The Feinstein Torture Report
Thanks to the tireless efforts of Senator Dianne Feinstein, we now have an official record of what, exactly, was done in all our names in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks. As President Obama has already admitted, this can be summed up as: "We tortured some folks." We can't pretend it wasn't torture anymore, because the facts weren't swept under a historical rug this time.
What does it all mean? Well, that's a subject that is fiercely being debated right now, both by those who hold human rights dear and by more than a few torture apologists. Even the term "torture apologists" should be a shameful one to use in America, when you stop and think about it.
The report has been out for more than a day now, and I'd like to share my own personal reflections. These are somewhat random and unconnected in nature, I admit, but there are many facets to the fact that America tortured prisoners. In other words, I'm not going to attempt some grand narrative which builds to a solid conclusion, instead I am just going to set down my own reactions to America torturing, Feinstein reporting on it, and the reactions of others to her report. Maybe, given a little more time, I'll come up with a better overview, but for now this'll have to do.
We all bear responsibility for what was done in our name
When members of the American military fight and die, it is done in our name. All Americans' names, in fact. We the people are America, our government merely represents us. What this means is that anything done by our government is our responsibility -- all of us. We try to live up to our ideals, and one of those is accountability and transparency. If extreme measures are taken, they must be answered for later. Those arguing against the Feinstein report's release are essentially saying nobody should take responsibility now, which is just flat-out wrong. We tortured people in our custody. We the people did that. It was approved at the highest levels of government. The facts weren't in question, really. The Feinstein report provided more detail than anything admitted to previously, but the basics were already known.
Dianne Feinstein is not my favorite senator (by a longshot), but I have nothing but praise for her this week. She is a true patriot -- someone who does what is right for her country, whether it is popular or not. For all the "kill the messenger" hysteria, Feinstein investigated what was done and pushed hard to release her findings to the American public for one very specific reason: so that it never happens again. That is a worthy and laudable goal. Because, as I said, we all bear responsibility for what was done, and when we find ourselves in a similar situation in the future, we may react differently. That will be a direct result of Feinstein's report, hopefully.
The report isn't "propaganda" for our enemies -- what we did is
Many in the national security arena are arguing that Feinstein shouldn't have released this report, because it could be used for "propaganda" by our enemies. This is ridiculous, for a number of reasons. The first is the most obvious: the report doesn't give fodder to enemy propaganda, what we did provides that fodder.
This is one of the core arguments against torturing prisoners, in fact. Our enemies can't accurately call us inhuman if we don't do inhuman things. If the C.I.A. had never tortured anyone, then the report would never have existed in the first place. If the abuses at Abu Ghraib prison didn't happen, then the photographs would never have existed either. When America takes the high road morally, then there is nothing to worry about later on, because there will be no moral lapses to hide, leak, investigate, prosecute, or prepare congressional reports on.
Attacking the messenger ignores the fact that what our enemies can use against us in their own propaganda is what we actually did. The solution is quite simple. If you don't want this stuff used in enemy propaganda, then don't do it in the first place. Problem solved.
No outcry yet overseas
To date, there has been no huge outcry overseas. The dark warnings of mobs attacking embassies have not yet materialized. This may still happen, but the fact that there was no immediate reaction does discount such dire warnings a bit already.
There's a likely reason for this: they already knew what was done. Some of the people we tortured have been released already. They know full well what was done to them -- they lived through it. They are not bound by any U.S. national security laws, which means they have likely already described in chilling detail what was done to them. The media outside of America also have no national security restraints, and therefore the stories have already been told -- to audiences outside this country.
Feinstein releasing a report now which gives the American audience details of what was done has not provoked any outrage because it simply is not news to a lot of people overseas. "America Wakes Up To What We Already Knew It Had Done" is not really much of a rallying cry, when you get right down to it.
In wartime, we often quickly jettison our founding values
When "there's a war on," America often tosses our founding values out the window. Examples abound, from just about every war we've fought. Japanese internment camps are usually the first thing referenced, but the list certainly doesn't end there. The Bill of Rights is trampled upon regularly when America goes to war, in fact. Our foundational values and many of the "rules of warfare" are also routinely ignored. War is Hell, and always has been.
A nation at war is a fearful nation. Fear breeds contemplation of actions and policies that in peacetime would never even be proposed. When we were attacked on 9/11, we were more fearful than at any time since Pearl Harbor. But after watching the survivors of Pearl Harbor gather for what may be their last time this week, I couldn't help but contrast the excesses of World War II with the Feinstein report. We did imprison American citizens for no reason other than their ethnicity back then, but they weren't "concentration camps" in the style of our enemies. And there's a reason why "Ve haff vays of makink you talk" is in a German accent in all those movies -- because torturing prisoners was something the Nazis did, not us. We used to take pride in that fact. We cannot anymore. Perhaps in the future, we will regain this ability. Feinstein's report will help.
Cruel and unusual punishment
Of course, the torture apologists are trotting out the "ends justify the means" argument. We tortured people, but it was necessary, and we saved lives as a result -- that's the basic argument they make.
This should be abhorrent to any patriotic American. It is not who we are. Period. If torture is so dang effective, after all, then why not use it domestically? Why not let the cops torture any criminal suspect, to gain a confession? If you torture a confession out of someone, it sure makes the court case a lot easier, right?
Following this logic brings a society quickly to the point where torture becomes the go-to tool for law enforcement for just about any situation. Why kill murderers painlessly with drugs? Why not hold a public spectacle, and slowly torture them to death instead? You could get quite creative in the methods applied to such punishments, in fact. Let's see, we could get four big horses and some stout rope, and....
We have faced such a reality, and such a society before. We did something about it. We wrote the Eighth Amendment, as a direct response. "Cruel and unusual punishment" was forever outlawed (at least theoretically). This is what I mean when I say banning torture is one of America's founding principles.
Is torturing a terrorist's daughter OK?
In one of the first columns I ever wrote for Huffington Post, I posed this very question. It was necessary, because at the time (2006), the torture apologists were using the issue in domestic politics -- Republicans were painting the Democrats as being "soft on terrorism." I posed two questions in this article, to be asked of those championing torture. The first was, if the torture apologist's daughter were a member of the U.S. military and the same techniques we were using were used against her by an enemy, would a torture apologist still stick to the claim that the methods were "not torture" and were in fact legal?
The second question was:
If we hold a terrorist and we think he knows about an imminent plot, you advocate 'aggressive interrogation techniques' against him, since his comfort is less important than saving the lives of so many in an attack on America -- but if he has been trained to resist interrogation and doesn't talk, would you also advocate using the same techniques on his innocent nine-year-old daughter, in front of him, in an effort to make him talk?
I posed this as an unanswerable question. However, much to my own shame, what I was describing was not that far from the reality of what the C.I.A. actually did, according to the Feinstein report. The only differences are that it was a mother instead of a daughter, and it didn't actually happen but was merely threatened.
Yes, we did that. We threatened a prisoner -- if he didn't spill the beans, pronto -- that we would drag his own mother in and torture her in front of him. How anyone can defend this action is beyond me, personally. This should not be who we are as a nation, people. It is indefensible on just about every level. We are better than this, or we should be.
Where are the ministers?
One thing worth pointing out today is the resounding silence coming from America's religious leaders. Now, maybe I'm being too judgmental here, since it has only been one day since the report was released. And perhaps these people are not being sought after by the media for commentary, since their air time is all booked up with torture apologists and historical revisionists.
But when Islamic terrorists cause atrocities, a familiar refrain from some here in America is: "Where are the imams denouncing such violence?" Well, if we're going to hold others to that standard, then where are the Christian ministers and priests denouncing American torture?
Torture, after all, is a moral issue. Many people look to Christian leaders for moral guidance in stressful times. So why are we not hearing from them now? Priests and ministers are often heard splitting hairs on morality when it comes to sexual issues, but torturing a prisoner to death seems equally worthy of their attention. After all, Jesus was tortured -- in fact, his torture device is now the ubiquitous symbol of the religion itself. Which makes their silence now a bit disturbing, to say the least.
Moral relativism among moral absolutists
But I don't mean to pick on the religious leaders too much, at least not to the exclusion of others. For a long time (say, the 1980s and 1990s), one of the rallying cries of the conservative movement and groups like the Moral Majority was to denounce "moral relativism." What they meant by this was making any sort of "ends justify the means" arguments, rather than walking only on the straight and narrow moral path.
Such moral relativists were strongly denounced, on all the social wedge issues of the day. America, we were told, was on the highway to Hell, led down this road by moral relativists who could rationalize or justify just about anything evil. Good was good, and bad was bad -- there was no sliding scale at all.
Many of today's moral absolutists on other issues (birth control, for example) are exactly the same ones now making the pro-torture argument. The hypocrisy is pretty mind-boggling, or at least it would be if anyone in the media bothered to point it out.
Senator John McCain just broke with his party and gave a passionate speech on the Senate floor denouncing torture in all instances. He is to be applauded for doing so. He knows full well what torture is all about -- he was a prisoner of war and he was tortured. He said anything he thought would end the torture. He lied to his captors. He told them what he thought they wanted to hear. And, to his credit, he still remembers that and still has the moral fortitude to stand up and say to the country: Torture does not work.
But he's just about the only one from his political party doing so. All the conservatives who are quick to take an absolutist position on other moral issues are now the same ones arguing strongly that we should all be moral relativists on the subject of torture. Their hypocrisy is breathtaking, in fact. Now all we need is for the media to point it out, and perhaps ask them about this disconnect on the air.
-- Chris Weigant
Cross-posted at The Huffington Post
Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant
We'll said.
But not well typed. FN tablet keyboard.
It should read "well said." But,great God Autocorrect will not permit that construction. Talk about torture. Jeez !!!
Chris,
We can't pretend it wasn't torture anymore, because the facts weren't swept under a historical rug this time.
While Senator Feinstein's address on the floor of the US Senate upon the release of the Senate Intelligence Committee's report on the use of torture and the condoning and justification of the use of torture by US government officials was admirable, along with the statement by Senator McCain, what does it say about a nation when it's officials who have practiced, condoned and justified the use of torture are not held accountable?
Is the excuse of preferring to "look forward" a valid one, under the circumstances?
what does it say about a nation when it's officials who have practiced, condoned and justified the use of torture are not held accountable?
It says we will protect Americans at ALL costs, even if that means a few mass murders are made uncomfortable for a time...
Michale
144
Thanks to the tireless efforts of Senator Dianne Feinstein, we now have an official record of what, exactly, was done in all our names in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks.
Let's be clear..
We do NOT have an "official" report.
We have a DEMOCRAT PARTY report...
If the report contained ALL the facts, ALL the lives that were saved, ALL the attacks that were stopped, EVERYTHING that happened as a result....
Ya know what the response of Joe and Jane Sixpack would be??
"Eh, well. Yea, it's a bummer we had to go there, but they brought it on themselves..."
Just keep in mind.. It's entirely likely that someone ya'all know and/or someone ya'all love are alive today because of the actions of the CIA...
It's a fact that someone's daughter is alive today because of the actions of the CIA..
In the world of counter terrorism, the ends DO justify the means...
Michale
145
Let's also be clear about another thing..
Torture is not about obtaining intel.. Not specifically.. Sure, the ultimate goal is intel.
But the immediate goal of torture, in the environment we are discussing, is to obtain co-operation, not intel.. Once that co-operation is obtained, the intel flows freely...
That is why I always have to shake my head sadly when people claim torture doesn't work. If applied properly and with the proper goals in mind, torture does work 95% of the time..
And it's an established fact that, in the instances under discussion, torture accomplished the goal..
To save innocent lives..
Michale
146
The entire problem with this Democrat report is that it emphasizes and exaggerates the acts, but completely ignores the results and the consequences of NOT acting..
I was struck by this with Obama's statement..
“Imagine a future 10 or 20 years from now when the United States of America is still holding people who have been charged with no crime on a piece of land that is not part of our country. Is this who we are? .?.?. Is that the America we want to leave to our children?”
He simply states the act and ignores the result..
“Imagine a future 10 or 20 years from now when the United States of America is still holding people who have been charged with no crime on a piece of land that is not part of our country and, in doing so keeps the lives of innocent Americans safe and secure. Is this who we are? .?.?. Is that the America we want to leave to our children?”
He leaves that part out because he KNOWS that any rational American is going to say, "Damn skippy!!!"
The unconventional enemy we face requires an unconventional response..
"You don't fight a rabid dog with ASPCA rules... You take the leash off your own BIGGER and BADDER dog.."
-THE SEIGE
Michale
147
After all, Jesus was tortured -- in fact, his torture device is now the ubiquitous symbol of the religion itself.
If I may be a bit blasphemous here..
"So I get back to earth right?? And I see all these crosses everywhere and I'm like, 'What the frak!??' Do they think that, if JFK were to come back, he wants to see frakin' sniper rifles everywhere!!???"
-Jesus
:D
Apologies if that was too raw...
Michale
148
The most disgusting part of this entire Bushco torture situation is the fact that apologists continue to this day to pretend that it's OK to torture terrists if Amurikkkans are "protected". They're still refusing to acknowledge that non-terrists were tortured, not to mention the fact that this "protection" thing doesn't seem to be working any better than the torture.
The most disgusting part of this entire Bushco torture situation is the fact that apologists continue to this day to pretend that it's OK to torture terrists if Amurikkkans are "protected".
For those who have been there and done that, we don't HAVE to "pretend" it's OK..
We KNOW for a fact that it's OK...
Unlike your Democrat (so-called) "leaders" who were fully briefed on the programs and then got all holier-than-thou when the programs became public knowledge..
They're still refusing to acknowledge that non-terrists were tortured,
Mistakes happen and that's a shame..
Doesn't change the facts that the programs worked and saved innocent lives..
Obama's own people have STATED such...
not to mention the fact that this "protection" thing doesn't seem to be working any better than the torture.
You'll have to clarify this because I have absolutely NO CLUE what you are trying to say here..
Like I said, I wish you came with a translation matrix.. :D
Michale
149
In one of the first columns I ever wrote for Huffington Post, I posed this very question. It was necessary, because at the time (2006), the torture apologists were using the issue in domestic politics
For those of you new to Weigantia, you can thank (or blame... Blame is problably a better word.. :D) this column for my presence here.... :D
Michale
150
If the report contained ALL the facts, ALL the lives that were saved, ALL the attacks that were stopped, EVERYTHING that happened as a result....
And, more importantly, everything that DIDN'T happen...
Let's be clear..
We do NOT have an "official" report.
We have a DEMOCRAT PARTY report...
This report is nothing but a partisan hit piece..
And I can PROVE that....
Michale
151
This report has as much connection to the facts and reality as that bogus Benghazi report that recently came out.
Mainly.. NONE..
NONE.. ZERO... ZILCH.... NADA...
Michale
152
not to mention the fact that this "protection" thing doesn't seem to be working any better than the torture.
Ahhhh I get it now..
So, you are saying that Bush's CT policies that Obama has continued and expanded are not effective??
And yet, there hasn't been a successful terrorist attack on US proper since 9/11...
So, tell me.
How do you reconcile that fact with your claim??
Michale
153
I haven't much to add - - this was timely, well thought out and effectively specific. I might add a thought or two as someone old enough to remember not only the Korean war but World War Two (when I was a boy reading "Steve Canyon" and "Buzz Sawyer"comics) wherein contrasts were repeatedly made with "Them" (the malicious, sadistic, sneering enemy fighters). "They" were evil, unprincipled, inhumane . .etc. etc while "clean-cut& wholesome" American "Doughboys" always fought fair. Nazis did such stuff. Japs did such stuff, but not our 'boys.' Made us comics readers feel good about "us."
And there was a lot of truth to all that, but . . . being sanctimonious means covering up a lot, also.
I haven't much to add - - this was timely,
Depending on what exactly you mean by "timely" I would have to agree... Or disagree...
The fact that this Dem report came out in the waning days of Dem power in Congress, it strikes me as a sour-grapes report.. One last kick in Bush's balls before the Dems are thrown out...
I might add a thought or two as someone old enough to remember not only the Korean war but World War Two (when I was a boy reading "Steve Canyon" and "Buzz Sawyer"comics) wherein contrasts were repeatedly made with "Them" (the malicious, sadistic, sneering enemy fighters). "They" were evil, unprincipled, inhumane . .etc. etc while "clean-cut& wholesome" American "Doughboys" always fought fair. Nazis did such stuff. Japs did such stuff, but not our 'boys.' Made us comics readers feel good about "us."
And there was a lot of truth to all that,</I
You are dead on ballz accurate. There WAS a lot of truth to that..
Back then...
But we are fighting a whole new kind of war here... A war that, while hot, has a lot of elements of the Cold War...
New style of war requires new style of thinking...
Michale
154
If the report contained ALL the facts, ALL the lives that were saved, ALL the attacks that were stopped, EVERYTHING that happened as a result....
But, Michale ... doesn't the Republican minority report do all of that?
Heh.
But, Michale ... doesn't the Republican minority report do all of that?
Let me put it this way...
The Minority Report serves it's partisan agenda, just as the Majority Report serves their agenda...
Two sides of the same corrupt coin...
Is torture outrageous? Yes..
Is it horrible? Yes..
Is it uncivilized and barbaric?? Yes and Yes...
But the ONLY question that matters is...
IS IT NECESSARY....
And the answer to that is ALSO yes..
We sleep soundly in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would do us harm.
-George Orwell
Michale
155
I'm not going to debate this issue with you, Michale, because you refuse to take off your blinders and therefore you see only what you wish to see, even when much of what you see with respect to this issue is not actually there.
That was a bit terse, on my part. I guess the least that I should do here is to lay out my general thinking, again ...
For me, the use of torture by any democracy-loving government can NEVER be justified or condoned. Period. This is one of the very, very few issues that are “black and white” for me, no grey areas, whatsoever.
Having said that, I would defer to seasoned and competent interrogators who may deem it necessary, in rare circumstances, to resort to the use of torture. However, that need and action should, in no way, diminish from the fact that torture is the equivalent of pure evil and should be punished in a court of law.
Depending on the circumstances under which the decision to resort to the use of torture was taken (by seasoned and competent interrogators, I hasten to reiterate), the penalty for this crime may be appropriately mitigated.
That is why I always have to shake my head sadly when people claim torture doesn't work. If applied properly and with the proper goals in mind, torture does work 95% of the time..
Okay, okay ... I just have one question that I would like you to answer, Michale, with an appropriate degree of specificity ...
On what evidence - cite real accounts of interrogators involved in the use of torture, proven accuracy of the information gleaned under conditions of torture - do you rely to make such a statement?
I'm not going to debate this issue with you, Michale, because you refuse to take off your blinders a
Ironically enough I am the only one here who is NOT wearing blinders... :D
Ya'all's position is based on theory..
My position is based on fact...
That was a bit terse, on my part.
Not at all.. It's an emotional topic, to be sure...
For me, the use of torture by any democracy-loving government can NEVER be justified or condoned. Period. This is one of the very, very few issues that are “black and white” for me, no grey areas, whatsoever.
I completely understand and respect your opinion...
On the other hand, if you had worked in the field and been there and done that, could you allow that your opinion MIGHT be different??
Depending on the circumstances under which the decision to resort to the use of torture was taken (by seasoned and competent interrogators, I hasten to reiterate), the penalty for this crime may be appropriately mitigated.
I am of two minds on this..
On the one hand, NO ONE should have to be criminalized for doing the right thing...
On the other hand, it would prompt people to think hard about what they are about to do..
But, here's the thing. It's been aptly proven that politics simply CANNOT be taken out of the mitigation process..
Given that, it simply is not morally defensible to criminalize the decision and then mitigate the punishment..
Michale
156
On what evidence - cite real accounts of interrogators involved in the use of torture, proven accuracy of the information gleaned under conditions of torture - do you rely to make such a statement?
Beyond personal experience??
The man who led the United States to bin Laden, a courier known as Abu Ahmed al-Kuwaiti, was mentioned by earlier sources but only as one of many associates bin Laden had years before. Detainees in the CIA interrogation program pushed Kuwaiti to the top of the list and caused the agency to focus tightly on him. The most specific information about the courier came from a detainee, Hassan Ghul, who, after interrogation, strengthened the case by telling of a specific message the courier had delivered for bin Laden to operations chief Abu Faraj al-Libi. Finally, interrogated senior operatives such as Khalid Sheik Mohammed, who by that time was enormously cooperative, lied when confronted with what we had learned about the courier. That was a dramatic tip-off that he was trying to protect bin Laden.
washingtonpost.com/opinions/senate-interrogation-report-distorts-the-cias-success-foiling-terrorist-plots/2014/12/09/de5b72ca-7e1f-11e4-9f38-95a187e4c1f7_story.html
There, torture lead us to Bin Laden..
KSM, once co-operative, led us to one Riduan Isamuddin AKA Hambali. Who, once co-operative, led us to Hambali's brother. The brother had just recruited 17 terrorists to recreate the 9/11 attacks on the west coast of the United States..
The plot was stopped..
I could go on and on with a dozen more examples, but all you have to do is listen to Obama's CIA Director...
"Coercive interrogations did produce intelligence that helped thwart attack plans, capture terrorists, and save lives. The intelligence gained from the program was critical to our understanding of al-Qaida and continues to inform our counterterrorism efforts to this day."
CIA Director John O Brennan
Michale
157
On the other hand, if you had worked in the field and been there and done that, could you allow that your opinion MIGHT be different??
What, my comment was clear as mud, again!?
Michale, have you personally tortured a detainee?
Chris: points well stated, but I am not in agreement with these:
"We did this"
Uh uh. I didn't do it. I was against everything that was done by Bush/Cheney gang from the beginning. When 9/11 happened the first reaction I had after the smoke was cleared was a fear that the Bush/Cheney gang were going to take advantage of it to do stupid and evil things, which they did. I knew the war was a BAD idea and I knew because they had already established themselves as both liars and bullies, and they then proceeded to act the way liars and bullies act.
Lots of Americans protested and were reviled and ignored. So while this report is a stain on "America" I reject categorically any responsibility for actions I wasn't strong enough to stop but vehemently decried.
To your point re: wartime -- see above. We have plenty of knowledge and history to tell us exactly how barbarous people become in war. We had Colin Powell's doctrine warning us not to engage in the debacle. But they did it anyway and everything that has happened was both inevitable and PREDICTED. American leaders lost their heads in the emergency, much like hysterical cops apparently shoot first and dodge responsibility later.
When scary bad things happen leaders can be strong and help people figure out constructive responses, or they can have hysterics and lead out of fear, settling on brute force over intelligence, fairness or foresight. That is what our leaders did when the test came.
This torture program was the product of cowards and bullies being in charge. It is a profound disgrace -- actually, I can't think of words harsh enough to encompass it. There is no defense for it.
Keep in mind, the immediate goal in torture is not intel...
It's co-operation....
As KSM aptly demonstrates, intel comes later...
Michale
158
I reject categorically any responsibility for actions I wasn't strong enough to stop but vehemently decried.
So, you categorically reject responsibility for actions taken by your fellow Americans years and years ago...
Interesting.... I might have to remind you of that in future discussions. :D
This torture program was the product of cowards and bullies being in charge. It is a profound disgrace -- actually, I can't think of words harsh enough to encompass it. There is no defense for it.
Except 13 years without a terrorist attack on US proper..
Michale
159
Michale, have you personally tortured a detainee?
I'll take the 5th on that..
However, I WILL say that in my military career I was part and parcel to the very programs and career fields we have been discussing...
Terrorism wasn't just a far off concept or a theory or an intellectual exercise.. It was very real and something me and my fellow soldiers lived with 24/7 for many years...
There is theory and there is reality.. And while the theory that torture is un-necessary is nice to snuggle up with when we sleep at night...
The reality is far far difference..
Michale
160
I'll take the 5th on that..
Predictable.
And, infinitely amusing, given your own consistent (well, consistent until now) take on taking the fifth on one question but not on all others of an issue ...
In other words, Michale, put up or shut up.
And, infinitely amusing, given your own consistent (well, consistent until now) take on taking the fifth on one question but not on all others of an issue ...
It's the difference between what I know and what I have done.. :D
I'll be happy to talk ad-nasuem (and often do :D ) about what I know...
But what I have done is really not open for discussion..
Michale
161
Then we are finished here, on this critically important topic. :(
Why is it so important to know what I have done?? My involvement in this career field is well-documented..
I don't understand why specifics are required for the discussion to continue??
"Are you saying I have to DIE before you will discuss your feelings on death??!!"
-Dr Leonard McCoy, STAR TREK IV, The Voyage Home
:D
Michale
162
Because you speak with such apparent authority and yet your assertions are disputed by those who have actually interrogated detainees.
Because you speak with such apparent authority and yet your assertions are disputed by those who have actually interrogated detainees.
On what evidence - cite real accounts of interrogators involved in the use of torture, proven inaccuracy of the information gleaned under conditions of torture - do you rely to make such a statement?
You have to remember.. The claim from those who make such statements that "people will say anything to stop the torture" is not relevant once you under stand that torture is NOT designed to elicit intelligence..
It's designed to elicit co-operation..
Ergo, since intelligence is not the immediate goal, the interrogator cannot be satisfied with intel...
Which is why I distrust the statements of those who make that "people will say anything" claim..
It PROVES they are completely ignorant of exactly what torture is and what it's designed to accomplish...
I have given you many real world examples of how torture HAS rendered accurate intelligence...
Michale
163
Why would Obama's CIA Director state that torture HAS elicited actionable intel when it wasn't a fact??
Moreover, would would Obama tolerate such bogus statements if they were, in fact, bogus??
Michale
164
Paula
I reject categorically any responsibility for actions I wasn't strong enough to stop but vehemently decried.
You should feel responsibility for what occurred in the same manner as the Left feels that the entirety of the American people should feel responsibility for slavery...
It's the same concept...
But, here's a newsflash for ya that's gonna keep you up at night..
I completely agree with you.. :D
It's ridiculous to be expected to feel responsible for actions you had no control over and were never a part of...
Michale
165
Why would Obama's CIA Director state that torture HAS elicited actionable intel when it wasn't a fact??
For a guy who says he values accuracy and is quick to point out inaccuracies, that statement of yours highlighted above is a whopper!
Director Brenner said today that he believes that the question of whether or not actionable intel was extracted as a result of torture is, and I quote, UNKNOWABLE.
And, yet, YOU, on the other hand, know that torture works 95% of the time!
Director Brenner said today that he believes that the question of whether or not actionable intel was extracted as a result of torture is, and I quote, UNKNOWABLE.
And yet, Director Brennan said in the very same statement:
"Our reviews indicate that the detention and interrogation program produced useful intelligence that helped the United States thwart attack plans, capture terrorists and save lives."
Couple that statement with what I already know for a fact to be true and it's pretty easy for me to claim what I am claiming..
Torture HAS saved lives..
Why all the tears and hand-wringing over a few mass-murderers who have killed, literally, THOUSANDS of innocent men, women and children???
And, yet, YOU, on the other hand, know that torture works 95% of the time!
Yes I do..
Because I am not shackled by political correctness or Party/Ideological enslavement..
Michale
166
Director Brenner said today that he believes that the question of whether or not actionable intel was extracted as a result of torture is, and I quote, UNKNOWABLE.
And yet, Director Brennan said in the very same statement:
"Our reviews indicate that the detention and interrogation program produced useful intelligence that helped the United States thwart attack plans, capture terrorists and save lives."
Couple that statement with what I already know for a fact to be true and it's pretty easy for me to claim what I am claiming..
Torture HAS saved lives..
Michale
166
Why all the tears and hand-wringing over a few mass-murderers who have killed, literally, THOUSANDS of innocent men, women and children???
And, yet, YOU, on the other hand, know that torture works 95% of the time!
Yes I do..
Because I am not shackled by political correctness or Party/Ideological enslavement..
Michale
166
Director Brenner said today that he believes that the question of whether or not actionable intel was extracted as a result of torture is, and I quote, UNKNOWABLE.
And yet, Director Brennan said in the very same statement:
"Our reviews indicate that the detention and interrogation program produced useful intelligence that helped the United States thwart attack plans, capture terrorists and save lives."
Michale
167
"Our reviews indicate that the detention and interrogation program produced useful intelligence that helped the United States thwart attack plans, capture terrorists and save lives."
-CIA Director Brennan
Michale
167
NNL Filters are being wanky...
Brennan said in the very same statement that torture HAS saved lives...
Michale
Why all the tears and hand-wringing over a few mass-murderers who have killed, literally, THOUSANDS of innocent men, women and children???
Now, here is a prime example of you seeing things that aren't there.
Now, here is a prime example of you seeing things that aren't there.
Glad to hear that. :D
So, lemme ask ya...
If you DID condone torture, would you agree that the likes of KSM et al DESERVED to be tortured???
Michale
173
Interesting. It appears to me the preferred rationale justifying torture as an interrogation tool has shifted over the last year or so from "ticking time bomb" to "soften then up."
Interesting. It appears to me the preferred rationale justifying torture as an interrogation tool has shifted over the last year or so from "ticking time bomb" to "soften then up."
The ticking time bomb, while "fun" to contemplate, was never a serious consideration...
As I have said ad-nasuem...
Torture is about obtaining co-operation, not intel...
Michale
185
The ticking time bomb, while "fun" to contemplate, was never a serious consideration...
As I have said ad-nasuem...
Uh...that's a flip flop that would make Clinton proud. So none of your many, many ticking time bomb scenarios over the last 7-8 years were serious. OK, got it.
Uh...that's a flip flop that would make Clinton proud. So none of your many, many ticking time bomb scenarios over the last 7-8 years were serious. OK, got it.
I would have to know which scenarios you were referring to and the context that they were referred in...
Michale
193
M-51
My observation was not directed specifically to you - and it wasn't directed at the ticking time bomb scenario either.
Until recently, the argument of torture advocates has been that it generates useful intelligence you wouldn't get otherwise.
Now, advocates of torture seem, to me, more apt to claim it makes a prisoner more cooperative. That's a different argument, and one I'm more inclined to agree with. A classic use of torture is to get a subject to sign a confession. That's certainly a form of cooperation, but the prisoner is not giving up any information, beyond a signature, staged photo, or sound bite. The transaction is easy to judge.
Torture is a fairly effective means to get someone to say what you tell them to say. We know that, there is no argument. But how does the torturer know when the prisoner has told "the truth?" Or even knows the truth? If the torturer already knows the truth, than why bother to torture? Torture has been claimed to be quicker than conventional interrogation, but if you just get bad information quicker, what's the point?
That's my problem with torture as an intelligence tool. Prisoners basically give evidence. The only way to judge the validity of evidence gained through torture is to corroborate it with other independent sources of evidence. Otherwise, you can't exclude the very real possibility that the prisoner is just telling you what he/she thinks you want to believe. It's a lazy way out of doing tedious work.
TS,
So, you don't see US government-sanctioned torture as a moral issue but, rather a mere policy option that may or may not be an effective intelligence tool and/or method of obtaining cooperation?
TS,
Apologies.. I am a bit sensitive on this subject, as it's an old topic.. As indicated, it's the subject that introduced me to Chris.. :D
Torture is a fairly effective means to get someone to say what you tell them to say. We know that, there is no argument. But how does the torturer know when the prisoner has told "the truth?" Or even knows the truth? If the torturer already knows the truth, than why bother to torture? Torture has been claimed to be quicker than conventional interrogation, but if you just get bad information quicker, what's the point?
That's my problem with torture as an intelligence tool. Prisoners basically give evidence. The only way to judge the validity of evidence gained through torture is to corroborate it with other independent sources of evidence. Otherwise, you can't exclude the very real possibility that the prisoner is just telling you what he/she thinks you want to believe. It's a lazy way out of doing tedious work.
But, as you indicate, this assumption follows the idea that torture is designed to elicit intel...
It's not.. It's designed to elicit co-operation...
Let me lay it out for you...
In the normal process that I am familiar with, it would go something like this...
You have scumbag A and Interrogator B..
B knows C, D and E... B interrogates A with torture to get him to "confess" to C or D or E.... A obfuscates and withholds and tries to last..
Finally, A breaks and gives B the intel C, D and E... B doesn't NEED to know C, D or E because B already knows C, D and E..
But by torturing A to reveal C, D and E, B has broken A and now A will be co-operative in revealing intel that B does NOT know..
Granted, that is a way way WAY oversimplification of the process that can take weeks and MONTHS to achieve...
But it is EXACTLY that process that led to the sanction of Osama Bin Laden....
Torture is NOT about intel..
It's about co-operation...
Once the terrorists co-operates in revealing intel that is already known, then the rest flows very easy...
Liz,
So, you don't see US government-sanctioned torture as a moral issue but, rather a mere policy option that may or may not be an effective intelligence tool and/or method of obtaining cooperation?
As I have been saying.. Torture is a tool.. No more, no less "moral" than a hammer or a table saw...
It's how it is utilized that determines the morality..
A hammer is a very useful tool... But when it is wielded as a weapon to decimate an entire family, does that change the designation, or more accurately, the value as a tool of the hammer??
Of course not..
Michale
202
Well, 202 isn't going to push the fund-raising bar, that is for sure.
M-55
Who are C,D and E? Are they as confused as F (F being myself).
If torture is about cooperation, to what end? Not intell? OK, no argument on that, you can use it for propaganda purposes...revenge, arguably some form of deterrence, but way back when, the torture advocates were arguing it produces actionable intel fast fast fast!!!! Quicker than a ticking time bomb! Now it takes time, patience, like conventional interrogation does. Soooooo what's good about it?
Liz -54
I see it as a moral issue as you do, but I'm just trying to explore one thing at time. Still, scratch an ethical argument, and you generally find ethics have a great deal of practical utility when 2 or more people must get along with each other.