Salon: The memo Bush tried to destroy

[RandFan]

http://georgewashington2.blogspot.com/2009/04/top-interrogation-experts-say-torture.html

Top Interrogation Experts Agree: Torture Doesn't Work.

Apologists for torture say that it was a "necessarily evil" to stop future terror attacks.
However, the top interrogation experts all say torture that doesn't work:

• The military agency which actually provided advice on harsh interrogation techniques for use against terrorism suspects warned the Pentagon in 2002 that those techniques would produce "unreliable information."

• Army Field Manual 34-52 Chapter 1 says:
  "Experience indicates that the use of force is not necessary to gain the cooperation of sources for interrogation. Therefore, the use of force is a poor technique, as it yields unreliable results, may damage subsequent collection efforts, and can induce the source to say whatever he thinks the interrogator wants to hear."​

A declassified FBI e-mail dated May 10, 2004, regarding interrogation at Guantanamo states "[we] explained to [the Department of Defense], FBI has been successful for many years obtaining confessions via non-confrontational interviewing techniques." (see also this)

...

It's quite an extensive list of sources. Can you provide anything close to that to counter it?

 

[BravesFan]

I thought I was being amusing with the "soft" comment..... guess I shoulda smilied it.


I agree it doesn't work if used as a general policy to attempt to acquire information from just anybody you grab. People will say anything if you torture them long enough. But, it works if you KNOW someone has information. If you know there is something brewing yet you don't have a date for the attack, or that there is going to be something moving through an area but don't know the time. You can gather that information via nefarious means.

But as a general interrogation method? No, I agree, it doesn't work very well at all.


BTW, I have to admit that I feel like I am arguing with John Candy....

 

[RandFan]

I thought I was being amusing with the "soft" comment..... guess I shoulda smilied it.

Okay. Sorry if I was too sensitive.

I agree it doesn't work if used as a general policy to attempt to acquire information from just anybody you grab. People will say anything if you torture them long enough. But, it works if you KNOW someone has information. If you know there is something brewing yet you don't have a date for the attack, or that there is going to be something moving through an area but don't know the time. You can gather that information via nefarious means.

But as a general interrogation method? No, I agree, it doesn't work very well at all.

I can live with that.

BTW, I have to admit that I feel like I am arguing with John Candy....

Yeah, it's to my advantage.

 

[BravesFan]

Ok, I'm countering with Eugene Levy

 

[fishbob]

That's because, honestly, you have become soft. I KNOW FOR A FACT that torture can and does work. When done properly and by the the right people. You can't just be out there torturing people at will. You have to KNOW that they have information you need, and KNOW how to get it. I know this due to personal experience as well a a family member (who I cannot specify) being an "advisor" to the south during Vietnam.

What you claim to KNOW FOR A FACT is that one of your relatives told you a story about his involvement with torture, and his representation that it was successful.

In other words, all you got is a story. I KNOW FOR A FACT that most guys who participated in the really ugly parts of war don't talk much about it, so why should we give any credence to your story?

-----------------
Sorry for the harsh response, especially after you guys got all fluffy there.

 

[BravesFan]

I know for a fact due to personal experiences as well as said family members multiple stories . He wasn't military, and he was kind of a terrible person to boot, but I believe his stories to be true.

 

[Corsair 115]

I'm in favor of dirty tricks, puppet regimes , controlling elections and overthrowing enemy regimes.

Would you still be in favour of it if such actions were directed against the United States? Say, for example, China decides it's in their interest to have a particular candidate win a presidential election and interferes to help achieve that result.

 

[Brainster]

FTR: I argued in favor of water boarding on this forum. I also started a thread on this forum that questioned whether torture was necessarily immoral (I argued the ticking time bomb scenario). So I understand the issue from that perspective. Now I think what the Bush admin did was illegal, immoral and worthless. Many experts in the field say it's less likely to get actionable information than other methods.

As a skeptic, I find this particular claim to be highly dubious. Any difficult decision ends up having pluses and minuses. Saying that waterboarding or other enhanced interrogation techniques doesn't work is "something for nothing." We give up this technique that is controversial, and it doesn't cost us anything. It makes the decision ridiculously easy.

According to some articles (I admit that others are out there that come to different conclusions), waterboarding Abu Zubaydeh led to Ramzi bin-al Shibh (9-11 paymaster), who led to Khalid Sheikh Muhammed, who led to Osama Bin Laden.

 

[BravesFan]

Would you still be in favour of it if such actions were directed against the United States? Say, for example, China decides it's in their interest to have a particular candidate win a presidential election and interferes to help achieve that result.

Of course not, I don't live there.... I find it silly to think there is a moral equivalency among nations!!! I live in the USA, I think it is my nations duty to manipulate the surrounding world in a manner that makes my life better. If you think different , you live in some global happiness delusion that I find amusing.

 

[BravesFan]

As a skeptic, I find this particular claim to be highly dubious. Any difficult decision ends up having pluses and minuses. Saying that waterboarding or other enhanced interrogation techniques doesn't work is "something for nothing." We give up this technique that is controversial, and it doesn't cost us anything. It makes the decision ridiculously easy.

According to some articles (I admit that others are out there that come to different conclusions), waterboarding Abu Zubaydeh led to Ramzi bin-al Shibh (9-11 paymaster), who led to Khalid Sheikh Muhammed, who led to Osama Bin Laden.

Which only backs up my assertion that putting the screws to those who KNOW is profitable.

 

[Upchurch]

Which only backs up my assertion that putting the screws to those who KNOW is profitable.

Which, IMHO, only happens in the movies and TV shows starring Kiefer Sutherland. In the real world, you never KNOW what is in someone's head or if it is still, or was ever, true.

Since that is an impossible condition to meet, your assertion backs the assertion that torture is never justified and serves no purpose except to satisfy demented revenge fantasies.

 

[RandFan]

As a skeptic, I find this particular claim to be highly dubious. Any difficult decision ends up having pluses and minuses. Saying that waterboarding or other enhanced interrogation techniques doesn't work is "something for nothing." We give up this technique that is controversial, and it doesn't cost us anything. It makes the decision ridiculously easy.

According to some articles (I admit that others are out there that come to different conclusions), waterboarding Abu Zubaydeh led to Ramzi bin-al Shibh (9-11 paymaster), who led to Khalid Sheikh Muhammed, who led to Osama Bin Laden.

"Highly dubious"?

Top Interrogation Experts Agree: Torture Doesn't Work.

Apologists for torture say that it was a "necessarily evil" to stop future terror attacks.
However, the top interrogation experts all say torture that doesn't work:

• The military agency which actually provided advice on harsh interrogation techniques for use against terrorism suspects warned the Pentagon in 2002 that those techniques would produce "unreliable information."

• Army Field Manual 34-52 Chapter 1 says:
  "Experience indicates that the use of force is not necessary to gain the cooperation of sources for interrogation. Therefore, the use of force is a poor technique, as it yields unreliable results, may damage subsequent collection efforts, and can induce the source to say whatever he thinks the interrogator wants to hear."​

A declassified FBI e-mail dated May 10, 2004, regarding interrogation at Guantanamo states "[we] explained to [the Department of Defense], FBI has been successful for many years obtaining confessions via non-confrontational interviewing techniques." (see also this)

That's not just an article. That's a partial list of sources. Please to peruse the entire list.

 

[SonOfLaertes]

I know for a fact due to personal experiences as well as said family members multiple stories . He wasn't military, and he was kind of a terrible person to boot, but I believe his stories to be true.

I also know for a fact that torture attracts a breed of individual who enjoy torturing just for the fun of it, and I would not be at all surprised if those individuals were to talk it up. Which says nothing about the uses of torture, but says a lot about human nature.

 

[3point14]

I notice that when we used to hire operatives to hook people up to car batteries that we tended to not have too many terrorist attacks on our soil. Then the Church Hearings happened and it's been mamby pamby land ever since.

Intelligence is an ugly business. Just like laws and sausages it's not really something that's very appealing to watch being made. But the results, well we tend to like the results.

I'm in favor of dirty tricks, puppet regimes , controlling elections and overthrowing enemy regimes. If it is the best interest of the USA, that's what the CIA is there for. I have never understood how people had the nerve to get so appalled when they find out that the Intelligence community doesn't get information by asking nicely three times!!! It's a dirty business and it requires a certain type of approach to be effective. Especially when dealing with an enemy who is smart enough to avoid technology as often as possible.

And you accept other countries trying to intefere in the running of the US as tit for tat, I assume?

 

[3point14]

That's because, honestly, you have become soft. I KNOW FOR A FACT that torture can and does work. When done properly and by the the right people.

I met a guy the oter day who KNEW FOR A FACT that jesus was born of a virgin and rose from the dead. He didn't have any actual evidence either.

 

[3point14]

I agree it doesn't work if used as a general policy to attempt to acquire information from just anybody you grab. People will say anything if you torture them long enough. But, it works if you KNOW someone has information. If you know there is something brewing yet you don't have a date for the attack, or that there is going to be something moving through an area but don't know the time. You can gather that information via nefarious means.

Got any evidence?

 

[3point14]

I also know for a fact that torture attracts a breed of individual who enjoy torturing just for the fun of it, and I would not be at all surprised if those individuals were to talk it up. Which says nothing about the uses of torture, but says a lot about human nature.

True. I'd be very dubious of any evidence about the effectiveness of tourture brought to the table by a torturer.

 

[RandFan]

True. I'd be very dubious of any evidence about the effectiveness of tourture brought to the table by a torturer.

I would tend to trust someone who has used torture and who says it doesn't work (see my links above).

 

[3point14]

I would tend to trust someone who has used torture and who says it doesn't work (see my links above).

Fair point. I should have used the word advocate in there somewhere.

 

[RandFan]

Fair point. I should have used the word advocate in there somewhere.

I think it was implied but I thought it should be explicit.