Merged Senate Report on CIA Torture Program

[Distracted1]

It seems absurd to me to suggest that the armed forces of a state in the 1940's is the same sort of enemy, to be interrogated in the same manner, as loosely organized jihadists in the 2000's. Naive, really.

Remonstrate with me if you will. I think I'm not the only one here in need of perspective.

Of course. It's not like those Nazis were up to anything so morally reprehensible as killing innocents, after all. And if they had gotten the Abomb first what are the odds they would have actually used it really.

Totally different conflict. No serious threat there.

 

[SezMe]

Seriously. That guy and his buddies spent their time plotting to kill complete strangers- just blow them up and maim them, to further their twisted ideology.
I really don't care how roughly they treated him or any of his friends.

Describes Scott Roeder to a "T". Should we have tortured him to get information on others of his ilk?

 

[Monketi Ghost]

Describes Scott Roeder to a "T". Should we have tortured him to get information on others of his ilk?

No it doesn't. Roeder wasn't killing for an ideology.

 

[ponderingturtle]

To suggest that harsh/enhanced interrogation never works seems to suggest that your average AQ dingleberry is immune to those techniques.

Our leaders can't so much as come out and say, "Yes, we torture and it sometimes produces results."
I'll bet though, that after all those dunkings, KSM finally started to open up a bit. He had ugly secrets, I'll bet he wanted to mislead his interrogators, and I'll further bet they tried easier methods first. Such interrogation is hard on the officers who conduct it as well as the prisoner and they'd logically want to get their intel the easiest way possible.

But think it through: of course, harsh interrogation comes up with gold sometimes.

It isn't about being immune. It is that you don't get reliable information but rather just what you want back.

Next the supporters will say there is nothing wrong with the police helping along the facts a bit to put someone away they know is guilty. They know it after all and that is enough.

 

[ponderingturtle]

"Anything" also includes the possibility that you have the wrong person entirely, guilty of no crime and having no association with criminals.

Could be you, could be me. Personally I'd go with that pesky "due process" business.

They are Muslim that makes It ok. Or they lament the inability of police to frame those they know are guilty. Not sure which but one is required for a self consistent world view.

 

[ponderingturtle]

I wasn't sneering, but there is no reason why I shouldn't: You are advocating torture in this thread and you are being incredibly blasé about it.

And yet they never defend Abu Ghraib. It's what they want but they won't admit it.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Are you against drone bombings also?
When a drone kills an innocent who goes to jail? In war innocents are harmed all the time.

So torturing the innocent to death isn't a big deal, after all we are the good guys. Torturing prisoners is the right of any sovereign nation, and we would never dream of decrying it in others.

 

[ponderingturtle]

I don't know when the question of waterboarding as torture became up for grabs. For instance, when the US prosecuted Japanese soldiers as war criminals for waterboarding American prisoners following WWII, it was pretty clear what it was.

And we need to pardon them And pay reparations Clearly. Waterboarding us troops is entirely allowable now.

 

[3point14]

If an "innocent" is going to be hell-bent on revenge (most likely taken out on truly innocent people who had nothing to do with his torture) then he isn't an innocent.

And that discounts the rest of the post, does it?

 

[Monketi Ghost]

It isn't about being immune. It is that you don't get reliable information but rather just what you want back.

Next the supporters will say there is nothing wrong with the police helping along the facts a bit to put someone away they know is guilty. They know it after all and that is enough.

And I'll bet that not just unreliable information is obtained, but also the truth. So information obtained in an interrogation is unreliable until verified. Why wouldn't someone who'd say "anything" to make it stop not also try the truth?

 

[Monketi Ghost]

They are Muslim that makes It ok. Or they lament the inability of police to frame those they know are guilty. Not sure which but one is required for a self consistent world view.

You're the only person in this thread to draw such a ridiculous conclusion.

 

[3point14]

To suggest that harsh/enhanced interrogation never works seems to suggest that your average AQ dingleberry is immune to those techniques.

Everythink I have ever read from reputable, measured studies shows that torture does not work. Is your opinion that this is incorrect based on evidence I haven't seen or is this just an opinion you hold that is contrary to all those who have studied the topic?

 

[ponderingturtle]

And I'll bet that not just unreliable information is obtained, but also the truth. So information obtained in an interrogation is unreliable until verified. Why wouldn't someone who'd say "anything" to make it stop not also try the truth?

And how do you tell the difference? It was a real shame McCarthy was so limited in the interrogation techniques he used think of all the commies he could have rooted out with a little torture.

 

[GlennB]

And I'll bet that not just unreliable information is obtained, but also the truth. So information obtained in an interrogation is unreliable until verified. Why wouldn't someone who'd say "anything" to make it stop not also try the truth?

This assumes they know the truth. How can we assume that?

 

[ponderingturtle]

You're the only person in this thread to draw such a ridiculous conclusion.

You know they are guilty in both cases. Torture them enough and they will admit it.

 

[Monketi Ghost]

I guess the intelligence officers have a way of sifting the wheat from the chaff. It's not all chaff. Somehow they have to figure out who to spend greater effort on... I don't envy the job, but I won't sit in my comfort and snipe them from the sidelines.

Look, if I may be allowed to assign motives as well as y'all, I'll say that you guys abhor torture and it is a terrible thing, I agree- the absence of me calling it terrible bugs you, I get that.

But the terrorists in question are horrible murderers and it doesn't bother me that they get knocked around and lose sleep during their interrogation.

 

[Upchurch]

And I'll bet that not just unreliable information is obtained, but also the truth. So information obtained in an interrogation is unreliable until verified. Why wouldn't someone who'd say "anything" to make it stop not also try the truth?

You're not getting it. All the information obtained through torture is unreliable, even if some of it is true. Truth does not come out the victim's mouth highlighted with rainbow sparkles that say, "THIS IS TRUTH!"

You don't magically know which parts are true and which are false. That is what makes all of it unreliable. That's what makes torture inefficient and counterproductive for gaining information. If that is the only rationalization for justifying torture, there is no justification for it.

 

[ponderingturtle]

I guess the intelligence officers have a way of sifting the wheat from the chaff. It's not all chaff. Somehow they have to figure out who to spend greater effort on... I don't envy the job, but I won't sit in my comfort and snipe them from the sidelines.

Look, if I may be allowed to assign motives as well as y'all, I'll say that you guys abhor torture and it is a terrible thing, I agree- the absence of me calling it terrible bugs you, I get that.

But the terrorists in question are horrible murderers and it doesn't bother me that they get knocked around and lose sleep during their interrogation.

And you keep dodging the whole Abu Graib issue. Is it shameful how the personnel where scapegoats for doing their job properly?

 

[Monketi Ghost]

You're not getting it. All the information obtained through torture is unreliable, even if some of it is true. Truth does not come out the victim's mouth highlighted with rainbow sparkles that say, "THIS IS TRUTH!"

You don't magically know which parts are true and which are false. That is what makes all of it unreliable. That's what makes torture inefficient and counterproductive for gaining information. If that is the only rationalization for justifying torture, there is no justification for it.

I understand. Do you understand that M.I. has ways to check information, or do you really think they have the resources to check every little scrap of information they hear? It's no stretch to say they decide who to set aside and who to focus on based on their limited resources.

Can you get down off your high horse now? Please?

 

[Monketi Ghost]

And you keep dodging the whole Abu Graib issue. Is it shameful how the personnel where scapegoats for doing their job properly?

Have you looked into who was running the show there when the abuses took place? It wasn't M.I. for sure, but a bunch of huckleberries. Abu Graib was shameful, but not germane to the issue really.