Originally Posted By ecdc <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/28/AR2009032802066.html?hpid=topnews" target="_blank">http://www.washingtonpost.com/...=topnews</a> From the article: >>When CIA officials subjected their first high-value captive, Abu Zubaida, to waterboarding and other harsh interrogation methods, they were convinced that they had in their custody an al-Qaeda leader who knew details of operations yet to be unleashed, and they were facing increasing pressure from the White House to get those secrets out of him. The methods succeeded in breaking him, and the stories he told of al-Qaeda terrorism plots sent CIA officers around the globe chasing leads. In the end, though, not a single significant plot was foiled as a result of Abu Zubaida's tortured confessions, according to former senior government officials who closely followed the interrogations. Nearly all of the leads attained through the harsh measures quickly evaporated, while most of the useful information from Abu Zubaida -- chiefly names of al-Qaeda members and associates -- was obtained before waterboarding was introduced, they said. Moreover, within weeks of his capture, U.S. officials had gained evidence that made clear they had misjudged Abu Zubaida. President George W. Bush had publicly described him as "al-Qaeda's chief of operations," and other top officials called him a "trusted associate" of al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden and a major figure in the planning of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. None of that was accurate, the new evidence showed.<< So here's direct evidence of what many of us have been saying. We caught a guy who wasn't the gem we thought, then we tortured him for information because we thought he was a high-value target, so to make it stop, he made up a bunch of stories about operations. Sorry folks, Jack Bauer is a fictional character.
Originally Posted By Mr X Perhaps. If you're looking for actionable intelligence, that does seem to yield results. If you don't care about results and leads and all that stuff, and you just want to make them suffer, torture is much more effective. Everyone knows YOUR views on that, DAR.
Originally Posted By Mr X As I've said many times before, but I assume it bears repeating...I am ALL FOR those who commit acts of terror and those who support the terrorists to suffer. Even the death penalty, which I am generally against, is totally fine with me. BUT, after they've been convicted of their crimes. And as this topic shows, the "necessity" argument is a load of garbage. Let's call a spade a spade.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <Perhaps we should approach the hot cocoa and marshmallow route.> Is there no middle ground between torture and cocoa? Like time-tested non-torture interrogation techniques that actually produce good intelligence and that constituted the policy of this country under every president of both parties until Bush? Oh yeah, there is. And it's not only moral, it's more effective.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh Here's an article that points out all the things the Post reporters left out of the story in order to reach their conclusions. <a href="http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZTEzMjc3YWU3ZmJiNzA3NThhNjdiMmY4MDkzNjRlMDY=" target="_blank">http://corner.nationalreview.c...NjRlMDY=</a>
Originally Posted By Dabob2 Even if you buy what's in the NRO piece (which normally need to be taken with a grain or 10 of salt), they do not show that any information obtained was obtained specifically through torture, or could not have been obtained through the non-tortuous moral methods we had always used, and undoubtedly were also used here.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "Is there no middle ground between torture and cocoa? Like time-tested non-torture interrogation techniques that actually produce good intelligence and that constituted the policy of this country under every president of both parties until Bush? Oh yeah, there is. And it's not only moral, it's more effective." I've mentioned this here before. I've been trained in interrogation techniques for over 25 years now. While I'm not going to pretend that what I did was on the same level as CIA stuff,e tc., I did teach police officers on a regular basis and have done hundreds of them. The principles behind a good interview/interrogation remain the same no matter what you're doing and it really isn't rocket science, either. You establish a connection with the person, find a way to relate to them on some level, treat them with a certain amount of respect and dignity (even if you don't mean it), and go from there. Most reliable information comes that way. Most information obtained under duress is bound to be flawed.
Originally Posted By mawnck >>Is there no middle ground between torture and cocoa?<< Really nasty cocoa.
Originally Posted By ecdc <a href="http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2008/08/hitchens200808?currentPage=1" target="_blank">http://www.vanityfair.com/poli...ntPage=1</a> Christopher Hitchens voluntarily underwent waterboarding and wrote about it in Vanity Fair. He talks about the feeling in great detail and why it is torture. He also shares stories of why it can be so unreliable to get information.
Originally Posted By Mr X I think that was a pretty decent article. I appreciate that he makes note of the fact that on the "torture scale", of course waterboarding isn't the worst thing they can do to you. But that's really not the point, is it? It's not as if we supposedly condemn "excessive torture", or "extreme torture"...and of course then we get the Dougs of the world who want to claim it "doesn't rise to the level of torture", but couldn't you really say the same about repeated blows to the arms and legs? I mean, you're not in danger of dying..right? Is that the only "true" definition of torture? I think not.
