• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Merged Senate Report on CIA Torture Program

I see. His sons (who may very well have been wholly innocent before the fact) were just threatened with torture (e.g. going to prison and having 300lb Bubba as a cellmate), and they talked. It's nice that the FBI didn't actually have to resort to torture.
I think you're playing fast and loose with the word 'torture' to gain rhetorical advantage. Otherwise, why continue with this 'anything can be torture' routine? If you're trying to demonstrate something through hyperbole, that's fine; just what is it then?
 
I see. His sons (who may very well have been wholly innocent before the fact) were just threatened with torture (e.g. going to prison and having 300lb Bubba as a cellmate), and they talked. It's nice that the FBI didn't actually have to resort to torture.

According to Wiki, the son knew about the plan.

Birges was eventually arrested based on a tip. One of his sons had revealed to his then-girlfriend that his father had placed a bomb in Harvey's. After the two broke up, she was on a date with another man when they heard about a reward for information, and she informed her new boyfriend about Birges. This man then called the FBI.

I was hoping that the example of this particular ticking time bomb case would point out the fallacies associated with the use of torture.

Why would the FBI even have wanted to resort to torture in this case? My point is that there is no assurance that a particular bomber would be satisfied with ransom and escape, and certainly no assurances that his torture induced disarming instructions are valid. I don't think that the threat of trial and incarceration is torture.

Full text of the note attached to the bomb.
 
1) Definition of moral relativism: "Well, at least we don't (fill in the blank)!"

We don't chop off heads, eat babies, wear funny hats, etc.

This bogus reasoning is based on the intellectually bankrupt premise that if we can just find someone who is worse than us, we are morally in the clear.



2) "Torture works." This argument is based on the false premise that torture is the only means by which accurate information can be gleaned from a prisoner.


3) Prior to President Bush, waterboarding was considered torture as a matter of official US policy.


https://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~changmin/Japan/Yokohama/Reviews/Yokohama_Review_Asano.htm

Defendant: Asano, Yukio

Docket Date: 53/ May 1 - 28, 1947, Yokohama, Japan

Charge: Violation of the Laws and Customs of War: 1. Did willfully and unlawfully mistreat and torture PWs. 2. Did unlawfully take and convert to his own use Red Cross packages and supplies intended for PWs.

Specifications:beating using hands, fists, club; kicking; water torture; burning using cigarettes; strapping on a stretcher head downward

Verdict: 15 years CHL

CHL = Confinement at Hard Labor


1947: Victim of Japanese Waterboarding Relates Story to US War Crimes Tribunal

“When Yuki could not get anything out of me, he wanted the interpreter to place me down below,” he tells the court. “And I was told by Yuki to take off all my clothes, so what I did was to take off my clothes as ordered. I was ordered to lay on a bench and Yuki tied my feet, hands, and neck to that bench, lying with my face upward. After I was tied to the bench, Yuki placed some cloth on my face. And then with water from the faucet, they poured on me until I became unconscious. He repeated that four or five times.” Asked if he could breathe, Navarro says: “No, I could not, and so I, for a time, lost consciousness. I found my consciousness came back again and found Yuki was sitting on my stomach. And then I vomited the water from my stomach, and the consciousness came back again for me. [The water came f]rom my mouth and all openings of my face… and then Yuki would repeat the same treatment and the same procedure to me until I became unconscious again.” Navarro recalls he was tortured like this “four or five times.” He says he lied to Yuki to end the torment: “When I was not able to endure his punishment which I received, I told a lie to Yuki.… I could not really show anything to Yuki, because I was really lying just to stop the torture.” He describes the waterboarding as “[n]ot so painful, but one becomes unconscious—like drowning in the water.… Drowning. You could hardly breathe.” Yuki is sentenced to life in prison for a variety of war crimes, including his torture of Navarro.

One former POW, Lieutenant Chase Nielsen, testified: “I was given several types of torture.… I was given what they call the water cure.… Well, I felt more or less like I was drowning… just gasping between life and death.”

"Navarro recalls he was tortured like this 'four or five times.'"

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was waterboarded at least 183 times
 
I think you're playing fast and loose with the word 'torture' to gain rhetorical advantage. Otherwise, why continue with this 'anything can be torture' routine? If you're trying to demonstrate something through hyperbole, that's fine; just what is it then?

Being raped in prison is torture. It is well-known that law enforcement people threaten people with prison in order to force compliance. And in many cases, there are explicit threats equating prison with the inevitability of being raped in prison (usually for people who are slight in stature or not all that "tough"). Even prominent law enforcement officials and politicians have joked about it.

What is my point? My point is that torture, or the threat of torture, is more commonplace than most people realize or acknowledge. And oftentimes, they're ok with it. These things lie on a continuum. Not only is it difficult to find the line dividing torture or threats of torture from "acceptable" violence or threats of violence, that line appears to depend on the circumstances.
 
1) Definition of moral relativism: "Well, at least we don't (fill in the blank)!"

We don't chop off heads, eat babies, wear funny hats, etc.

This bogus reasoning is based on the intellectually bankrupt premise that if we can just find someone who is worse than us, we are morally in the clear.



2) "Torture works." This argument is based on the false premise that torture is the only means by which accurate information can be gleaned from a prisoner.


3) Prior to President Bush, waterboarding was considered torture as a matter of official US policy.


https://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~changmin/Japan/Yokohama/Reviews/Yokohama_Review_Asano.htm



CHL = Confinement at Hard Labor


1947: Victim of Japanese Waterboarding Relates Story to US War Crimes Tribunal





"Navarro recalls he was tortured like this 'four or five times.'"

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was waterboarded at least 183 times
Suggesting a success rate no better than 1/183
 
Suggesting a success rate no better than 1/183

Not necessarily. It may mean KSM was in the hands of some really sick sadistic ******** who waterboarded him for jollies.

KSM could have started cooperating after the first five or six waterboardings.


Edited by LashL: 
Edited to properly mask profanity. Please see Rule 10.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
According to Wiki, the son knew about the plan.

I only posited that the son didn't know about the plan before it was implemented. He appears to be have been an accomplice after the fact, although I don't actually know the rules about forcing a teenage son to testify against his father. I know that a spouse cannot be forced to testify. In any case, the son was threatened with prosecution based on double hearsay (even triple hearsay, if you count the fact that he could have just been reporting to his girlfriend what he heard his father told him rather than having direct knowledge of his father's actions). Seems unlikely the FBI had a case, but they scared the son enough to testify.

I was hoping that the example of this particular ticking time bomb case would point out the fallacies associated with the use of torture.

Why would the FBI even have wanted to resort to torture in this case? My point is that there is no assurance that a particular bomber would be satisfied with ransom and escape, and certainly no assurances that his torture induced disarming instructions are valid. I don't think that the threat of trial and incarceration is torture.

As I stated, it arguably is. Especially if you're threatening to throw a teenager into prison with a bunch of hardened convicts. It depends on the circumstances. In addition, there is the question of the morality of threatening a teenage son with jail in order to get him to testify against his father.
 
Isn't it interesting how the CIA was as thorough in their record keeping as Nazis in counting exactly how many times they waterboarded KSM?
 
Being raped in prison is torture. It is well-known that law enforcement people threaten people with prison in order to force compliance. And in many cases, there are explicit threats equating prison with the inevitability of being raped in prison (usually for people who are slight in stature or not all that "tough"). Even prominent law enforcement officials and politicians have joked about it.
Your wildly loose definitions aside, do you have any evidence that happened in this case? Or is it just more common sense?

What is my point? My point is that torture, or the threat of torture, is more commonplace than most people realize or acknowledge. And oftentimes, they're ok with it. These things lie on a continuum. Not only is it difficult to find the line dividing torture or threats of torture from "acceptable" violence or threats of violence, that line appears to depend on the circumstances.
Your point is lacking. Since you seem to have missed it last time, I'll just point out this post:
No, I seem to be understanding it just fine. You're trying to justify torture by making the argument that there isn't a point where it becomes "torture" and therefore "wrong". It's the same kind of navel-gazing that can come to the conclusion that one cannot know if "red" is ever really red, in a Plutonic Forms sense.

There may be a spectrum, but at some point, we are clearly in the socially understood range known as "torture". Waterboarding, for example, was treated as a war crime in the trials following WWII. I'm comfortable using that as a benchmark for a portion of the spectrum solidly in the "torture" range. I would argue that forcibly inserting food up a person's ass (without consent, of course) as another data point.

Regardless, it's still a complete non-sequitur from the ticking-time-bomb scenario and an attempt to move the goal posts. You're evading defending your earlier claim to hide behind a wall of pseudo-philosophy.
 
No, he was waterboarded 183 times.

See here.

In October 2006 Mohammed described his mistreatment and torture in detention, including the waterboarding, to a representative of the International Committee of the Red Cross. Mohammed said that he had provided a lot of false information, which he had supposed the interrogators wanted to hear, in order to stop the mistreatment.[67] In the 2006 interview with the Red Cross, Mohammed claimed to have been waterboarded in five different sessions during the first month of interrogation in his third place of detention.[67][68] While the Justice Department memos did not explain exactly what the numbers represented, a U.S. official with knowledge of the interrogation programs explained the 183 figure represented the number of times water was applied to the detainee's face during the waterboarding sessions, rather than separate sessions.
 
I only posited that the son didn't know about the plan before it was implemented. He appears to be have been an accomplice after the fact, although I don't actually know the rules about forcing a teenage son to testify against his father. I know that a spouse cannot be forced to testify. In any case, the son was threatened with prosecution based on double hearsay (even triple hearsay, if you count the fact that he could have just been reporting to his girlfriend what he heard his father told him rather than having direct knowledge of his father's actions). Seems unlikely the FBI had a case, but they scared the son enough to testify.

As I stated, it arguably is. Especially if you're threatening to throw a teenager into prison with a bunch of hardened convicts. It depends on the circumstances. In addition, there is the question of the morality of threatening a teenage son with jail in order to get him to testify against his father.

Juveniles are not thrown in prison with hardened convicts. Rape is a felony even in prison.

This will be the last post I'll make on the off topic matter, which was originally an attempt to demonstrate how futile torture would be in the favorite ticking time bomb cases which are meant to justify its use. Unless someone comments on my argument on its merits, that is.

John, Jr., was 19 years old, an adult and a co-conspirator. He stole the dynamite and provided much of the expertise for building the bomb, at his father's request.

http://www.vcstar.com/news/ventura-man-writes-about-his-role-in-bombing
First off was stealing the needed dynamite from a construction site, which wasn't much of a stretch for Birges Jr., who was a bit of a petty thief and stoned dusk till dawn. Once they had more than 1,113 pounds of dynamite, they started figuring out how to make an impenetrable bomb.

Birges Sr. and Birges Jr., who always tinkered with electronics as a kid, started designing the bomb with a maze of switches and various triggers, including an altimeter and a device that would trigger the bomb if flooded. Though they were making a bomb that would become legendary in the annals of FBI history, Birges Jr. never thought the plan would work. Or that anyone might get hurt. Or that he could end up in prison.
 
I'm speaking of institutional experience and knowledge. People who learned from torture passed on their information to the next generation and so on. It's not necessary for the people who first conducted the research or gained the experience to still be at the CIA, or even alive. I think that if torture really didn't work, then the CIA as an institution would have taught its employees that it didn't work. I mean there's really no good reason for using it if you know it doesn't work. It's not only demoralizing, but it puts your people in legal jeopardy too. And it's quite clear that the CIA was very anxious from the very beginning about putting their people in legal jeopardy. They knew that the legal and political environment was a lot different in 2002 than it was in 1972 or 1962 or 1952.

We know torture works because the CIA said so and they know it works because they have been lying about using it all along?
 
Common sense is not the same as "unquestioned belief" at all. It is knowledge that most humans learn from life experience, almost without knowing they're learning it. Common sense is not always accurate or correct, but humans are actually pretty good at adapting to reality, so common sense tends to be useful.

The idea that the prospect of reward or punishment can affect behavior is obvious. We see hundreds of examples of it in our own lives every day, and our entire society runs on the concept. What people like you would have us believe is that if the prospect of punishment is too intense, the entire incentive structure breaks down. Call me a skeptic.

Were the ones who confessed to witchcraft actually witches?

Torture works in degrading the society that condones it's use.
 
Can you show the legislation that has that as a punishment in the USA? I am more than astonished to think that someone could consider a criminal act to part of the justice system.

It's de facto, not de jure. See here. I thought this stuff was common knowledge. Perhaps only in the US.
 

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom