in the dark ages we were taught to lead with our strong points. Suppose I had some opinion that happened to be shared by both Sylvia Browne and also by Richard Dawkins. Would I mention around here that Sylvia Browne was on Larry King last night and endorsed my position, and only after six paragraphs of discussing Sylvia's brilliant points would I get around to the fact that Richard Dawkins also feels the same way? Not on your life, in fact I would highlight the Dawkins part and play down the Browne connection with some sort of "even a blind pig like Sylvia Browne can see it."

 

[Oliver]

Ok, maybe not. And, I'm no huge fan of Jesse Ventura, but I thought this exchange with Larry King (of all people) was interesting...

"Jesse Ventura: I would prosecute every person who was involved in that torture. I would prosecute the people that did it, I would prosecute the people that ordered it, because torture is against the law."

Larry King: You were a Navy S.E.A.L.

Jesse Ventura: Yes, and I was waterboarded [in training] so I know... It is torture...I'll put it to you this way: You give me a waterboard, Dick Cheney and one hour, and I'll have him confess to the Sharon Tate murders."

http://thinkprogress.org/2009/05/12/ventura-cheney-torture/

This testimony actually fully underlines Ventura's POV, no matter if "SEALS were involved" or not:

FBI Interrogator Ali Soufan, who questioned Zubaydah, testifies that torture didn't work!

 

[Cicero]

Whether or not he lied about being a SEAL, it is a point of fact that he has experienced waterboarding firsthand and is therefore more qualified to discuss it than either you or I.

Point of fact, he lies about being a SEAL. Point of fact, you can experience the same thing with the help of an accomplice. Remember, it is legal to do this if it is consensual. Then you can go on Larry King and tell about your experience.

By the same standard, only the CIA interrogators who waterboarded the 3 detainees are qualified to discuss whether the info gleaned from them was useful.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Funnily enough it was the psycholigists who torture the US troops who suggested it.

I'm certain this point has been made on several torture threads (and probably this one as well), but I'll review it again.

To be torture, the laws in question specify that it must be the intentional infliction of severe pain by an agent of a government on a person in his custody or control for the purpose of gaining information, getting a confession or for punishment.

The S.E.R.E. training, while the intentional infliction of severe pain (arguably--since at least part of the mental pain of waterboarding is the threat of imminent death and trainees are fairly well assured that they won't die) by a government agent, it is done for the purpose of teaching how to survive and resist such techniques, and trainees are NOT in the custody or control of the trainers.

When someone like Ventura or Hitchens says that from personal experience that waterboarding is torture, I think what they mean is that it is severe pain, and in the context of an interrogation it is torture.

NO ONE at all anywhere is suggesting that we prosecute SERE trainers for the commission of torture.

The fact that waterboarding in the context of SERE training is not torture (does not fit the legal definition) does not mean that waterboarding in the context of interrogation is not torture. It's a faulty argument.

As I've pointed out many times now, arguments of this pattern:

x is somehow similar to y, (where y is something we all agree is not torture)
therefore x is not torture​

are logically flawed.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

By the same standard, only the CIA interrogators who waterboarded the 3 detainees are qualified to discuss whether the info gleaned from them was useful.

I'm not sure why that is, but at any rate, there is no exception in the laws on torture for cases where someone thinks they can glean useful information.

If that exception were made, then there would effectively be no prohibition of torture.

 

[WildCat]

While the 9/11 truther business makes me lose a lot of respect for Ventura, it doesn't necessarily mean the man is wrong every single time he opens his mouth. Ad hominem is, by definition, attacking the arguer instead of the argument- which is exactly what you are doing here.

His argument has been addressed a thousand times. Note where Ventura says the WTC fell "at the speed of gravity" and says if an object was dropped it would fall at exactly the same rate that the WTC collapsed. But as every single video of the event shows, large chunks of the building did indeed fall much faster than the collapse wave progressed.

Jesse doesn't understand what he is seeing, proof of diminished mental capacity.

That's just one example, of course.

 

[Puppycow]

Boy it's a good thing I didn't mention that Jesse's a 9-11 Truther kook, I would have gotten another penalty for ad hominem in your book, I suppose.

Is that right? A full-blown 9-11 Truther? Didn't know that about him.