Salon: The memo Bush tried to destroy

[carlitos]

Furthermore,

Furthermore? You're doubling down on this idiotic argument? That we forcibly infect litterbugs with AIDS? And comparing waterboarding to surfing? Wow.

 

[RandFan]

Once more with the list.

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)

I didn't come to my current position lightly. I argued in favor of the ticking time bomb scenario and I defended the Bush/Cheney use of water boarding. In the end my arguments were weak and I had little data to support them in the face of mountains of evidence against them. So, if you believe there is an equivalence of expert opinion and data I'd appreciate your sharing it.

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

Furthermore? You're doubling down on this idiotic argument? That we forcibly infect litterbugs with AIDS? And comparing waterboarding to surfing? Wow.

"Idiotic" presumes the conclusion. The government of a locality is the largest dealer in interpersonal violence in that locality. Every law is a threat by a government to kidnap (arrest) assault (subdue) and forcibly infect with HIV (imprison) someone, under some specified circumstances. Even the fine for a misdemeanor violation like littering is ultimately backed by the threat of State violence. Don't pay the fine and you're in contempt. Ignore the fine for that and you're goint to jail. Resist and you're goint to prison. Incarceration is a significant risk factor for rape and prison rape is a significant risk factor for AIDS.

Of course socialists deny this. It undermines their benign self-image.

Have you ever been held under by a three wave set at Pipeline on an eight-to-ten foot day? People routinely endure this and go back the next day. I used to leak salt water for hours after.

 

[eeyore1954]

Mike! Of course it is. Haven't you heard of the "Do as I say and not as I do" doctrine?

I haven´t seen it spelled out this clearly, openly and proudly before.

How many people here were not against our the raid to get Bin Laden but would be against some other country using the same tactic here?

 

[carlitos]

"Idiotic" presumes the conclusion. The government of a locality is the largest dealer in interpersonal violence in that locality. Every law is a threat by a government to kidnap (arrest) assault (subdue) and forcibly infect with HIV (imprison) someone, under some specified circumstances. Even the fine for a misdemeanor violation like littering is ultimately backed by the threat of State violence. Don't pay the fine and you're in contempt. Ignore the fine for that and you're goint to jail. Resist and you're goint to prison. Incarceration is a significant risk factor for rape and prison rape is a significant risk factor for AIDS.

Of course socialists deny this. It undermines their benign self-image.

Have you ever been held under by a three wave set at Pipeline on an eight-to-ten foot day? People routinely endure this and go back the next day. I used to leak salt water for hours after.

If I did litter, why on earth would I then ignore the fine, blow off court, be in contempt of court, ignore the fine for that, and then "resist" in jail, on and on until I ended up being in a prison where people are raped? Read this:

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/slippery-slope.html

And what does that have to do with socialism? I voted for Romney in the primary.

I hope that surfing makes you happy; you should probably do more of that. It's undoubtedly a lot more fun than torture.

 

[RandFan]

How many people here were not against our the raid to get Bin Laden but would be against some other country using the same tactic here?

Damn straight I would be in favor of another country doing that here.

If (and I emphasize "if") America were harboring a mass murderer and we were thumbing our nose at those who were aggrieved WHILE they were giving us financial aid, I damn well would be in support of their actions.

I don't think killing Bin Laden was right because I'm American. I think it was right given the facts.

 

[eeyore1954]

Damn straight I would be in favor of another country doing that here.

If (and I emphasize "if") America were harboring a mass murderer and we were thumbing our nose at those who were aggrieved WHILE they were giving us financial aid, I damn well would be in support of their actions.

I don't think killing Bin Laden was right because I'm American. I think it was right given the facts.

Who determines if someone is harboring a mass murderer and thumbing their nose? If Iraq or Afghanistan were to demand we hand over President Bush and we refused would a Seal Team 6 operation by one of those countries be OK.
And I don't see what whether or not aid is being given has to do with it.

 

[BravesFan]

Damn straight I would be in favor of another country doing that here.

If (and I emphasize "if") America were harboring a mass murderer and we were thumbing our nose at those who were aggrieved WHILE they were giving us financial aid, I damn well would be in support of their actions.

I don't think killing Bin Laden was right because I'm American. I think it was right given the facts.

This is a correct statement
Which the USA has no history of doing.We work pretty closely with Interpol and such, if we grabbed a suspected terrorist who was wanted in say Finland or Brazil, we'd hold them and transfer their custody to the foreign service at an airport here in the states .

 

[RandFan]

Who determines if someone is harboring a mass murderer and thumbing their nose? If Iraq or Afghanistan were to demand we hand over President Bush and we refused would a Seal Team 6 operation by one of those countries be OK.

Could be, yes. There are arguments in favor of respecting sovereignty in certain cases. If America should hold that it is their right to kill foreign leaders then I would hold that it is in other nations right to do so. It's called moral consistency.

And I don't see what whether or not aid is being given has to do with it.

It's not a question of legality. It's a question of contempt. If we have that degree of contempt for those who are giving us aid then it would go a long way in moving me to support their decision to act as we did.

Let me ask you a question, do you think moral consistency is of any value? If so do you think it can be applied inconsistently?

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

Which the USA has no history of doing... if we grabbed a suspected terrorist who was wanted in say Finland or Brazil, we'd hold them and transfer their custody to the foreign service at an airport here in the states .

Well, I would not complain if the Mexican government demanded the extradition of Eric Holder over his supplying arms to terrorist drug cartels. If the US refused, the Mexican government would be justified in kidnapping him, a la Adolph Eichmann.

 

[marplots]

Can someone guess for me what might be blacked out between TOP SECRET/ and /NOFORN?

Wouldn't that be some sort of tier in the level of classified? I don't get the purpose of blacking out such a thing.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I was referring to the time between the Church hearings and 9/11 . I believe that our changing of interrogation policy since 9/11 is on of the major reasons that nothing has happened since then.

Of course you do. You like the koolaid.

 

[Upchurch]

It is not "impossible"; you ask a question to which you know the answer, but which the subject would prefer not to reveal if you did not know. Or you ask a question the answer to which you can check.

Which further just backs my argument. The only information you can get is either information you already have or information can't know to be true until after you find a way to verify it. That is hardly KNOWING it will be profitable. In the first case, you are getting information you already have. In the second case, you aren't getting information you KNOW is profitable. It's information that MIGHT be profitable assuming it is correct, which is redundant.

So, yes, it is impossible to meet the condition where you KNOW the information in the person's head is profitable.

And you make the subject's life miserable if he lies.

And this, right here, is the true purpose of torture. Not to gain information, but to enact revenge and inflict pain (also possibly as a deterrent). Any allusions to information gathering is just post-hoc rationalization not supported by the evidence.

If torture is so terrible, why do we threaten litterbugs with forcible innoculation with HIV (incarceration)?

I recognize all ...of those words but that statement doesn't make any sense.

 

[3point14]

I am sure they feel it's okay, but from my perspective we should crush them.

Look you can all sit there and think that we should all sit around the campfire and sing happy little songs with our enemies, but IMO, our nation has a responsiblity to keep us safe at the expense of EVERY OTHER NATION IN THE WORLD. If you disagree, I would say you are a weakling.... I would also say that you don't have much of a survival instinct.

Wars for oil? sure, I have no problem with that. As long as we actually secure the damn oil.

I would have probably dropped nukes on half of the capitals of the middle east after 9/11 just to teach them a lesson.

I would also form an alliance with Russia, India and China right now, a pact of non-aggression and no intervention in each others affairs. We could hold the world in our grip, and there isn't a damn thing anyone could do about it.

It's funny because your sig says this: "The Holocaust Denier Thread, you will not find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy "

ETA: Ah bobbins. Read the rest.

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

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.

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.

It is not "impossible"; you ask a question to which you know the answer, but which the subject would prefer not to reveal if you did not know. Or you ask a question the answer to which you can check.

Which further just backs my argument. The only information you can get is either information you already have or information can't know to be true until after you find a way to verify it. That is hardly KNOWING it will be profitable. In the first case, you are getting information you already have. In the second case, you aren't getting information you KNOW is profitable. It's information that MIGHT be profitable assuming it is correct, which is redundant. So, yes, it is impossible to meet the condition where you KNOW the information in the person's head is profitable.

Do you really intend to say that it's as easy to discover information as to verify it? Why then have phone books? It's much easier to raid one house in a city of 1,000,000 people than to raid all the houses.

And you make the subject's life miserable if he lies.

And this, right here, is the true purpose of torture. Not to gain information, but to enact revenge and inflict pain (also possibly as a deterrent). Any allusions to information gathering is just post-hoc rationalization not supported by the evidence.

Not at all. "Possibly as a deterrent" is the point. If torture influences the subject's cost/benefit calculations about whether to reveal information or remain silent, the threat that he will suffer from communicating false information will tilt the balance in favor of accurate information. That's the theory, anyway.

If torture is so terrible, why do we threaten litterbugs with forcible innoculation with HIV (incarceration)?

I recognize all ...of those words but that statement doesn't make any sense.

Would you prefer that I waterboard your wife or that I vaporize her with explosives? Which is worse, temporary suffering that leaves no marks, or death? Seems to me, usually, death is worse, yet apologists for the current administration accept the use of targeted assassination via Hellfire while they decry waterboarding. AIDS is a death sentence. Every law is ultimately backed by death threats.

 

[Upchurch]

Do you really intend to say that it's as easy to discover information as to verify it?

Maybe you meant something other than what you said. You said that we should only put the screws to someone we KNOW will be profitable. (admittedly, I am filling in words to the sentence fragment.) You also said that you ask a question to which you already know the answer.

The only benefit to torturing someone for information you already know to be true would be to test the accuracy of torture, not to gain new information. Now, maybe you consider that profitable, but it seems circular to me.

Not at all. "Possibly as a deterrent" is the point.

Oh, no, it very much was not the point. We were talking specifically in terms of gaining usable information. Torture as a form of deterrent is probably an effective use of torture, but not anything that is being actually suggested by anyone at this time, nor should it!

Now, maybe you consider that profitable, but I don't think you are considering the true cost of such a horrific policy.

If torture influences the subject's cost/benefit calculations about whether to reveal information or remain silent, the threat that he will suffer from communicating false information will tilt the balance in favor of accurate information. That's the theory, anyway.

Studies show that all torture does it tilt the balance in favor of telling the torturers what they want to hear, not in favor of accurate information. The torturer, not having a direct line on what is true or not, cannot make that determination on the fly. The torturer can only judge want sounds reasonably true, which is greatly influenced by their context and perception. In other words, what sounds true is subjective. The tortured person can tell the whole truth, but that doesn't stop the torture if the torturer doesn't believe him.

Would you prefer that I waterboard your wife or that I vaporize her with explosives? Which is worse, temporary suffering that leaves no marks, or death? Seems to me, usually, death is worse, yet apologists for the current administration accept the use of targeted assassination via Hellfire while they decry waterboarding. AIDS is a death sentence. Every law is ultimately backed by death threats.

...I have no idea what any of that word salad has to do with threatening to inject HIV into incarcerated litterbugs. Nobody is doing that. In other misconceptions, AIDS is no longer a death sentence and every law is not ultimately backed by death threats.

I really have no idea where you are getting this from, but it is out of touch with reality.

 

[carlitos]

...I have no idea what any of that word salad has to do with threatening to inject HIV into incarcerated litterbugs. Nobody is doing that. In other misconceptions, AIDS is no longer a death sentence and every law is not ultimately backed by death threats.

I really have no idea where you are getting this from, but it is out of touch with reality.

Good luck. He kind of just left my last response to this idiocy hanging there.

See also - you get water in your sinuses when you surf, therefore opposing waterboarding is for wussies. Paraphrasing.

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

Maybe you meant something other than what you said. You said that we should only put the screws to someone we KNOW will be profitable. (admittedly, I am filling in words to the sentence fragment.)
¹ You also said that you ask a question to which you already know the answer. ² The only benefit to torturing someone for information you already know to be true would be to test the accuracy of torture, not to gain new information. Now, maybe you consider that profitable, but it seems circular to me. ³ Oh, no, it very much was not the point. We were talking specifically in terms of gaining usable information. Torture as a form of deterrent is probably an effective use of torture, but not anything that is being actually suggested by anyone at this time, nor should it!⁴ Now, maybe you consider that profitable, but I don't think you are considering the true cost of such a horrific policy.

Studies show that all torture does it tilt the balance in favor of telling the torturers what they want to hear, not in favor of accurate information. The torturer, not having a direct line on what is true or not, cannot make that determination on the fly. The torturer can only judge want sounds reasonably true, which is greatly influenced by their context and perception. In other words, what sounds true is subjective. The tortured person can tell the whole truth, but that doesn't stop the torture if the torturer doesn't believe him.⁵
...I have no idea what any of that word salad has to do with threatening to inject HIV into incarcerated litterbugs. Nobody is doing that. In other misconceptions, AIDS is no longer a death sentence and every law is not ultimately backed by death threats.⁶

1. Where? Certainty is for children.
2. Right. That's one way to assess cooperation. Ask "who is the message carrier in Karachi?" when the subject does not know that you already know the answer. He lies and gets waterboarded again. This alters the cost/benefit calculation of deception versus cooperation.
3. Not mutually exclusive. If the subject understands that you can assess his information, he will think twice about deception.
4. You mean torture will deter bomb throwers but not liars? Really? "Studies show" this, huh?
5. The answer to "Where is the Islamabad safe house?" is something you can check.
6. Incarceration reduces life expectancy.


I really have no idea where you are getting this from, but it is out of touch with reality.[/QUOTE]

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

Good luck. He kind of just left my last response to this idiocy hanging there.

It was too stupid to address.

 

[RandFan]

I really have no idea where you are getting this from, but it is out of touch with reality.

Good luck. He kind of just left my last response to this idiocy hanging there.

See also - you get water in your sinuses when you surf, therefore opposing waterboarding is for wussies. Paraphrasing.

I was taken on a a merry-go-round ride only to be congratulated for realizing that it was some kind of joke.

His version of engendering credibility and respect.