Waterboarding Rocks!

[Nova Land]

Arbitrarily selecting torture, and saying that anyone who isn't willing to use that is willing to let hundreds of thousands die, is no more sensible than arbitrarily selecting a "psychic detective" and saying anyone not willing to use that person's help is willing to let hundreds of thousands die.

It wasn't an arbitrary decision. It was a decision based on the fact that the conventional methods were not working against individuals that were materially involved in 9/11 and who had information we needed to know ASAP.

You've mis-read my post. I was discussing a hypothetical situation. In that hypothetical, in which we have such a short time left in which to elicit information that you rule out the use of conventional interrogations methods, you have arbitrarily selected torture as the hail-mary method to use in obtaining the location of a ticking-time-bomb before it goes off.

But the use of a psychic detective is another alternative which, if successful, could elicit the information in the specified time period. So, for that matter, is map-dowsing.

Your selection of torture rests on an as-yet-unproven claim that torture is an effective and reliable method for eliciting this information. It also rests on an apparent belief that torture has a greater chance of success than other possible methods such as psychic detection and map dowsing.

Just as there is anecdotal evidence that torture has been useful in obtaining information unknown to the questioners, so there is anecdotal information that psychic detection and map-dowsing has useful in obtaining information unknown to the questioners. If you're willing to accept one of these without subjecting the evidence regarding it to skeptical scrutiny, I fail to see how you justify rejecting the others.

Indeed, it appears to me that there are more anecdotes about psychic detectives coming up with information about the whereabouts of missing items than there are about torture coming up with this information. So if you are going to simply accept these anecdotes without examining and evaluating them, then I'm baffled why you are choosing to use torture in the hypothetical when a psychic detective would seem to offer a much greater chance of success.

Unless you can provide a good reason for accepting the claim that torture is effective in locating hidden time-bombs while rejecting the claim that psychic detection is effective in locating hidden time-bombs, then your choice of torture is indeed arbitrary.

... It was a decision based on the fact that the conventional methods were not working against individuals that were materially involved in 9/11 and who had information we needed to know ASAP.

That's odd. Those conventional methods elicited the information which foiled the LA library tower plot. Those conventional methods led to the identification of KSM as a planner of the 9-11 attacks and his subsequent arrest. There are a number of other critical intelligence successes which have now been identified as stemming from the conventional interrogations of suspects in the months prior to the authorization of "enhanced methods". Could you please specify which terrorist actions occurred here in the US in the that time period due to the failure of those conventional methods?

... torture is still the best and perhaps only effective approach in such circumstances.

Interesting claim. I await your presentation of the evidence to support it.

 

[Nova Land]

Your characterization that folks like me rely on episodes of "24" for our views is simply dishonest.

I would call it flippant rather than dishonest. Yes, I am aware there are hundreds of other television shows, movies, books, etc, other than "24", which glamorize the notion that a good way to get information out of someone is to torture them, and that not everyone with this belief picked it up from watching "24". But "24" is one of the best-known current examples, so it makes a convenient short-hand in referring to the type of source from which many people have picked this mistaken notion up.

You know full well that there are many experts, who have just as much hands on experience as the one you name, who disagree with you and your expert about the effectiveness of torture.

In the sense that there are "as many experts" in the field of climate science who believe global warming is a hoax as who believe it is a serious matter of concern, and in the sense that there are "as many experts" in the field of history who believe the holocaust was a hoax as who believe it genuinely occurred, perhaps. But other than in that sense, no. Your statement may express what you think you know, but it is not something I know. Quite the contrary: among the expert interrogators whose accounts I've read, there seems general agreement that torture is counter-productive and that ticking-time-bomb scenarios are a fantasy.

Here's Stuart Herrington -- someone with 30 years experience in the field -- addressing this point:

Self-styled "experts" on interrogation frequently cite the "ticking bomb scenario" (featured on shows like "24") to justify the Jack Bauer-like tormenting of a prisoner. According to this construct, it is necessary and acceptable to torture in the name of saving an American city from "the next 9-11." This has a magnetic appeal to legions of Americans, among them future soldiers.

But the so-called ticking time bomb scenario is a Hollywood construct that I never encountered in my 30-year career. Even so, it has become the rallying cry of many well-intentioned but ethically challenged military and civilian personnel. And it has been hawked by a large constituency of senior government officials, from the White House to the Department of Justice to Donald Rumsfeld's Pentagon, and is most recently evidenced in the surfacing of a January 2005 memo, written almost a year after Abu Ghraib, that characterizes face slapping and waterboarding as acceptable conduct.

 

[Nova Land]

And there are lots of historical examples where torture was effective:

http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200201/hoffman

I agree that torture is very effective at some things. Breaking people -- getting them to say whatever the torturer tells them to say -- these are things torture is effective at. But as a method for obtaining information from people, torture is notoriously unreliable.

Like dowsing, torture enables the practitioner to "discover" information the practitioner already knows (or thinks they know). I realize there are many dowsers who are sincerely convinced of their abilities to detect hidden items. Likewise, I realize that throughout history there have been many people who practiced torture and sincerely believed it enabled them to discern the truth.

But the test is not how many dowsers or torturers sincerely believe it works; it is how often these methods actually did turn up reliable information which was not previously known.

If you go back and look at the posts in this thread, you will see that the experts who claimed conventional methods are effective cited actual instances in which those methods obtained information which thwarted terrorist activities. In the case of those who claim torture is effective, either the claim was backed by a vague belief the information was "probably" useful (Kiriakou) or by examples which turned out to be bogus (CNS news).

If you truly believe there are lots of historical examples in which torture was effective in obtaining useful information which had not already been obtained through other methods, then lay them out clearly for us to see. Don't just wave a link around as if that proved anything.

The Atlantic is a fine magazine, especially as a source of good cryptic crossword puzzles. But it's not magic. If there is factual information in an article printed there which supports your point, then by all means go through the article, excerpt it, and share it with the rest of us.

I'm happy to examine any evidence you care to present. But first you have to present it.

 

[Nova Land]

If there were any good evidence that the use of torture or the use of psychics were more likely to produce useful results than conventional interrogation methods, then this might be a difficult moral choice.

But there is. For example, the case of KSM is excellent evidence. You just choose to ignore it.

On the contrary! Far from ignoring the case of KSM, I have cited it myself in this thread.

I agree it is good evidence -- good evidence of the inaccuracy and unreliability of the sources claiming that torture is effective. Torture defenders (such as the source cited in Kallsop's OP) have tried to claim that the water-boarding of KSM was useful in obtaining information which was used to foil a terrorist attack. The problem is that the attack in question was foiled in February 2002, using information obtained by conventional interrogation. KSM was not taken into custody until March of 2003 and was not water-boarded until August of that year.

As I said in that post -- but which I am happy to re-post for you here:

Far from supporting the claim that water-boarding has been useful in producing information that prevented terrorist attacks, what this incident seems to show is:

(a) that examples to support the claim that water-boarding is useful in preventing terrorist attacks are hard to find;

(b) that the main example presented to support the claim is a deception;

and (c) that many believers in this claim were unable to examine the evidence clearly enough to see through the deception on their own.

This does not speak well for the people propounding the claim, the people who believe in the claim, or the claim itself.

 

[Texas]

Back on page 10, Texas claimed that the figure of 183 was an extrapolation:





The problem with that is that I checked the pdf which Texas cites as a source and I couldn't find anything on that page to back up Texas' claim. Therefore I posted:




I then typed out at length the text from the page so that Texas could identify the part which he believed said the figure was an extrapolation.

I note that Texas still has not identified any such passage. That supports my suspicion, mentioned in my previous post, that this is not something which the pdf says but rather is a speculation on Texas' part.

And now Texas cites Clifford May with an entirely different story. Apparently the 183 figure is not an extrapolation after all. It is the actual number of incidents -- but each time water is poured into a person's mouth (i.e. each time the person was water-boarded) is counted as water-boarding.

Geeze! That's like saying that if I take a gun and shoot six bullets into someone that I shot them six times rather than once.




Out of curiosity: do you consider your act of claiming that the 183 figure was an extrapolation, and citing the pdf as the source for this claim even though the pdf says no such thing, to be a lie or a damned lie?

Nice try. The PDF lays out the exact parameters of how these men were to be subjected to the waterboard. Anything beyond those parameters would have been in violation of those restrictions and Obama is letting the interrogators off the hook for violating the restrictions. The most salient restriction is that within a 30 day window the waterboard could not be used for more than 5 days and that it could not exceed more than 12 minutes in a 24 hour period. So the math is 12 min x 5 days x 60 sec=3600 seconds. Assuming an average pour of 20 seconds that would be 180 times that water was poured over a 5 day period. That would mean that in a single 12 minute session the math works out to 12 minutes x 60 seconds =720 seconds per session with an average pour of 20 seconds each the subject would have had water on his face a maximum of 36 times per session, however that assumes that there would have been no time between each pour for the interrogators to both ask questions or for the subject to answer the questions. As BAC stated earlier KSM himself stated that he had been waterboarded 5 times. That is completely consistent with the known limitations that the memos placed on the use of waterboarding.

Also: Waterboarding interrogation sessions were permitted on no more than five days within any 30-day period.



No more than two sessions were permitted in any 24-hour period.



A session could last no longer than two hours.



There could be at most six pours of water lasting ten seconds or longer — and never longer than 40 seconds — during any individual session.



Water could be poured on a subject for a combined total of no more than 12 minutes during any 24 hour period.

 

[Nova Land]

The PDF lays out the exact parameters of how these men were to be subjected to the waterboard... The most salient restriction is that within a 30 day window the waterboard could not be used for more than 5 days and that it could not exceed more than 12 minutes in a 24 hour period. So the math is 12 min x 5 days x 60 sec=3600 seconds. Assuming an average pour of 20 seconds that would be 180 times that water was poured over a 5 day period. That would mean that in a single 12 minute session the math works out to 12 minutes x 60 seconds =720 seconds per session with an average pour of 20 seconds each the subject would have had water on his face a maximum of 36 times per session...

So you admit this is purely a speculative calculation on your part of what the 183 figure could mean, not something which you know as a fact, despite your initially trying to pass it off as one.

And not even a very good speculation, since the figure given in the memo is 183, not 180.

According the the PDF you cited, the figure 183 comes from the CIA Inspector General's report. The IG reviewed records of the interrogations, including the videos which were made. There is no reason to assume this is not an exact figure -- at least not in anything you have provided.

 

[Texas]

So you admit this is purely a speculative calculation on your part of what the 183 figure could mean, not something which you know as a fact, despite your initially trying to pass it off as one.

And not even a very good speculation, since the figure given in the memo is 183, not 180.

According the the PDF you cited, the figure 183 comes from the CIA Inspector General's report. The IG reviewed records of the interrogations, including the videos which were made. There is no reason to assume this is not an exact figure -- at least not in anything you have provided.

You are in a round room looking for a corner. If what you are saying is true the the Obama administration has allowed CIA interrogators go free despite the fact that the memos laid out the parameters for the interrogations that clearly state that the water board CANNOT be used for more than 5 days, that the sessions are limited to 2 hours per 24 hour period and that under NO CIRCUMSTANCES can the subject be exposed to water more than 12 minutes over 24 hours. You tell me, which do you want to believe, that Obama is aiding and abetting the crimes of CIA operatives that went beyond their legal restrictions or that POSSIBLY that the footnote is being misinterpreted. For me I would love for Obama to be hoisted on his on petard and be impeached for covering up for the CIA interrogators.

 

[Nova Land]

If what you are saying is true then the Obama administration has allowed CIA interrogators go free despite the fact that the memos laid out the parameters for the interrogations that clearly state that the water board CANNOT be used for more than 5 days, that the sessions are limited to 2 hours per 24 hour period and that under NO CIRCUMSTANCES can the subject be exposed to water more than 12 minutes over 24 hours.

Yes, it is quite possible that the water-boarding was carried out in ways that violated the guidelines. A great deal of what the Bush administration did was in violation of rules, regulations, guidelines and laws.

... which do you want to believe, that Obama is aiding and abetting the crimes of CIA operatives that went beyond their legal restrictions or that POSSIBLY that the footnote is being misinterpreted.

I see that you are unfamiliar with the meaning of "aiding and abetting". Prosecutors routinely must decide whether to bring charges or not; often this is necessary, even where there is good reason to believe a crime has occurred, because it will be too difficult to prove. A decision not to prosecute, if based on good reasons, is not a criminal offense.

In this case, the videotapes of the interrogations were -- improperly -- destroyed. One likely reason for this could be to cover up violations of the guidelines or other potentially illegal actions. Without the videotapes, prosecution would be difficult. (Which doesn't rule out prosecuting the people responsible for destroying the videotapes, if they can be identified.)

None of which changes the fact that you falsely claimed as fact that 183 is an extrapolation, when that is simply an uninformed speculation on your part, and that you falsely claimed the pdf of the 2005 Bradbury memo said this was an extrapolation when in fact the pdf never mentions extrapolation and says something quite different.

There is nothing wrong with speculating. You are free to speculate to your heart's content -- and to try to convince others of the merits of your speculations. But you should at least try to be honest about what you are doing.

 

[MattusMaximus]

You are in a round room looking for a corner. If what you are saying is true the the Obama administration has allowed CIA interrogators go free despite the fact that the memos laid out the parameters for the interrogations that clearly state that the water board CANNOT be used for more than 5 days, that the sessions are limited to 2 hours per 24 hour period and that under NO CIRCUMSTANCES can the subject be exposed to water more than 12 minutes over 24 hours. You tell me, which do you want to believe, that Obama is aiding and abetting the crimes of CIA operatives that went beyond their legal restrictions or that POSSIBLY that the footnote is being misinterpreted. For me I would love for Obama to be hoisted on his on petard and be impeached for covering up for the CIA interrogators.

So, in your Bizarro World view of things... President Obama should be held to account for the torture, and not former Bush administration officials?

Whiskey-Tango-Foxtrot?!!

 

[Cicero]

I'm not talking about that... I'm talking about those who are on this thread advocating for these techniques. Do they have the huevos to have it done to them first, if they really believe it isn't that bad?

Well, there are instances where people tazered by police have died as the result of the non-lethal method. I am not aware of any of the three detainees dying from being waterboarded by the CIA.

The whole point of waterboarding is that it is supposed to make the target of the exercise extremely uncomfortable. Who is saying that the experience would be anything other than "bad?"

 

[BeAChooser]

Originally Posted by BeAChooser
No lefty ... I'm not going to do that because I've asked you repeatedly to back up claims you've made ... and you ignored me. So all I'm going to do is give you some clues where you can look to find the answer to your question.

This is the kind of behavior which non-skeptics delight in, because it allows them to make all kinds of non-supportable claims.

I gave lefty more than sufficient information to locate instances where torture worked quite effectively to save lives. And if lefty had been paying ANY attention to the news, he would already have known what interrogators said about the effectiveness of waterboarding specific al-Qaeda operatives.

Providing evidence is not some kind of punishment.

It is when you are asked to provide the same information over and over because someone simply doesn't bother to listen to any previous debates on the subject. It is over when you provide links (as I have in the past to lefty on various subjects) and know that often he simply dismisses whatever is posted out of hand, often without even reading it. It's further aggravating when the person making the demand (in a highly unpleasant manner, I might add) is someone who when challenged to back up claims he's made in the past has refused to do so. It's a two way street.

Of course, if what a person is saying is BS, then it's understandable why the person might want to be a bit more evasive in presenting evidence and either to present it in hard-to-read forms or to come up with excuses for not presenting it.

Well, first, as a recent post by me to you proves, I do have sources that will back up the claims I've made. I always do.

It seems clear, for example, that the LA terror action did not come to light through the torture of KSM

Perhaps you are right in this case, but we really don't know all the facts. Before we do, the government needs to release the rest of the information (now that Obama has opened this can of worms) if we are to make an informed decision about this rather than act purely emotionally and politically. And by the way, not only the LA Tower was claimed as an example of information learned from KSM and the other al-Qaeda through torture. The government also stated that torture of these people stopped an attack on Heathrow, an attack on downtown London, an attack on our consulate in Karachi, an attack on our Marine camp in Djibouti, and broke up an al-Qaeda anthrax cell. I'd like to know if that is true. Wouldn't you? So like I said, there is a lot that we don't know simply because OBAMA is now refusing to declassify the reports showing what was learned.

And by the way, Nova Land ... I think KSM was almost asking to be waterboarded when he made the following statement to interrogators after their months of using non-torture methods (from the above link):

Before he was waterboarded, when KSM was asked about planned attacks on the United States, he ominously told his CIA interrogators, “Soon, you will know.”

"Soon, you will know." In other words, he let investigators believe that the clock was ticking. But as I understand it, you and the rest of the Waterboarding Is The Most Horrible Thing On Earth Liberals here would have continued using techniques that hadn't worked for months or that you admit yourself are "unproven". This, just a few years after terrorists had killed over 3000 Americans (and actually tried to kill 30000) by flying commercial passenger aircraft into skyscrapers. This, at a time when we knew al-Qaeda was seeking both chemical, biological and nuclear weapons. I can only roll my eyes at your willingness to sacrifice potentially even more American to scum like KSM.

 

[BeAChooser]

If you are advocating that your government has the right to torture people you are saying your government has the right to torture you.

So Darat, do you think waterboarding one person is morally worse than killing one ... or killing a hundred thousand ... like gdnp and Spinelli apparently believe?

 

[MattusMaximus]

Well, there are instances where people tazered by police have died as the result of the non-lethal method. I am not aware of any of the three detainees dying from being waterboarded by the CIA.

The whole point of waterboarding is that it is supposed to make the target of the exercise extremely uncomfortable. Who is saying that the experience would be anything other than "bad?"

Those using the weaseling argument that it isn't torture, but an "enhanced interrogation technique" instead

 

[MattusMaximus]

I can only roll my eyes at your willingness to sacrifice potentially even more American to scum like KSM.

Wow. This is the ultimate in straw man arguments.

BAC, you are such a patriot & real American

ETA: BAC, what do you think about Republican John McCain, who has openly opposed waterboarding as torture? I would think that perhaps he has a bit more perspective on the topic than you, seeing as how he was tortured for years by the Viet Cong. Or maybe McCain's just not a real American who wants to protect us from the terrorist scum of the world...

 

[Drysdale]

So what many in this tread is saying is if we are hit again and 1,000's killed that's fine because hey, at least we are'nt waterboarding people or even making them a little uncomfortable. Wow, I just cant relate to that mindset.

 

[Cleon]

So what many in this tread is saying is if we are hit again and 1,000's killed that's fine because hey, at least we are'nt waterboarding people or even making them a little uncomfortable. Wow, I just cant relate to that mindset.

Neither can I. Fortunately, that mindset is a complete fabrication you pulled out of your tukhus, so I really don't need to.

 

[BeAChooser]

since you state that you do believe that there is such a thing as morality

Now lefty I said no such thing nor by any stretch of the imagination could one infer I believe that from anything I've posted. This is just another example to Nova Land of why I do not take you or your questions or your demands or your comments or your ravings seriously.

I must assume that you are immoral, or maybe just down-right evil.

ROTFLOL! And you are a piece of work, lefty. Here you are calling me down-right evil when apparently you would be willing to let thousands of innocent people (perhaps hundreds of thousands) die rather than inflict a highly survivable, 60 second procedure (that we subject our own special forces to on a routine basis during training) on a known terrorist who was involved in a plot that had already killed thousands of innocent people, and who was boasting (after successfully withstanding months of the PC interrogation techniques that you promote) that "soon, you will know" about his groups plans to kill thousands more Americans.

 

[Childlike Empress]

Ray McGovern, former senior analyst at the CIA, discusses the emotional aversion CIA agents developed for their own torture tactics, the moral bankruptcy of torture apologists, the barriers to an effective Senate Intelligence Committee torture investigation and the reemergence of long time cover-up artist Warren Rudman. MP3 here. (23:14)

 

[MattusMaximus]

Just a quick note about the weasling language of "enhanced interrogation techniques" versus "torture"... Christopher Hitchens used to refuse to believe that waterboarding constituted torture - until he personally experienced it in May 2008.

... In May 2008, Hitchens voluntarily experienced waterboarding, after which he fully changed his opinion. He concluded "if waterboarding does not constitute torture, then there is no such thing as torture."

Anyone here calling waterboarding an "enhanced interrogation technique" needs to step up and experience it for themselves, in my opinion. That shouldn't be too tough for any real patriots to handle, should it?

 

[BeAChooser]

I love the people with such lack of imagination that they really do feel that it's a choice between "torture", "killing them" or "letting them go".

Nice to see that they've been keeping up with interrogation techniques! A good amount of education is anathema to such a simplistic worldview.

And yet we have the case of KSM, who was apparently subjected to the less harsh interrogation techniques that you recommend, for a period of several months and had not broken. In fact, he was boasting to his interrogators that "soon, you will know" about the other ongoing plots that al-Qaeda has in store for America. But after 90 seconds of waterboarding, they had him talking. The government says the information they gleaned after he broke saved many lives. Draw your own conclusions folks. Now you may claim that the Bush administration was lying, but if that's so then Obama has a moral and legal responsibility to reveal the facts in all it's messy details. The fact the Obama apparently isn't going to release the reports that would tell us one way or the other suggests to me that the version we heard from the Bush administration was essentially correct ... rather than a "simplistic worldview".