Originally Posted By tiggertoo <<IMO, torture wouldn't be very effective if it regularly leads to death. Hard for people to tell you what you want to know if they're dead.>> I don’t know, decimation works pretty well to motivate surviving Roman axillaries. Interrogators just cannot kill the person they actually believe has the information, nor inform them that they are somehow unique as opposed to his now dead comrade. But then, that’s my Machiavellian side speaking. > However, for devout Islamic terrorists, even threat of death would have no effect I think. So, my point is moot.
Originally Posted By wahooskipper I guess I'll put it this way. If waterboarding, as has been described here, would have brought to light information that would have prevented 9/11 or something similar in the future then I'm reluctantly fine with that. If that same information could only be gained by cutting off someone's fingers until they spilled it then I'm not fine with that. Do I want to be waterboarded myself? Not particularly. So, I am going to take great strides to make sure I don't associate myself with terrorists.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <You of course discounted the Washington Post for that bastion of journalism, National Review.> No, I discounted the Post's story because it was based on anonymous sources. That was my point earlier - we only "know" because somebody claimed it. The actual memos released say that we received valuable information, and both Directors of the CIA say the techniques worked.
Originally Posted By mawnck >>Another former CIA director, Michael Hayden, just wrote a column for the WSJ, in which he states, "The terrorist Abu Zubaydah (sometimes derided as a low-level operative of questionable reliability, but who was in fact close to KSM and other senior al Qaeda leaders) disclosed some information voluntarily. But he was coerced into disclosing information that led to the capture of Ramzi bin al Shibh, another of the planners of Sept. 11, who in turn disclosed information which -- when combined with what was learned from Abu Zubaydah -- helped lead to the capture of KSM and other senior terrorists, and the disruption of follow-on plots aimed at both Europe and the U.S."<< Other terrorists named by al Shibh during the interrogations, including Michael Jordan, Axl Rose and Elmer Fudd, are believed to still be at large.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>refer to the number of times a washcloth was put over his mouth and water dripped on it<< You make it sound rather refreshing and benevolent. Of course, I'm sure there is a fair amount of struggling and force involved in this, and I am sure there is a large amount of not knowing if your interrogators are about to finally kill you involved as well. Otherwise, there is no point.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <You make it sound rather refreshing and benevolent.> That wasn't my intent. Instead I was trying to distinguish it from the waterboarding that was done during WWII, in which a tube was inserted down someone's throat and water injected into the lungs. Because that form of waterboarding was torture doesn't mean that all types are. Similarly, hearing that detainees were slammed into walls by the use of neck collars sounds much worse than what the memos describe. It wasn't pleasant, but it wasn't torture. And it's use was extremely limited and very well regulated.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>Because that form of waterboarding was torture doesn't mean that all types are.<< Water was not "dripped" onto the cloth, it was poured. The effect is to simulate a sense of drowning. This is torture. If you think it is merely unpleasant, perhaps you should volunteer to have it done on you. But no fair volunteering with someone you know isn't going to kill you. Go to the slimiest part of town and ask random thugs to do it. That way, you get more of the full effect of not knowing if they'll actually remove the rag and let you gasp for air again or not. Then get back to us and tell us that it wasn't torture, but merely unpleasant. You know, if you want to say these are terrorists and they deserve it, fine. At least own up to that. But don't get cute with semantics. Torture is torture. If you're for it, be for it. I'd disagree but I'd respect it more than this silly semantic game.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <You know, if you want to say these are terrorists and they deserve it, fine.> The point of these techniques was not to punish the terrorists. It was to get information that would save lives. And, again, it worked. Yes, torture is torture. But those things which are not torture are not torture, and calling them torture doesn't make it so.
Originally Posted By tiggertoo <<extremely limited>> To 183 times? What do you mean? The sensation of drowning is not unpleasant, it’s traumatic. Again, I say that as someone who came nigh drowning himself. Just curious, would you consider informing a detainee that his wife or daughter was raped for every negative answer and then taunting detainee with description of the exploits torture? Certainly not physical harm was done, but certainly uncomfortable. My point is not to offend anyone, but to determine if there is a theoretical limit to the “uncomfortability” quotient we are discussing.
Originally Posted By piperlynne 00013 memo #13 explaining waterboarding "The wet cloth creates a barrier through wich it is difficult - or in some cases not possible -- to breathe" "We understand that if the detainee makes an effort to defeat the technique (e.g. by twisting his head to the side and breathing out of the corner of his mouth), the interrogator may cup his hands around the detainee's nose and moth to dam the runoff, in whic case it would not be possible for the detainee to breathe during the application of the water." So, basically, its ok to smother someone and not call it torture according to these memos. Nice. I'm sorry, call it what you want. I think this is torture. I think that any international court would consider it torture. (My opinion) and as an American. I don't want my country, my President to say this is ok to do to anyone. Is it the worst form of torture? But it doesn't make it right. I'm not machiavellian enough to believe in "the end justifies the means". The fact is, these people are/were in custody. Al Qaeda knew that. . so any credible information that "may" have been disseminated them from regarding an imminent threat was probably not going to be relevant any longer. In my opinion, these acts were acts of desperation by interrogators to get ANY kind of information in an expedited manner. The administration felt under pressure to prove that what they were doing was "keeping America safe".
Originally Posted By ecdc Again, those who insist this isn't torture, are you ok with American soldiers being subjected to it? Yes or no. Because if our country's position is it's not torture, then we have to be ok when it's a technique used on our soldiers.
Originally Posted By piperlynne >>Again, those who insist this isn't torture, are you ok with American soldiers being subjected to it? Yes or no. Because if our country's position is it's not torture, then we have to be ok when it's a technique used on our soldiers. << For the record, I think it is torture. And NO, I am NOT ok with this being done to our soldiers.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Again, those who insist this isn't torture, are you ok with American soldiers being subjected to it?> Read the memos. We do subject our military to these techniques.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh And I'd be happy if these techniques were the worst they could expect from our enemies. I'd rather not have american soldiers shot or blown up, but I'm willing to allow them to shoot bad guys and blow the enemies stuff up. War is cruel and messy, and if one is to win, they must be willing to do things that are cruel and messy.
Originally Posted By ecdc Ok, so you're fine with the Taliban performing this technique on an American soldier they've captured for information? Not the army doing this to themselves as a training exercise. But an enemy doing it to a prisoner for information. You're ok with that?
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <It wasn't pleasant, but it wasn't torture.> Sorry. The Red Cross, THE authority on this matter, has said unambiguously that it was torture. <But it worked.> Actually, we don't even know that. We don't know whether any useful info we gained was gained VIA torture or via another method that was undoubtedly used with these prisoners also. No one has said flat out "We got this piece of information right after we waterboarded so-and-so." All they've said is that these people received "enhanced interrogation" and eventually gave info. But there's no way any of these guys were ONLY tortured. They must have been subject to all the tools in the interrogators' arsenal - if not, the interrogators would have been remiss in their duties - including the time-tested interrogation techniques that we know are effective that are NOT torture. Someone who gives useful info, having been subjected to torture AND non-torture interrogation techniques cannot be fairly said to have given the info DUE to torture. In fact, torture has historically proved to be a poor technique for gaining info. Ask John McCain. He was subjected to things that anyone would call torture, but didn't crack. Are we to believe that he was just "tougher" than these guys that conservatives love to portray as "hardened terrorists?" I don't think so. We might have gotten useful info out of some of these guys. But there's zero proof that it came VIA torture.
Originally Posted By piperlynne >><Again, those who insist this isn't torture, are you ok with American soldiers being subjected to it?> Read the memos. We do subject our military to these techniques. << I think we both know what ecdc meant. Would you want our soldiers to be subject to this by another country or organization other than for training purposes?
