Osama found using Gitmo torture info

[Lowpro]

We have only hearsay evidence for that, and that provided by some of the least competent drongos ever to lead a nation at war.

For a historical precedent on the efficacy of torture, there were, in Massachuesetts, dozens of people who gave adequate information under torture that they were successfully tried, convicted and burned at the stake as witches.

On the face of it, the evidence stands for itself that a regimen with torture yielded desired results. The results that the merry morons needed to justify further erosions of our rights and to justify the invasion of Iraq, with the subsequent damage to the intelligence-gathering effort in Afghanistan that could have led to an earlier arrest or elimination of ObL.

You can't work off the "could-haves" however in any argument; if intelligence gathering were an exact science I could understand the sentiment but that's not the case. And for the witchhunt thing, torture now (I hope) is not punitive and the underlying motivators of such (land ownership) were a cause as well as superstition. Neither factor into this discussion (I hope)

 

[leftysergeant]

I woukld be a lot more comfortable with the excuses that people are making for the merry morons if the CIA had not destroyed the torture tapes to ensure that nobody ever knew what questions the detainees were being asked.

Ever hear of a "leading question?"

You could probably make me verify that somebody I never met was my partner when I knocked off a bank in a state where I had never been. Just add waterboarding.

 

[Lowpro]

I woukld be a lot more comfortable with the excuses that people are making for the merry morons if the CIA had not destroyed the torture tapes to ensure that nobody ever knew what questions the detainees were being asked.

Ever hear of a "leading question?"

You could probably make me verify that somebody I never met was my partner when I knocked off a bank in a state where I had never been. Just add waterboarding cake and ice cream.

I've already covered this argument lefty.

 

[Lowpro]

Forgive the sophomoric website...but here's something for what you're saying, and I don't care for this argument because it doesn't address the efficacy of waterboarding itself.

http://video.adultswim.com/robot-chicken/where-is-mordor.html

 

[leftysergeant]

I've already covered this argument lefty.

No, you didn't. Cake and ice cream might put me off my guard and I could let on that I was too busy selling heroin to go rob a bank.

 

[Lowpro]

No, you didn't. Cake and ice cream might put me off my guard and I could let on that I was too busy selling heroin to go rob a bank.

You're adorable... I swear you're gonna send another set of posts into the AAH section

 

[leftysergeant]

You're adorable... I swear you're gonna send another set of posts into the AAH section

You have still not supported your position that torture is a valid means of interrogating a prisoner, or an understanding of how one does interrogate people.

I occassionally work in training scenarios dealing with interrogation. It is much more nuanced than you seem to think.

 

[Lowpro]

You have still not supported your position that torture is a valid means of interrogating a prisoner, or an understanding of how one does interrogate people.

I occassionally work in training scenarios dealing with interrogation. It is much more nuanced than you seem to think.

No I bet it has a LOT of nuances but you haven't said anything against torture itself as a means of interrogation. You've only confirmed that people can lie, and it doesn't require torture to do it. People will lie if you throw tulips at them, if you give them cake and ice cream. This means interrogation on the whole isn't an exact science that is quantifiable across the board for all people. I'm sure you agree because you mentioned its many nuances.

You HAVEN'T discredited torture's efficacy at all, not directly. You've mentioned its punitive history, which is irrelevant. You've mentioned how people will lead you on wild goose chases. There is no evidence torture causes this; there's ample evidence interrogation on ANY level can elicit this. Leading questions can be performed while eating cake and ice cream while watching Golden Girls, or performed while waterboarding.

 

[leftysergeant]

When the merry morons did it, it appears, fromm the outcome, that much of it was intended to justify a lot of absurd behaviors on the part of the Bush regime. It did not really stop any attacks that we know of.

Bill Clinton did not torture anyone to get the rest of Ahmed Ressam's gang, now did he?

 

[MattusMaximus]

The whole idea is just dumb though. If you didn't torture him, and you gave him cake, ice cream, and presents he could STILL lie and give false intel. I'm not saying waterboarding yields higher results in reliable information, but you should also admit that nothing else does either as far as we can tell.

"We might as well torture, because it is a method which is just as crappy & useless as anything else!"

This shows that you know very, very little about effective & reliable (as in: provides accurate intel) interrogation techniques. And that you have really poor skills at argumentation.

 

[MattusMaximus]

I disagree wholeheartedly. The torture of KSM is FAR from "merely suspect of having ties" he's so far up in Al-Qaeda's ass. it is to our benefit we know what he knows (probably)

Remember he isn't being tortured for punitive reasons, he (probably) has information we could use and it's important enough to warrant regimens that seem(ed) to include waterboarding.

Yeah, and torturing KSM repeatedly didn't work. In fact, it made our operatives waste precious time & resources tracking down numerous false leads and blind alleys that he sent them into, because those operatives were stupid enough to believe an assertion - flying in the face of all evidence to the contrary - that "torture is just as good a method as anything else!"

If you are attempting to argue that torture is an effective & reliable method of gaining trustworthy intel, you're failing badly & kidding yourself.

 

[MattusMaximus]

183 I believe came from a WikiLeaks cable? And as far as innocent people being tortured, I think that's appalling. I also wouldn't dismantle or blame torturing itself for that failure, I'd blame the people who mad ea move on bad intel. Doesn't count against torture though as far as I can tell.

When the only leads you have come from torture, then how do you know - in the absence of any corroborating evidence - that the intel is reliable?

Clearly, our operatives were duped about 183 times as they continued to torture KSM, and - despite the fact that the intel gathered was repeatedly bad - they kept doing it anyway.

Absolutely stupid & useless.

 

[MattusMaximus]

You HAVEN'T discredited torture's efficacy at all, not directly. You've mentioned its punitive history, which is irrelevant. You've mentioned how people will lead you on wild goose chases. There is no evidence torture causes this; there's ample evidence interrogation on ANY level can elicit this. Leading questions can be performed while eating cake and ice cream while watching Golden Girls, or performed while waterboarding.

I see the flaw here. Lowpro is putting the cart before the horse: he/she assumes that torture is effective and insists that people show evidence to the contrary (putting critics into the position of - you guessed it - proving a negative). Instead, Lowpro should be showing the positive evidence that torture is an effective interrogation technique.

But, methinks he/she cannot support that latter argument, hence the current line of reasoning

 

[Lowpro]

I see the flaw here. Lowpro is putting the cart before the horse: he/she assumes that torture is effective and insists that people show evidence to the contrary (putting critics into the position of - you guessed it - proving a negative). Instead, Lowpro should be showing the positive evidence that torture is an effective interrogation technique.

But, methinks he/she cannot support that latter argument, hence the current line of reasoning

I twist my brother's arm and he tells me where he stashed the Captain Crunch box. Torture worked. It's not even a question whether torture works at all, history tells us that methods that use torture work, the question is in how well (even you said that before and then you changed stances to this crap )

You could, on its face, reverse the argument entirely and accuse the regimen of not using ONLY torture because OBVIOUSLY the other methods weren't effective enough, but that's ALL I can say. You can only use the words "effective enough" which is the crux of the argument.

When the only leads you have come from torture, then how do you know - in the absence of any corroborating evidence - that the intel is reliable?

Clearly, our operatives were duped about 183 times as they continued to torture KSM, and - despite the fact that the intel gathered was repeatedly bad - they kept doing it anyway.

Absolutely stupid & useless.

Again I beg to get something reliable out of one of you. KSM received an entire regimen that included torture and other techniques. He was waterboarded 183 times (as we're told not sure where that info ACTUALLY came from but iirc it was a wikileaks cable) and he led us on... it also means the same thing for every other interrogation method we used, including more ethical methods.

Doesn't mean torture works better or worse though, there's no conclusion to be drawn on that. The only conclusion that can be drawn is that in a regimen that included waterboarding, useful intel (out of a myriad of bad intel) was acquired.

 

[MattusMaximus]

Again I beg to get something reliable out of one of you. KSM received an entire regimen that included torture and other techniques. He was waterboarded 183 times (as we're told not sure where that info ACTUALLY came from but iirc it was a wikileaks cable) and he led us on... it also means the same thing for every other interrogation method we used, including more ethical methods.

Doesn't mean torture works better or worse though, there's no conclusion to be drawn on that. The only conclusion that can be drawn is that in a regimen that included waterboarding, useful intel (out of a myriad of bad intel) was acquired.

And what intel was that?

 

[Lowpro]

Really, I posted links here a page or two ago. Info on a "trusted courier" of Osama. KSM gave the name, that name ran congruent with another man named Al-Libbi who ALSO underwent EIT's and gave the information after a week.

 

[banquetbear]

Really, I posted links here a page or two ago. Info on a "trusted courier" of Osama. KSM gave the name, that name ran congruent with another man named Al-Libbi who ALSO underwent EIT's and gave the information after a week.

...This is not true according to the Whitehouse. (This was from your link.)

 

[Kev The Green]

Doesn't mean torture works better or worse though, there's no conclusion to be drawn on that. The only conclusion that can be drawn is that in a regimen that included waterboarding, useful intel (out of a myriad of bad intel) was acquired.

I can't be the only one that doesn't have a clue what point you're trying to make and, more importantly, why you're trying to make it.

It seems like you're just arguing that it's possible to get good intelligence from torture. This seems like a rather strange point to be making since nobody is saying otherwise. The problem with torture, as you alluded to earlier, is that it incentivizes providing information over keeping quiet. This means that it increases the amount of false information provided; especially when you're torturing an innocent person who has no choice but to make something up.

As to why you're trying to make this point, it seems like you're saying that as long as torture works, we should use it and ignore all other considerations. If so, this seems like a rather short-sighted attitude.

 

[Dancing David]

Moral reprehensibility plays no role in the effectiveness of the method which is why I'm largely ignoring that for the argument itself.

I've already said torturing is evil, but I tolerate the evil if it means it gets the information I need.

yet that is whole point of teh USA's system, people will be people and abuse any system that is in place. If you allow intense coercion, then you get false confessions. If you allow for secret detentions, you get false detentions. You allow for unchecked power then you get abuses of that power.

So you are just gutting the COTUS on a big IF of possible convenience, which is sort of self defeating. If we give our officials that much power they will abuse it. That is human nature and that is the point of oversight and checks and balances.

The McCarthy era was followed up by President Nixon and many others abusing power for personal gain. If we give the government officials the power of secret detention then they will abuse it, if we give them the power of torture they will abuse it. All for no express benefit.

Hell, the GWB administration went straight for the most ******** story with no goof verification about yellow cake uranium. From someone who wanted to deceive for personal gain, the risk is much higher when we allow people to ‘extract’ false information through torture and then use it for personal/political gain.

Our US government had now joined the crowd of thugs and tin pot dictators that uses torture with no clear benefit.

 

[Dancing David]

Doesn't mean torture works better or worse though, there's no conclusion to be drawn on that. The only conclusion that can be drawn is that in a regimen that included waterboarding, useful intel (out of a myriad of bad intel) was acquired.

It is very clear that the valuable intel from KSM was gotten with sugar free cookies and non-abusive techniques. The valuable intel was gained before the use of coersive tactics.