Effectiveness of Torture

[BeAChooser]

That doesn't mean bin Laden knew details of the plot.

But nevertheless, he did.

My point, in any case, is that Bin Laden was well aware that the plot was to attack certain specific targets by crashing airplanes into them around a certain date. And that certain people, like Atta were involved in it. One of them being KSM. That information alone, had it fallen into the hands of US interrogators, would likely have prevented success of the plot. The same is true in the KSM case. The interrogators were trying to find out what other plots were underway. The targets. The terrorist leaders of those plots. The dates at which they were supposed to occur. That information alone might be enough to have defeated those plots. Apparently, it was.

Zarqawi was nothing to do with Al Qaeda

False. Self-labeled al-qaeda members said they met with al-Zarqawi in Bagdhad PRIOR to the invasion of Iraq to plan and get funding for the chemical bomb attack in Jordan. al-Zarqawi had a training camp in Afghanistan before he came to Iraq (which happened after our invasion of Afghanistan). I don't think you can convince me that he was allowed to operate that camp in Afghanistan without the approval and cooperation of the Taliban AND al-Qaeda. Those two groups were joined at the hips ... literally ... with the children of bin Laden and the head of the Taliban even getting married. And besides, you yourself said that al-Qaeda was loosely structured and a franchise.

and I don't share your certainty about the "failed chemical attack". Do you believe everything you're told by security services?

But this case was tried in a Jordanian court, with witness after witness testifying, with the jury being shown the vehicles, chemicals and explosives the dozen terrorists brought into the country, with the terrorists admitting on video and in the court room to many details of the plot, including it's ultimate purpose, and with the jury convicting the terrorists, including al-Zarqawi. Funny how your side simply dismisses any evidence that doesn't fit your hate-Bush world view.

Zarqawi took on the Al Qaeda name in return for a bunch of Saudi money.

Prove that. A link please.

Here's an opposing views:

http://www.signandsight.com/features/449.html

During a year of research on Zarqawi, the Jordanian journalist Fuad Hussein interviewed a number of senior Al-Qaida members. They included Saif al-Adel, a former colonel in the Egyptian Special Forces and bin Laden's military commander. Saif al-Adel, supposedly under "house arrest" in Iran, sent his report on Zarqawi via a system of messengers. The document consists of 42 densely handwritten pages of yellow greaseproof paper. Each page has dozens of fold-marks. According to individuals present when the documents were handed over, they were folded to the size of cigarettes and smuggled into Jordan.

What Saif al-Adel had to tell was informative and explosive. Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, he claimed, was not unknown within Al-Qaida's highest circle. Osama bin Laden had allegedly been thinking how the tens of thousands of Afghanistan veterans who travelled home after the defeat of the Soviet troops could be mobilized for a continuation of the jihad. "Some of them were just wandering about out there", wrote Saif al-Adel, something he considered a "waste".

Al-Qaida began to collect information on all of the pioneers of jihad: "The Jordanian and Palestinian brothers were at the top of this list," since the network's own intelligence "suggested that there were not many supporters of Al-Qaida or its ideas in Palestine and Jordan".

Zarqawi's "historic pleas" in court, in which he insulted the King of Jordan, had been noted with pride. "We were therefore very pleased early in 1999 when we heard that he had been released."

Shortly after Zarqawi's arrival in Kandahar at the end of 1999, Saif al-Adel visited him at a guest house. He was immediately struck by Zarqawi's weaknesses. He found a man "with poor rhetorical skills, who expressed what was on his mind bluntly." Saif al-Adel also noted that Zarqawi's practical experience (of jihad) was "not extensive." "But his ambition was great, his objectives clear."

He was more seriously worried about Zarqawi's "rigorist views" on some issues. This applied in particular to the "bayat", the vow of allegiance to al Qaida formulated by Osama bin Laden. Zarqawi wanted no compromises – as demonstrated by his position on the Saudi regime. He refused to support bin Laden until he declared war on the House of Saud. Moreover, he considered al Qaida's methods too moderate.

The morning after this meeting, during a discussion with Osama bin Laden and his deputy Ayman al-Zawahiri, Saif al-Adel raised the question of Zarqawi. The two leaders did not seem enthusiastic. There was a fundamental problem: while bin Laden and Zawahiri were mainly interested in fighting "crusaders and Jews" (primarily the USA), Zarqawi's focus was on Arab regimes and Israel.

After two hours of heated debate, the two leaders granted Saif al-Adel permission to take care of Zarqawi. He suggested to the Jordanian that he found his own group, offering the use of a military training camp near the Afghan city of Herat, on the Iranian border. He was assured funding and weapons. For Zarqawi, this offer was a triumph. He was not even required to swear a vow of allegiance, merely to provide "coordination and cooperation in the service of our common goals". In concrete terms this meant the establishment of Al-Qaida cells in Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, Palestine and Iraq.

I'll concede a very low probability that he might have a name or two, but terrorists tend to use lots of names.

Don't be ridiculous, CD. You know darn well that someone as high in al-Qaeda's organization as KSM knew lots of names and certainly knew the identities of the people running the plots he was overwatching.

Even if he had information on plots-in-progress it would be useless after a couple of weeks.

That's not what the CIA said. You make lots of claims but what actual credentials do you have to make those claims. Now it's true that the CIA might be lying. But then so might you.

Quote:
And the CIA reported that he did disclose the existance of previously unknown plots, the names of terrorists involved in them, and that information helped foil the plots.

They would say that, wouldn't they?

And I could say the same thing about those on your side of the political fence. So like I said, the only way to resolve this is for your man, Obama, to release the reports needed to know. If he won't do that, I think that suggests it is because he knows the reports will show he's embarked on yet another foolish course ... and that his supporters by and large have been ... well ... spreading misinformation about the effectiveness of enhanced interrogation.

Of course they would.

Are you so desperate that you have to stoop to the ridiculous? Do you think the average employee at McD really knows all that much about the way McD as a corporation makes decisions and passes information back and forth between it's top management. The average al-Qaeda member probably knows just as little. Afterall, the rank and file al-Qaeda member isn't the brightest bulb in the drawer ... if you can get him to make a suicide attack.

Quote:
It's called compartmentalization.

If by that you mean what I think you mean, it's called a cell-structure.

No, it's also routinely called compartmentalization.

http://www.terrorism-research.com/groups/ "The smallest elements of terrorist organizations are the cells that serve as building blocks for the terrorist organization. One of the primary reasons for a cellular or compartmentalized structure is security. "

http://74.125.155.132/search?q=cach...compartmentalization&cd=9&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us "Although terrorism’s complex webs of characteristics — along with the inherent secrecy and compartmentalization of both terrorist organizations and
government responses — limit available data, the formulation of practical, useful measurement criteria appears both tractable and ready to be addressed."

http://tomdiaz.wordpress.com/2009/0...bollah-finding-big-money-in-drug-trafficking/ "The cartels operate just like terrorist organizations, with extremely complex organizational structures, consisting of highly compartmentalized cells: distribution cells, transportation cells, money laundering cells, and in some cases assassination cells or ‘hit squads.’ "

http://www.ladlass.com/intel/archives/010444.html "Compartmentalization into "cell" structures is crucial to the survival of the group. It has become vital as counter terrorist efforts have intensified in scope and effectiveness."

http://books.google.com/books?id=y7...PA-MhG&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3 "Additionally, the terrorist organization is compartmentalized into a cellular structure in which one member of one cell may know only one member of another cell."

http://www.hstoday.us/content/view/6239/92/ "“These groups, both terrorist groups and global drug trafficking organizations, operate in highly compartmentalized cells, where their handlers only know the operatives’ first names, and each cell knows either very little or nothing at all of other cells’ operations,” said Braun."

etc. etc. etc.

Quote:
It's called just being smarter than the average al-Qaeda member.

But then you might mean something else entirely.

No, I meant what I said. Osama and KSM were smarter than the average al-Qaeda member. That should be obvious. That's why they were near the top. And yes, even in a compartmentalized structure the guy at the top usually knows more than the guy at the bottom ... at least in terms of information you need to disrupt the organization.

Quote:
It's why capturing the guy at the top is ALWAYS important.

Cell-structure means that there are no critical nodes. Not even the top guy (who's still out there down a hole, apparently).

No, Osama is probably dead.

Well they would say that, wouldn't they?

And the folks on your side of the issue would say what they've said. Don't pretend there's no possibility their agenda is driving what they claim. It wouldn't be the first time that liberals have misrepresented or lied. So the only way to resolve this is for Obama to resolve it by releasing the reports.

If the CIA has those records why did they need to torture people for names?

They didn't find master lists containing every name. Perhaps they only found any such lists after they waterboarded someone.

They will come out sooner or later

Yeah ... maybe the NYTimes will publish them. But the truth is we need to have this resolved NOW. Because it's doing grave damage to our national security NOW. Not ten years from now. Obama could resolve this tomorrow, if he wanted. I don't see the excuse for him not doing that ... unless it's political in nature. And here we thought Obama meant *change*.

Nobody's got anything to hide anymore. This was all years ago.

Wrong. People have staked their reputations on what they've claimed. Interesting that Cheney is the one asking that the documents be released. He sounds confident he's right.

History will bear me out.

Or perhaps me. If there's a big successful terrorist attack in the next few years, want to bet it's success will be traced back to not getting some vital information in a timely manner that they could have gotten had they had better interrogation methods?

It took Al Qaeda years to pull off 9/11, and they used up all their assets in the process.

That's nonsense. al-Qaeda was a huge organization. Thousands and thousands of would be terrorists passed through the training camps in Afghanistan. But a few were "used up" on 9/11. And al-qaeda has plenty of money. If there is a reason we've had 8 years without a major attack on the US, perhaps the reason is vigilance on our part. The CIA says that numerous plots were stopped because of that vigilance ... which included enhanced interrogation of certain people. Now the only one who can show the CIA is lying or not lying about that is Obama. Since Obama isn't prosecuting the CIA for lying, or firing anyone in the CIA for lying, I can only assume that the CIA didn't lie. Because after all, Obama wouldn't want a bunch of liars at the CIA, would he?

Well there's a thing. Do we have anything more to go on than their word?

Yes. The secret documents detailing the interrogations, what was learned, and what was done with that information that are in Obama's hands.

Quote:
Had we waited for conventional interrogation methods (taking the terrorist to lunch at Denny's?) to work it's magic, it seems likely that particular attack would have succeeded. With the loss of many lives.

It doesn't seem likely to me.

Good for you. But that doesn't really mean anything. The only way to know is to see the actual reports.

I'm a sceptic, particularly when it comes to self-serving unsupported statements by security services about things that didn't happen.

I'm just as skeptical about self-serving unsupported statements by leftists and democrats who have their own agenda to promote.

Quote:
We knew a great deal more than that. And you know it.

No I don't.

You mean to say that after waterboarding thousands of our own soldiers and having countless experts study and refine the use of waterboarding as an interrogation tool, you really think we don't know a lot about it's effectiveness? Well if you insist on playing the "ridiculous claim card". Apparently you aren't even aware that "some of the military and intel people who have undergone waterboarding in their training report that they were waterboarded multiple times--until they gave up the information that they were told to try to withhold." I suggest you read this: http://www.veteranstoday.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=6085 , to clear up some of your lack of information regarding this issue, the CIA experience and the dishonesty of those disputing the CIA's claims.

 

[BeAChooser]

Also, your hypothetical is as absurd as asking "would you rape a baby to save the lives of millions of people?"

But I'm not asking you that. I'm asking you to cause pain to a very evil man. And you apparently can't answer that simple hypothetical because you know what the answer you'd like to give says about your moral compass compared to mine.

 

[BeAChooser]

Cheney's still pressing the "fear" button every chance he gets. I think people have more immediate concerns these days.

Yeah. They are worried about the economy because of the many fear buttons Obama has pressed there. Worried about what Obama's *solution* to the economy is going to do the country, long term. Worried about where Obama's foreign policy is really taking us.

I'm old enough to remember the existential panic that kicked in when Clinton was elected (Bill, that is). Talk about anti-climax.

Only because most folks don't know the damage that Bill did to this country thanks to a complicit media. Folks like you never seem to want to honestly debate Chinagate, CampaignFinanceGate, FileGate, the abuse of the IRS and military under Clinton's watch, the deaths of Foster and Brown, etc. Why is that?

No 9/11, no major wars, no banking crisis, no recession

But Clinton did help plant the seeds of 9/11, the War on Terror, the banking crisis, and the recession. The just bloomed during Bush's two terms.

 

[thaiboxerken]

But I'm not asking you that. I'm asking you to cause pain to a very evil man. And you apparently can't answer that simple hypothetical because you know what the answer you'd like to give says about your moral compass compared to mine.

Would you rape a baby if you knew it would save 100 million lives? I'm asking you this simple hypothetical to see where your moral compass lies.

Don't like this question? Ok. Would you rape an evil man to save 100 million lives?

 

[Upchurch]

I'm asking you to cause pain to a very evil man. And you apparently can't answer that simple hypothetical because you know what the answer you'd like to give says about your moral compass compared to mine.

Before you start stroking your moral compass too hard, you also said you wouldn't torture a very evil person, even if it meant saving the lives of millions of people.

The question is: why did you say that? What is it that prevents you from wanting to torture another human being, no matter how despicable he may be?

 

[Morrigan]

He will NEVER answer that question. He will come back and ask the same question he's been asking (that we've all already answered), boast about his moral clarity (lol), call the "left" insane, trump his superiority, rinse, repeat.

 

[Upchurch]

He will NEVER answer that question. He will come back and ask the same question he's been asking (that we've all already answered), boast about his moral clarity (lol), call the "left" insane, trump his superiority, rinse, repeat.

Maybe he will answer it, maybe he won't.

It's easy to talk about moral clarity when you never address questions that muddy the waters.

 

[BeAChooser]

Your argumentation style seems to be to wait a while and repeat the same stupid and already disproven illogical nonsense out for another go around.

Gee. I might say the same thing to you.

Quote:
Do you know prior to 2005, the legal definition of torture in this country said that only procedures that could result in "organ failure, impairment of bodily functions, or even death" constituted torture punishable by law?

Nope. That's not true.

The Convention Against Torture was signed by the U.S. in 1988 and ratified in 1994. At that moment it was US Law.

You are wrong. I suggest you read the following government document (from the Attorney General's Office) dated December of 2004. I will specifically quote a few excerpts that prove what I said was correct ... i.e., prior to 2005, US law was interpreted to define torture different than now):

http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/18usc23402340a2.htm

This Office interpreted the federal criminal prohibition against torture--codified at 18 U.S.C. §§ 2340-2340A--in Standards of Conduct for Interrogation under 18 U.S.C. §§*2340-2340A (Aug. 1, 2002) ("August 2002 Memorandum"). ... snip ...

Questions have since been raised, both by this Office and by others, about the appropriateness and relevance of the non-statutory discussion in the August 2002 Memorandum, and also about various aspects of the statutory analysis, in particular the statement that "severe" pain under the statute was limited to pain "equivalent in intensity to the pain accompanying serious physical injury, such as organ failure, impairment of bodily function, or even death."
We decided to withdraw the August 2002 Memorandum, a decision you announced in June 2004. At that time, you directed this Office to prepare a replacement memorandum. ... snip ...

In other words, Joe, prior to 2005, "severe" pain was interpreted (because the language of the law is vague and subject to interpretation) to be limited to pain "equivalent in intensity to the pain accompanying serious physical injury, such as organ failure, impairment of bodily function, or even death." So THAT was the law at the time.

Continuing from the linked Attorney General's Office document:

This memorandum supersedes the August 2002 Memorandum in its entirety. ... snip ... We have also modified in some important respects our analysis of the legal standards applicable under 18 U.S.C. §§ 2340-2340A. For example, we disagree with statements in the August 2002 Memorandum limiting "severe" pain under the statute to "excruciating and agonizing" pain, id. at 19, or to pain "equivalent in intensity to the pain accompanying serious physical injury, such as organ failure, impairment of bodily function, or even death,"

In other words, Joe, the same Attorney General's Office people, looking at the same wording in the law, suddenly decided to change their INTERPRETATION of it. Because, a vague word such as "severe" is open to interpretation. Why might could change the interpretation back to what it was tomorrow, it that was necessary. And it would still be the law of the land ... until someone decides to actually change the wording of the law itself.

Let's take a look at that wording. Continuing from the linked Attorney General's Office document:

The CAT defines "torture" so as to require the intentional infliction of "severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental." Article 1(1) of the CAT provides:

For the purposes of this Convention, the term "torture" means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.

The Senate attached the following understanding to its resolution of advice and consent to ratification of the CAT:

The United States understands that, in order to constitute torture, an act must be specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering and that mental pain or suffering refers to prolonged mental harm caused by or resulting from (1) the intentional infliction or threatened infliction of severe physical pain or suffering; (2) the administration or application, or threatened administration or application, of mind altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or the personality; (3) the threat of imminent death; or (4) the threat that another person will imminently be subjected to death, severe physical pain or suffering, or the administration or application of mind altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or personality.

S. Exec. Rep. No. 101-30, at 36 (1990). This understanding was deposited with the U.S. instrument of ratification, see 1830 U.N.T.S. 320 (Oct. 21, 1994), and thus defines the scope of the United States' obligations under the treaty.

In other words, Joe, the Senate had to interpret the wording the CAT (because it uses vague terms, subject to interpretation). The Senate specifically noted it's interpretation in the ratification documents. And the language in the Senater interpretation is itself vague and thus subject to interpretation, too. You'll note in particular that the word "severe" is still undefined.

That's why the Attorney General's office had to try and define it. So they could enforce it. They defined it one way prior to 2005 and a different way after that, because of the linked memorandum. As I said.

Continuing from the linked Attorney General's Office document:

Because the statute does not define "severe," "we construe [the] term in accordance with its ordinary or natural meaning." FDIC v. Meyer, 510 U.S. 471, 476 (1994). ... snip ...

You see, Joe? Even the Attorney General's Office admits that the law does not define "severe". It is subject to interpretation. And the interpretation changed in December of 2004. Like I said.

Now note carefully the following excerpt from the linked Attorney General's Memorandum because it discusses the Senate's logic during ratification of the CAT in 1988:

As the Senate Foreign Relations Committee explained in its report recommending that the Senate consent to ratification of the CAT:

The [CAT] seeks to define "torture" in a relatively limited fashion, corresponding to the common understanding of torture as an extreme practice which is universally condemned. . . .

. . . .

. . . The term "torture," in United States and international usage, is usually reserved for extreme, deliberate and unusually cruel practices, for example, sustained systematic beating, application of electric currents to sensitive parts of the body, and tying up or hanging in positions that cause extreme pain.

S. Exec. Rep. No. 101-30, at 13-14. See also David P. Stewart, The Torture Convention and the Reception of International Criminal Law Within the United States, 15 Nova L. Rev. 449, 455 (1991) ("By stressing the extreme nature of torture, . . . [the] definition [of torture in the CAT] describes a relatively limited set of circumstances likely to be illegal under most, if not all, domestic legal systems.").

Further, the CAT distinguishes between torture and "other acts of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment which do not amount to torture as defined in article 1." CAT art. 16. The CAT thus treats torture as an "extreme form" of cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment. See S. Exec. Rep. No. 101-30, at 6, 13; see also J. Herman Burgers & Hans Danelius, The United Nations Convention Against Torture: A Handbook on the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment 80 (1988) ("CAT Handbook") (noting that Article 16 implies "that torture is the gravest form of [cruel, inhuman, or degrading] treatment [or] punishment") (emphasis added); Malcolm D. Evans, Getting to Grips with Torture, 51 Int'l & Comp. L.Q. 365, 369 (2002) ... snip ... The Senate Foreign Relations Committee emphasized this point in its report recommending that the Senate consent to ratification of the CAT.

So you see, Joe, even this Attorney General's memorandum, which revised the definition of "severe" to one more broad than before, acknowledges that the Senate originally ratified the CAT with a much more limited definition of "severe" in mind. So if anything, the law of the land in the minds of those who ratified the CAT in 1988 was more in line with the definition of severe that I have championed ... not yours and not whoever wrote this AG memorandom. Now you are not going to disagree with the 1988 Senate, are you?


Continuing from the linked Attorney General's Office document:

Representations made to the Senate by Executive Branch officials when the Senate was considering the CAT are also relevant in interpreting the CAT's torture prohibition--which sections 2340-2340A implement. Mark Richard, a Deputy Assistant Attorney General in the Criminal Division, testified that "[t]orture is understood to be that barbaric cruelty which lies at the top of the pyramid of human rights misconduct." Convention Against Torture: Hearing Before the Senate Comm. on Foreign Relations, 101st Cong. 16 (1990) ("CAT Hearing") (prepared statement). ... snip ...

Now Joe ... seriously ... do you really think that causing temporary pain or discomfort "lies at the top of the pyramid of human rights misconduct"? Really?
Now of course, in this 2004 Memorandum, the AG's office suddenly altered it's long held view and declared

we do not believe Congress intended to reach only conduct involving "excruciating and agonizing" pain or suffering.

Notice the word "believe"? And you'll note that their evidence for this new assertion is minimal at best. In fact, they admitted that

Drawing distinctions among gradations of pain (for example, severe, mild, moderate, substantial, extreme, intense, excruciating, or agonizing) is obviously not an easy task, especially given the lack of any precise, objective scientific criteria for measuring pain.

and the best they could do was quote from another judicial INTERPRETATION of another law (TVPA) related to torture that itself defines torture using that still very vague word "severe". But even that judicial interpretation falls short because it states (according to the AG memo)

The severity requirement is crucial to ensuring that the conduct proscribed by the [CAT] and the TVPA is sufficiently extreme and outrageous to warrant the universal condemnation that the term "torture" both connotes and invokes. The drafters of the [CAT], as well as the Reagan Administration that signed it, the Bush Administration that submitted it to Congress, and the Senate that ultimately ratified it, therefore all sought to ensure that "only acts of a certain gravity shall be considered to constitute torture."

Joe, you will note that there is NOT "universal" condemnation of waterboarding (to induce temporary pain and discomfort) and the other enhanced interrogation methods the CIA used with KSM and the other terrorists in question. Many of us do not feel they are "acts of sufficient gravity" to constitute "torture", especially in a situation where the goal is to save countless lives. In short, the severity definition you want to use does not ensure "universal condemnation" and thus fails the test set by the AG's office in the memo.

Continuing from the linked Attorney General's Office document:

The critical issue is the degree of pain and suffering that the alleged torturer intended to, and actually did, inflict upon the victim. The more intense, lasting, or heinous the agony, the more likely it is to be torture.

So here, despite the fact that the AG's office wished to broaden the definition of torture in the interpretation of the law, they still acknowledged that the agony caused must be "intense", lasting or heinous to qualify as torture. Well I and many others maintain that waterboarding is neither "heinous" or "lasting", and not all that "intense" if journalists are willing to submit themselves repeatedly to it. It may be highly uncomfortable but I don't "intense" describes what they experience accurately. The same is true of the other enhanced interrogation methods that the CIA employed against the al-Qaeda terrorists.

In short, the AG is not successfully making a case for disallowing waterboarding and the other enhanced techniques. In fact, for the most part, what the 2004 AG Memorandum is really doing is playing word games to rationalize "A" definition of torture that fits the mood of the administration at the moment. The AG's office is not finding a "truth" but trying to rationalize a way to a interpretation that apparently they'd been asked to provide by someone in the administration based on the politics of the moment. And tomorrow someone else will probably ask them to find a way to rationalize a new interpretation. See where this is going?

Here are just a few more excerpts from the linked Attorney General's Office document:

The statute provides a specific definition of "severe mental pain or suffering," see 18 U.S.C. § 2340(2), but does not define the term "severe physical pain or suffering." Although we think the meaning of "severe physical pain" is relatively straightforward, the question remains whether Congress intended to prohibit a category of "severe physical suffering" distinct from "severe physical pain." ... snip ... Exactly what is included in the concept of "severe physical suffering," however, is difficult to ascertain.

The text of the statute and the CAT, and their history, provide little concrete guidance as to what Congress intended separately to include as "severe physical suffering."

Notice all the wishy-washy language Joe? The whole memorandum is like that ... chock full of phrases like "believe", "do not believe", "think", "they intended", "does not define", "difficult to ascertain", "ambiguous" and so forth. And it just gets worse and worse the farther you read in the document. And leave it to lawyers to say something in 10000 words that you could probably say in 100 with greater clarity. That is presuming they actually said something meaningful in the memorandum ... which I'm not convinced they did.
Now, moving on to your other comments...

ETA:
The courts have no problem dealing with words like "severe" or "inappropriate" or "reasonable" and the like.

I think I just proved you wrong, Joe.

And I don't think your "some" is the same as my "severe".

How can you know? You don't know my tolerance for pain or discomfort. Some people can't even stand the sight of lima beans on their dinner plate.

I think you're purposely trying to describe torture as something trivial compared with some great benefit (that you magically know is waiting for you when you make the decision to commit torture).

First of all, I don't find what folks used to consider torture (i.e., pulling fingernails, beatings, electric shock, etc) trivial. But some of the things now described as being torture by your side in this debate? Yes, those are absolutely trivial.

Second, there is no magic to it. Just common sense and a reasonable understanding of the probabilities involved. And an ability to deal with probability rather than insisting on a world in black and white where everything must be certain before acting to save lives.

And third, I think you are saying the act of inflicting even temporary pain or discomfort on a very bad person in order to save many lives is as bad or worse than the act of allowing the murder of many lives when you could have saved them by only inflicting temporary pain or discomfort. I have a problem with that.

Nope, I think you're just trying your best to spin torture as something trivial.

No, I'm trying to keep you from making torture mean something trivial. See the difference?

 

[BeAChooser]

I reject that it's possible to know there is a 99% certainty that torturing someone will give you information that will save lives.

But suppose there was. Consider this a thought experiment designed to quantify your moral clarity. Not actually represent a real situation.

The thing about not know is that you don't know.

But there is a difference between being a little uncertain and being very uncertain. There is a difference between knowing something with high probability and knowing something with only low probability. And that's useful information that smart people try to use in making decisions.

Changing your hypothetical from 100% certainty to 99% that torturing someone will save lives does not make your hypothetical any more acceptable.

But it's just a "hypothetical" Joe. I'm not trying to say it's necessarily the real situation. I'm trying to find out if there is ANY circumstance where you'd save the million lives. Where you'd value one evil man's suffering in pain less than the lives of those million innocent, and mostly good, people. I think it is quite interesting and illuminating that so many on your side of this debate have such difficulty just answering a simple, quite clear cut (IMO) yes/no "hypothetical".

At the point you decide to commit the crime of torture you don't know whether you'll get a good result.

But an investigator/interrogator can know some things with enough confidence to justify the action. Based on a variety of known facts, they can have a high confidence there is an ongoing terrorist plot. Based on various factors, they can have high confidence that the person to be interrogated is in a position to know something that would stop that terrorist attack. And based on past experience (like say that of the CIA's, which many on your side of the aisle apparently don't want to really know about), they could know with reasonably high confidence that waterboarding will cause that hardened terrorist to talk and reveal actionable intel. In that case, he might be able to waterboard the individual with some confidence that he can save those the lives that are at risk.

So through my 100% hypothetical, I'm trying to find out if there is any degree of confidence at which you'd save those lives. The hesitation of some to answer my limiting case hypothetical makes me think maybe there isn't. Which I think says something about their rationality. And when one does answer that limiting case in the positive manner (that I maintain suggests rationality in the eyes of most people), then naturally I want to find out if they will still answer yes if I introduce just a little uncertainty. A rational question to explore.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

They defined it one way prior to 2005 and a different way after that, because of the linked memorandum.

Check the dates. The C.A.T. was ratified in 1994. The stuff you're talking about (limiting it to pain equivalent to that of organ failure, loss of bodily function and death) was in memos (not law) starting around 2002. This attempt at redefining torture that way failed, though. The U.S. Code reflects the language you quoted from the US's ratification reservations that narrowed and clarified the definition of mental pain (but certainly did not say that it's only torture if the pain is equivalent to that of loss of bodily function, organ failure or death). In fact, it even specified that the mental pain can be that caused by the "threat of imminent death" (same language in the signing reservations and in the U.S. Code).

And the interpretation changed in December of 2004. Like I said.

That's a mischaracterization of the history of the law on torture. Again, the accepted law worldwide was the C.A.T., and the U.S. ratified that in 1994. In 2002, these guys attempted to have torture redefined as being pain similar to loss of bodily function, organ failure or death. That re-definition never made it into law. It never made it into any Code, it did not result in the U.S. renouncing the C.A.T. and it was no part of any court case.

It was a memo.

ETA: The A.G. is part of the executive branch. He is not a one-man legislature.

By the way, why do you keep using my name over and over? Are you trying to make this into some kind of personal thing?

 

[Upchurch]

He will NEVER answer that question

Point to Morrigan.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

But suppose there was. Consider this a thought experiment designed to quantify your moral clarity. Not actually represent a real situation.

I will not. Your hypotheticals ask me to consider something that is impossible.

At the moment you choose to commit the crime of torture, you cannot know whether you will get information that will result in anything positive. (As I've pointed out, even if you could know that, it's still not a justification for committing the crime, but the topic here is the narrow one of "effectiveness".)

But there is a difference between being a little uncertain and being very uncertain. There is a difference between knowing something with high probability and knowing something with only low probability. And that's useful information that smart people try to use in making decisions.

It doesn't matter how smart people are. They cannot know the future, and there's no calculation you can do that will give you a reasonable estimate on the probability of a successful outcome by committing torture.

Again, that's why the law very specifically says there is no circumstances that may be used to justify it.

But it's just a "hypothetical" Joe. I'm not trying to say it's necessarily the real situation. I'm trying to find out if there is ANY circumstance where you'd save the million lives. Where you'd value one evil man's suffering in pain less than the lives of those million innocent, and mostly good, people.

I understand what a hypothetical is. However, the one you keep suggesting is an impossible situation. It's designed for one purpose, to attempt to justify committing the crime of torture. I could set up the same impossible hypothetical for any crime and claim that crime is an effective way to achieve the positive end, but I have to stipulate as part of the hypothetical that the positive end will happen, so it's merely a circular argument.

In other words, in trying to prove that torture is effective, you're asking me to cede the point that torture is effective. That's called begging the question.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

No, I'm trying to keep you from making torture mean something trivial. See the difference?

Please note: this thread is on the topic of the effectiveness of torture. You keep trying to frame torture in a way that makes it something less than torture.

(This is not a thread on the question of whether something is or is not torture.)

So using words like "some pain" or "discomfort" when what you're talking about is torture is disingenuous.

 

[BeAChooser]

Would you rape a baby if you knew it would save 100 million lives? I'm asking you this simple hypothetical to see where your moral compass lies.

You ask a hard moral question. I'll go ahead and answer it, while noting that you couldn't even answer a very easy question, where all I asked was whether you'd inflict some temporary pain and discomfort on one adult evil man to save those million lives.

But out of fairness, let's at least put your hypothetical on the same level as the one I offered Morrigan and Upchurch. It's not just a matter of my "knowing" ... i.e., what I believe. Let's say there is a 100% certainty that if I rape this hypothetical baby, that a 100 million lives will be saved that would otherwise have all died with a 100% certainty in the immediate future.

In which case my answer is yes, emotionally painful as the act might be for me. I might even go to hell for it and Satan would dance in glee. Or perhaps God would intervene and say I chose the greater good (because God clearly does not believe in moral equivalence, like you do). And were it put to a human jury trial, a few of those 100 million might be on the jury, in which case I doubt I'd be convicted. Even if they weren't, I suspect the jury would not convict because again, most people do not subscribe to the notion of moral equivalence, like you do. They would understand. And I can hope the baby would survive, and being so young have no memories of the event.

Would you rape an evil man to save 100 million lives?

Obviously yes, under the same constraints.

Now, care to answer my limiting case hypothetical? Or will you continue to hide? Same goes for you, Morrigan and Upchurch. Or is it *Point To Me*?

 

[Upchurch]

Now, care to answer my limiting case hypothetical? Or will you continue to hide? Same goes for you, Morrigan and Upchurch. Or is it *Point To Me*?

No point for you. You're still avoiding answering the question, just as Morrigan said.

 

[thaiboxerken]

I like that you answered my hypotheticals. Now, can you tell me why you present your absurd hypothetical about torture?

 

[BeAChooser]

Check the dates. The C.A.T. was ratified in 1994.

Sorry, my mistake in saying 1988. Sloppy writing.

The stuff you're talking about (limiting it to pain equivalent to that of organ failure, loss of bodily function and death) was in memos (not law) starting around 2002.

Fair enough, but all I originally said is that the current definition is different than the one prior to 2005. Which is true. And regardless, as pointed out in the 2002 memo, the Senate in 1994 still seemed to subscribe to a far more limited definition of torture that what is being imposed now. That appears to be proven in the 2004 memo where they quote the Senate itself. Isn't there such a thing as intent in the law? Or do you think the intent of the 1994 Senate doesn't matter at all even though they made this law you are now trying to enforce with a new, much broader definition of torture?

Here is more to support my position in this:

http://hnn.us/articles/32497.html

when President William Clinton sent this UN Convention to Congress for ratification in 1994, he included language drafted six years earlier by the Reagan administration—with four detailed diplomatic “reservations” focused on just one word in the convention’s 26-printed pages. That word was “mental.”

Significantly, these intricately-constructed diplomatic reservations re-defined torture, as interpreted by the United States, to exclude sensory deprivation and self-inflicted pain—the very techniques the CIA had refined at such great cost.

So even Clinton clearly didn't agree with your current restrictions and the actual statutes were written to reflect his reservations.

Moreover,

http://clivecrook.theatlantic.com/archives/2007/11/update_it_depends_what_you_mea.php

The 1994 law defines torture as including only practices "specifically intended" to inflict "severe physical ... pain or suffering" and certain other practices that cause "prolonged mental harm" (emphasis added). Under this definition, deliberately inflicting pain that is not quite "severe," or mental harm that is not quite "prolonged," is no crime. ... snip ... the definition is certainly narrow enough to leave room for doubt whether it would be torture to waterboard a high-level terrorist for, say, 15 seconds.

You see, it's a matter of INTERPRETATION because neither treaty or statute specify the meaning of "serious" or "prolonged". Period. The law is only what it is interpreted to be. So if we choose to allow waterboarding, we can, and still be within the language of the law. Now as the above source states "whether the law leaves room for doubt about whether waterboarding is torture is one thing; whether the law ought to leave room for doubt on that point is quite another." You are certainly entitled to believe it shouldn't but don't try and deceive people into thinking that as currently worded it leaves no room for doubt. That would be highly dishonest as I think most readers should be able to see by now.

Here's more:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124243020964825531.html

The 1994 law was passed pursuant to an international treaty, the United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment. The law's definition of torture is circular. Torture under that law means "severe physical or mental pain or suffering," which in turn means "prolonged mental harm," which must be caused by one of four prohibited acts. The only relevant one to the CIA inquiry was threatening or inflicting "severe physical pain or suffering." What is "prolonged mental suffering"? The term appears nowhere else in the U.S. Code.

That definition does indeed appear circular. Continuing,

Congress required, in order for there to be a violation of the law, that an interrogator specifically intend that the detainee suffer prolonged physical or mental suffering as a result of the prohibited conduct. Just knowing a person could be injured from the interrogation method is not a violation under Supreme Court rulings interpreting "specific intent" in other criminal statutes.

Now obviously "prolonged" is subject to interpretation. Does 90 seconds of waterboarding really qualify as prolonged. Today, KSM seems no worse, physically or mentally, even after five sessions of water boarding over a week's time. Again, the definition is subject to interpretation. Don't try and deceive people into thinking it is not.

the accepted law worldwide was the C.A.T.

What a shame it's not universally accepted ... say by al-qaeda.

In 2002, these guys attempted to have torture redefined as being pain similar to loss of bodily function, organ failure or death.

And the folks who wrote C.A.T. redefined it from what it had been previous to that. My point is that definitions can change. And maybe, given the situation vis a vis the confluence of terrorism and WMD now, which wasn't much of a concern back in 1988, the definition should be changed again. And we should change that definition in our own laws, even if they don't convene a new convention on torture.

It was a memo.

No, it was an INTERPRETATION of the word "serious" in order to define what to prosecute as torture under the law. It was perfectly valid for the administration to seek such an interpretation in light of the events of 9/11, fears of additional mass casualty terrorist attacks, and the difficulty interrogators were having in getting intel from captured terrorists. If the legislature wants to leave no room for interpretation then they need to very specifically define what "severe" means in the statute. Until such time as they do, the interpretation process is as much a part of the "law" as writing and passing the treaty or statute itself.

 

[thaiboxerken]

BeaCh, definitions are tautological, they are not arguments. Thus, the definition of torture presented may be wrong, but it cannot be "circular."

 

[BeAChooser]

I will not. Your hypotheticals ask me to consider something that is impossible.

Lot's of things have been considered impossible (by the majority), yet the folks that looked at hypotheticals made them reality. What is a hypothetical but something to help clarify and explore. I think you are just hiding because of what this limiting case might show about your moral compass.

At the moment you choose to commit the crime of torture, you cannot know whether you will get information that will result in anything positive.

But suppose you could? Assume that, so we can better understand your views on morality. You do want us to understand those views, don't you?

Quote:
But there is a difference between being a little uncertain and being very uncertain. There is a difference between knowing something with high probability and knowing something with only low probability. And that's useful information that smart people try to use in making decisions.

It doesn't matter how smart people are. They cannot know the future, and there's no calculation you can do that will give you a reasonable estimate on the probability of a successful outcome by committing torture.

I think most people will see that's nonsense. The CIA and our government made precisely that calculation where KSM and a few other terrorists were concerned (of course, they interpreted the methods the CIA was to use as NOT being torture). And if we are to believe their claims (which only Obama can disprove if they are indeed false), they were successful in saving lives.

Again, that's why the law very specifically says there is no circumstances that may be used to justify it.

But the law doesn't very specifically define serious or prolonged. So the interpretation was that the methods used by the CIA (like waterboarding) were not torture. Nothing wrong with that. The interpretation has changed, but it could change again, back to that previous interpretation, if there was a need and that was our decision. Unfortunately, perhaps another terrorist attack will be needed for that to happen. We can only hope that it doesn't kill too many people.

I understand what a hypothetical is. However, the one you keep suggesting is an impossible situation.

Why does a hypothetical necessarily have to be possible? Why are you so hung up on this if the purpose of the hypothetical is merely to explore the limits of our views on something ... say morality? Are your views on morality something you don't wish to discuss? That would be odd given that the issue of morality is at the heart of concerns about *torture*.

In other words, in trying to prove that torture is effective

No, I'm merely asking you to pretend that it's effective and that you have 100% certainty about all those other things so that we can explore the issue of morality and where you stand on that. And that's needed because the definition of torture is linked to the notion of morality.

 

[BeAChooser]

Please note: this thread is on the topic of the effectiveness of torture.

But how can you discuss the effectiveness of torture unless you define it? And as I've shown, that definition has changed over time because certain phrases in the current definition are so vague and imprecise. Also, you folks really don't seem all that interested in actually knowing whether waterboarding, if you insist on labeling it torture, is effective. You are quite content to allow Obama to keep the details of the interrogations involving it secret.

(This is not a thread on the question of whether something is or is not torture.)

Sure it is. How can you ask us to tell you the effectiveness of torture unless we all agree what constitutes torture. As things stand, the statutes do not specifically state that waterboarding is torture. Hence that's open to interpretation and I choose not to include it in my interpretation.

So using words like "some pain" or "discomfort" when what you're talking about is torture is disingenuous.

No it's not because the statutes do not define "severe". And any doctor or psychologist can tell you that different people have different interpretations of pain and discomfort. If the law is going to leave itself open to interpretation, don't be surprised if different people interpret it differently.