Did US torture reveal the name of the courier that led to Osama bin Laden?

[Linden Arden]

I hear both sides dispute this. I want a definable answer with a trusted source (no partisan blogs!)

(you may prefer "enhance interrogation" if you prefer. I wanted brevity). This may be more suitable for GD, it so by all means move it, mods.

[Jas09]

From what I have read on the issue there is no reliable way to answer this for certain. Those that have the most to gain from it being true are the ones making the claim. And there obviously isn't anybody to corroborate many of the claims.

A somewhat detailed account is here: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/04/us/politics/04torture.html?_r=1

[Linden Arden]

Thanks jas09. That article hones right in on it.

[Chronos]

The people who actually obtained the information say that they didn't use torture, and the people who used the torture actually got information that was false.

[md2000]

From what I recall reading, and a discussion with someone in the technical field:

The name came up on some back-and-forth stuff. One person identified the fellow as Bin Laden's driver or something. When everyone else in the know was interrogated, they denied knowing of any such person. Apparently, this was peculiar, because you would think they would all say "oh, he's just the a driver".

The fellow's fancy satellite mobile phone was identified from calls he had made, especially to family back home. The phone he used had a built-in GPS (to allow the satellite to aim transmissions), so they knew exactly where he was when he made the calls, but he always turned it off again.

The incredible thing is that then, he ass-dialled bin Laden's location to the NSA. Apparently one day the phone appears to have accidentally powered on and gone online for a short time, supposedly by accident, then turned off, at a location a long way from where it normally appeared. When the GPS coordinates were checked, they identified the house that turned out to be the bin Laden compound.

So yes, torture did help identify bin Laden's courier and location, but only in a negative way - even under torture, people refused to admit the existence of what should have been an minor inconsequential player, thus emphasizing his importance.

[anson2995]

A somewhat detailed account is here: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/04/us/politics/04torture.html?_r=1

The article says that they got the name of the courier from two sources, one of whom (Khalid Shaikh Mohammed) was waterboarded more than anybody. The other (Abu Faraj al-Libbi) received no waterboarding or other "enhanced interrogation techniques."

Faraj's information appears to have been the key piece that led to bin Laden. If you look at the interrogation reports from 2008 (https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/87933-interrogation-file-of-abu-faraj-al-libi.html#document/p5/a17091) (released by WikiLeaks), you'l see it even identifies the town where Bin Laden was eventually found.

[md2000]

He (al Kuwaiti) in turn unwittingly led the agency to Bin Laden’s lair, where Mr. Kuwaiti and his brother were among those who died in Monday’s raid.

Hmmmm...

[Leo Bloom]

That's a great fact (if true) about ass-calling; this what some people call butt-calling, right?

At first I read your phrase as "telephoned like some dumb-fuck asshole."

I'm sure that's been done a lot too a fighter's detriment.

[md2000]

That's a great fact (if true) about ass-calling; this what some people call butt-calling, right?

At first I read your phrase as "telephoned like some dumb-fuck asshole."

I'm sure that's been done a lot too a fighter's detriment.

I don't know the exact model of phone, I suspect satellite phones are too big to butt-call (ass-dial), but it's a cute story; but apparently the phone was (probably accidentally) switched on for a short time while at the bin Laden compound although the fellow had habitually driven a long long way from there whenever he meant to turn it on. It told the satellite its GPS coordinates. The rest, like bin Laden, is history.

[Hari Seldon]

Am I being asked to believe that prisoners who had been held incommunicado for up to 8 years had information on bin Laden's current whereabouts?

[md2000]

"Ah, Watson, the curious incident of the dog in the night-time..."

[isaiahrobinson]

The article says that they got the name of the courier from two sources, one of whom (Khalid Shaikh Mohammed) was waterboarded more than anybody. The other (Abu Faraj al-Libbi) received no waterboarding or other "enhanced interrogation techniques."

Neither of them gave the CIA the name; the CIA already had it and the name was put to them in questioning. KSM denied knowing the courier (which, apparently, was good evidence of the courier's importance because it was suspicious). Faraj named him as potentially close to the leaders of al-Qaeda and said he hadn't been seen in some time.

From the accounts I've read, including that NY Times one, the argument that torture techniques used in Guantanamo were crucial in Osama bin Laden's sounds pretty thin. The CIA already had the courier's name. Most of the people they put the name to under questioning either denied knowing him or downplayed his importance, often contradicting each other. Only Faraj commented on the name with positive information, but even then it took another 6 years for the CIA to find and kill bin Laden, which suggests Faraj's information was not exactly the silver bullet, and the CIA denies torturing Faraj anyway.

I think it's entirely possible that torture could glean perfect, silver-bullet style information from prisoners, and I find opponents of torture much less convincing when they refuse to even countenance that possibility. But in this case it sounds like the torture evidence was thin, contradictory and borderline useless overall, and that may not be a coincidence.

[Chronos]

I think it's entirely possible that torture could glean perfect, silver-bullet style information from prisoners, and I find opponents of torture much less convincing when they refuse to even countenance that possibility.Well, sure, it's a possibility. It's also a possibility that you'll get silver-bullet information from reading chicken entrails. That doesn't mean we should do either.

[Rachellelogram]

hahaha, butt-dialing is how we finally nailed Osama? Technology rocks!

[md2000]

The guy must have known the phone generated GPS coordinates, he drove an hundred miles or more before using it every time. In a life or death situation (as it turned out to be) prudence would dictate keeping the battery completely out of the device when not at the phone zone point. How it managed to turn on accidentally back home is a matter of speculation...

... but butt-dialing is too good a story to pass up.

[md2000]

Finding Bin Laden is a noble goal, but in my mind it does not fall in the category of "a bomb is about to go off so that justifies torture". It took 10 years and it probably did not take torture, and we found him. What bothers me too, is who wants a job torturing people? Do we really want people in the armed forces or intelligence who enjoy that line of work?

The only real value in torture is that you torture the person over and over again and ensure that the story told is consistent. However, this does not mean it is true, and it means you have to torture a lot.

The other danger, learned from Nuremburg, the Hague, Bosnia, Central Africa, and General Pinochet, is that no matter what the current governments say, those people who authorized torture may have to answer to a completely different world in 30 years.

[Fuzzy Dunlop]

Do we really want people in the armed forces or intelligence who enjoy that line of work?

Is there any reason to think they enjoy it? Personally I hope that our regular armed forces who kill others quickly with guns and bombs don't enjoy that either. I'm not opposed to killing in every circumstance, as I am with torture. War and national defense are an unfortunately required function of a county; but I still don't want people in the armed forces toenjoy their killing.

[shiftless]

Am I being asked to believe that prisoners who had been held incommunicado for up to 8 years had information on bin Laden's current whereabouts?

Good point. Maybe the torturer was really, really good at his job. They should be asking for next weeks winning lottery numbers.

[Fubaya]

Good point. Maybe the torturer was really, really good at his job. They should be asking for next weeks winning lottery numbers.

Except where it was explained already that this didn't happen.

[TriPolar]

If torture had contributed at all to finding Bin Laden, the torturers would have come out and said we tortured X and he gave us the information. Instead, they're providing convoluted and fallacious logic to try and convince us that torture had to be used unsuccessfully before actually looking for him.

[md2000]

Is there any reason to think they enjoy it? Personally I hope that our regular armed forces who kill others quickly with guns and bombs don't enjoy that either. I'm not opposed to killing in every circumstance, as I am with torture. War and national defense are an unfortunately required function of a county; but I still don't want people in the armed forces toenjoy their killing.

It's one thing to be in a war with people who are evenly matched and therefore hold your own in a contest. It's another thing to be in a position of thoroughly unequal power, where you can push a person around at will, shackle them into painful positions for days at a time, almost drown them over and over, slam them against walls... and they are so restrained they can't even stop themselves from smashing their face into the floor when they fall.

Either (a) this will bother you very quickly or (b) you make up all sorts of internal rationalizations or (c) you enjoy being a bully and sadist. This is a problem, and why so many of (c) end up being prison guards or policemen where they power over others. The (c) types you really don't want in your army. They end up pulling Abu Graib behaviour unless restrained.

This reminds me of the rational for building gas chambers - that the German army squads rounding up and shooting Jews en masse on the eastern front suffered from "low morale", the men complaining they signed up to fight, not to slaughter helpless unarmed women and children. Some people are moderately human. Others are not.

[Lust4Life]

Can we expect to see a thread any day now where medically untrained people give advice to surgeons as to how to perform operations based on what they personally think, or what they've heard from a friend who's dad knew someone who had once lived next door to someone who went to the same bowling club as a medical doctor ?

Many people are alive today because of harsh treatment to people who have openly admitted to, bragged in fact about it, carrying out random mass murder on complete strangers, ostensibly for religious reasons, more often because they're sociopaths, and guess what ? there seems to be a larger proportion of minor criminals in Al Quida then is the statistical norm for ME cultures.

Before they were murdering innocent people for the "cause", they were torturing and murdering innocent people to make money.

This is a recurring theme with terrorists of all nations, and all persuasions.

When returned home for questioning where their own people have no illusions about the BS that these murderers spout, unsympathetic treatment does actually bring forth genuine and useful information .

It has to be cross referenced with knowledge already possessed and against other people blabbing their hearts out.

I would guarentee that there are people on these boards, or relatives of such, who are only alive today because of the tactics they like to get all high and mighty about, thinking that they're safe from any of the bad stuff happening to them, being used.

Ivory towers are all very well until someone sets light to the one you're in.

[Fubaya]

Can we expect to see a thread any day now where medically untrained people give advice to surgeons as to how to perform operations based on what they personally think, or what they've heard from a friend who's dad knew someone who had once lived next door to someone who went to the same bowling club as a medical doctor ?

What if the doctor is cutting off someone's leg because they have a cold? The people on the sidelines are qualified to call out something that is wrong when it is wrong. What makes us qualified? We're US citizens and we have the right to say "We don't do that."

Most people who do interrogations disagree with the use of torture techniques, find it counterproductive, and find normal methods to bring much better results. Often, after getting information for a while then introducing torture, the detainees stopped talking.

When returned home for questioning where their own people have no illusions about the BS that these murderers spout, unsympathetic treatment does actually bring forth genuine and useful information .

Cite?

[gaffa]

Most people who do interrogations disagree with the use of torture techniques, find it counterproductive, and find normal methods to bring much better results. Often, after getting information for a while then introducing torture, the detainees stopped talking.
Exactly. See this video featuring former FBI interrogator Jack Cloonan on Three Torture Myths (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lvsvO9kvSdo&feature=relmfu). Skilled interrogators view torture as "that Alpha Male bullshit". From what I understand they were getting useful intellegence from KSM before the torture started, and it dried up after it began.

The United States previously managed to defeat another huge, evil, multinational that thought nothing of killing innocents in pursuit of their aims - the Mafia. They never tortured Mafia informants. All they did was talk to them. Find out what they need, offer a way out of the organization, play on grudges they might have, use their egos...a whole universe of techniques.

Torture defenders remind me of H. L. Menchen's claim that "for every complex problem there is a solution that is simple, neat and wrong."

[Lust4Life]

Oh sorry you watched a programme on tv. I take it all back .

You're right, you're so so right.

Sorry I don't know what came over me.

[Fubaya]

Oh sorry you watched a programme on tv. I take it all back .

Do you have some special expertise on the matter?

[gaffa]

Oh sorry you watched a programme on tv. I take it all back .

You're right, you're so so right.

Sorry I don't know what came over me.
Who are you snarking at? Please direct your snark specifically.

I posted a clip of of a retired FBI interrogator stating unequivocally that torture does not work. There are plenty of longer interviews with him on YouTube, as well as a debate between Cloonan and a torture advocate.

I believe I have a valid point. The Mafia had no problem with killing their own members, witnesses, judges and innocent bystanders. They had a code of silence, and violating it carried a death sentence. And they have been very successfully crushed and the FBI never had to use inhumane methods. They didn't avoid them because they are some type of wimps, but because they simply don't work, and are usually counter-productive. And, as they have found, torture makes prosecution for crimes much more difficult due to the information being "the fruit of the poisoned tree".

[gaffa]

I love the Dope, but the most annoying aspect of it is this:

You score a direct hit - like for instance, producing an interview with a skilled FBI interrogator, a man who has spent his career successfully extracting information from bad guys - and the other side just disappears.

[CookingWithGas]

There was an opinion piece in the Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-path-to-osama-bin-ladens-death-didnt-start-with-obama/2012/04/30/gIQAfFmdsT_story.html) recently by Jose A. Rodriguez, Jr. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jose_Rodriguez_%28intelligence_officer%29), who was the Director of the National Clandestine Service at CIA. He has an ax to grind and this is op-ed rather than factual reporting, but it is interesting to take his point of view into account. His thesis is that although Obama made the final decision to raid Bin Laden's retreat, the intelligence that formed the foundation of the raid was developed during the Bush administration.

He says that an (unnamed) al-Qaeda terrorist taken to a secret CIA prison and subjected to some “enhanced interrogation techniques," though not waterboarding, when he told them about al-Kuwaiti. He does not describe those techniques, only that they were authorized by officials at the most senior levels of the U.S. government and that the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel confirmed were consistent with U.S. law.Is he describing what you and I would call torture? Hard to say.

[md2000]

Would you allow the local police department to use it commonly on juveniles arrested for graffitti or shoplifting?

(A) Yes - it's not torture.

(B) No - it's torture.

[gaffa]

The most important part of all this is that evidence obtained by torture is not admissible in court. The case against KSM has been hampered by the fact that they have had to eliminate all evidence obtained via waterboarding or other inhumane methods.

So not only was it evil, stupid and destructive to the soul of a democracy...it was pointless.

Jose A. Rodriguez, Jr. is doing what bullies always do - protesting their innocence. The only thing worse than engaging in torture and sullying the reputation of the country you presumably love for generations, is to do so for no reason.

[Fubaya]

Rodriguez has been on a whirlwind pro-torture tour where he tries to downplay how bad the methods were and exaggerate how successful they were. I don't know if he has mentioned him recently, but Rodriguez has bragged about the information they got from waterboarding Abu Zubaydah. In fact, Ali Soufan, the FBI's top interrogator, got the information from him with traditional techniques, then the CIA came in with "enhanced techniques" and the information dried up.

It may be worth noting that the CIA's "enhanced interrogation" program was built by two hired clinical psychologists with no intelligence or interrogation experience who pretty much took the SERE manual and made it a harder and more perverted. Once the program started, numerous complaints started within the intelligence community that it was amateurish and unreliable, if not illegal. There is still not one proven example of it working. A report after the techniques were banned said the CIA didn't deem the information it got from enhanced methods to be reliable.

Assuming there was one proven example of "enhanced interrogation techniques" being successful, so what. How many bits of information have traditional methods successfully gathered in the past 10 years? 50,000? 500,000? Non torturers win.

[TriPolar]

He says that an (unnamed) al-Qaeda terrorist taken to a secret CIA prison and subjected to some “enhanced interrogation techniques," though not waterboarding, when he told them about al-Kuwaiti. He does not describe those techniques, only that they were authorized Is he describing what you and I would call torture? Hard to say.

Isn't he saying that the courier's name came out during torture, but since they couldn't trust any of the information obtained that way, they didn't do anything about it? Anyhow, that's the way I read it. Or maybe he meant they weren't even looking for information in the first place and that's why they didn't follow up on it. It is hard to tell.

[gaffa]

Isn't he saying that the courier's name came out during torture, but since they couldn't trust any of the information obtained that way, they didn't do anything about it?
Nothing obtained via torture is worth what it costs, least of all information. If it were, Torquemada was the most successful evangelist of all time. The general rule seems to be that you only torture if you're not particularly concerned about the answers to your questions.

When I learned about Abu Grhab (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Ghraib_torture_and_prisoner_abuse), I literally threw up. This was NOT something the country I love does!

It may be worth noting that the CIA's "enhanced interrogation" program was built by two hired clinical psychologists with no intelligence...
Too, too true.

[Fotheringay-Phipps]

The most important part of all this is that evidence obtained by torture is not admissible in court. The case against KSM has been hampered by the fact that they have had to eliminate all evidence obtained via waterboarding or other inhumane methods.

So not only was it evil, stupid and destructive to the soul of a democracy...it was pointless.This seems self-contradictory.

If no useful information was obtained through torturing KSM, then the fact that the useless information obtained is not admissable in court is of no relevance. By attributing relevance to the fact that the evidence is inadmissable, you seem to be acknowledging that useful information was in fact obtained.

And in that case, the claim that it was "pointless" is wrong. Information about a terrorist organization has much broader applicability than use in a court of law.

[gaffa]

This seems self-contradictory.
The people doing the torture knew, or should have known if they weren't utter idiots, that information obtained via torture is inadmissible.

If no useful information was obtained through torturing KSM, then the fact that the useless information obtained is not admissable in court is of no relevance. By attributing relevance to the fact that the evidence is inadmissable, you seem to be acknowledging that useful information was in fact obtained.
Sorry for not making myself more clear.

No information obtained from a subject being tortured has any validity. There is no place on the human body that you can beat that will turn on some sort of truth switch. No amount of water poured into the human lung will make a subject speak more clearly. And no judge who is not utterly corrupt will allow the results of inhumane treatment be be used.

The reason torture is not allowed is that, even if a subject should tell the truth, unless you have obtained the information by other means, you have no way of validating it. And, if you had the information already, what the fuck are you doing torturing people?

And in that case, the claim that it was "pointless" is wrong. Information about a terrorist organization has much broader applicability than use in a court of law.
See my earlier statements about the fight against the Mafia. Information obtained via normal, humane methods is always more valuable and trustworthy. Look at the Maxi Trial (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxi_Trial). Hundreds of vicious killers willing to do anything up to and including public acts of terrorism, murder of judges and corruption of public officials were put behind bars, and no torture was used.

[ElvisL1ves]

By attributing relevance to the fact that the evidence is inadmissable, you seem to be acknowledging that useful information was in fact obtained.No, his point was clearly that even if true information had been obtained via torture, it still could not be used to convict him.

And in that case, the claim that it was "pointless" is wrong. Information about a terrorist organization has much broader applicability than use in a court of law.Only if you have some objective reason to find it credible, not merely the product of the imagination of a person who'll say whatever you want to hear to make the pain stop. If you think that's more likely the case (which it pretty much has to be), then the "information" so obtained is actually far worse than useless - it only distracts you from real, credible intelligence. As well as, of course, removing your moral credibility, and enraging and radicalizing people who might heretofore have been not inclined to do anything to you.

[voltaire]

This seems self-contradictory.

If no useful information was obtained through torturing KSM, then the fact that the useless information obtained is not admissable in court is of no relevance. By attributing relevance to the fact that the evidence is inadmissable, you seem to be acknowledging that useful information was in fact obtained.

And in that case, the claim that it was "pointless" is wrong. Information about a terrorist organization has much broader applicability than use in a court of law.

I disagree. I can think of lots of things that could be learned while applying torture that would not be very useful (to finding OBL or fighting AQ) but where the inadmissibility of such evidence would be notable.

To use a real-world example regarding KSM, him admitting to personally beheading Daniel Pearl isn't really all that useful in the fight against OBL and AQ. But not being able to use those statements in court to charge him with Pearl's murder is a significant drawback.

That's just the first example I could think of off the top of my head with very limited knowledge. I'm sure there are many even better examples.

[md2000]

I can't help thinking that the constant yellow-orange-red-orange-red-yellow threat level dance farce of the mid-2000's was based on how tight the thumbscrews were that particular day...

OK, I know they did not use thumbscrews; I mean, I hope they didn't... But while subjecting people to "enhanced interrogation" it appears they got enhanced responses that likely had no relevance to reality but allowed the "Let's do your colours" section of the CIA to keep busy.

[What the .... ?!?!]

Still in GQ? Is there a definable answer?

I don't think we can possibly know for sure ......... just like we'll never know whether the Admin's post-kill rush to toot their own horn caused the rats to scurry our of their safehouses before we had a chance to bomb them.

[md2000]

Still in GQ? Is there a definable answer?

I don't think we can possibly know for sure ......... just like we'll never know whether the Admin's post-kill rush to toot their own horn caused the rats to scurry our of their safehouses before we had a chance to bomb them.

Huh? It's kind of hard to keep hush-hush a raid into another country without their consent that results in a helicopter being destroyed. I suspect anyone who knew about the OBL house would know something happened before we had a chance to proces any intelligence gathered. Even if they did not know where he was, a black ops raid on a house that stirred the anthill as badly as this did would certainly spook the rest of al Qeda. They would have scurried with or without boasting. I'm sure some had contacts in the Pakistani intelligence (so the popular wisdom goes) so they would have had warning right away that something had broken open. The only real mystery is whether any of the "dead" are sitting in cell in Cuba.

If, as I have heard, the key piece of evidence was accidental transmission of GPS coordinates, that does not lead us to any other locations unless al Kuwaiti was in the habit of powering on his GPS-generating satellite phone in every sensitive location he went to; assuming any one person knew all the sensitive spots of the high command.

I have a contrary view. I think bin Laden's actual whereabouts were secret except for a very few people, likely only those al Kuwaiti couriers. Everyone else went through them. Otherwise, it would not have stayed a secret for very long, if a dozen al Qeda and two dozen Pakistani security knew about it. To many leaky holes, too much reward money. The trick to keeping a secret is to keep it secret. Likely all anyone else knew was that he was somewhere in the Pakistan-tribal-south Afghanistan area.

From what I read, it was acquired afterwards, so the house was not on the roster of organization assets, even if there was one. The less anyone knows about the whole organization (cell structure) the safer everyone is. That has been elementary training since long ago.

In the end the torture was useless, because it told them no more than they knew without torture.

I still think all those supposed threats of orange or red were bogus stories made up under torture to keep the interrogators happy. Until someone decides to declassify what the threat really was, I suppose speculation is all we have.

[Martin Hyde]

Well, sure, it's a possibility. It's also a possibility that you'll get silver-bullet information from reading chicken entrails. That doesn't mean we should do either.

I've honestly never understood the concept that torture can never provide reliable information. I've said it isn't a good way to gather general intelligence, but it can be a great way to get specific information when you know that a person knows something specifically that you need to know, and where you can immediately or very quickly verify whether or not they are lying.

As a fanciful example, imagine I break into your house because I know you keep a safe loaded with $500,000 in cash. You aren't willing to part with it easily, so I tie you up and tell you I'm going to subject you to repeated electric shocks until you reveal the combination. Is it not reasonable to expect I'm eventually going to get 100% accurate information that I'm looking for? You can tell me all the false combinations you want but I'm going to know immediately and you're going to get tortured further.

[Martin Hyde]

If torture had contributed at all to finding Bin Laden, the torturers would have come out and said we tortured X and he gave us the information. Instead, they're providing convoluted and fallacious logic to try and convince us that torture had to be used unsuccessfully before actually looking for him.

Why would you assume that? I'm going to say most people directly involved in going after bin Laden don't want to tell us anything, pro-torture or not. Who is it that was truly involved in his capture that is even saying much of anything?

[Martin Hyde]

Nothing obtained via torture is worth what it costs, least of all information. If it were, Torquemada was the most successful evangelist of all time. The general rule seems to be that you only torture if you're not particularly concerned about the answers to your questions.

Realistically torture is historically used to solicit confessions, and typically in scenarios where the torturer doesn't really care at all if the person is guilty or not--they just want the person to say they are.

However you can still use it to get answers to questions you care about in certain controlled situations. (For example if you're a home invader wanting a homeowner to open up a wall safe.)

When I learned about Abu Grhab (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Ghraib_torture_and_prisoner_abuse), I literally threw up. This was NOT something the country I love does!

Wow, I suggest you don't watch the news if that kind of thing can make you throw up. I didn't have any reaction at all to Abu Ghraib.

[TriPolar]

Why would you assume that? I'm going to say most people directly involved in going after bin Laden don't want to tell us anything, pro-torture or not. Who is it that was truly involved in his capture that is even saying much of anything?

First, because they always brag about their successes because there are so few. No successful intelligence operation stays under wraps for very long. They need to claim success frequently, and bring forth an actual success once in a while in order to keep wasting money, violating our rights, making money drug trafficing, and failing at their job.

Second, because they are desperate to justify their actions. The torturers, whether the hands operatives or their taskmasters, will spend the rest of their lives in fear of prosecution or persecution for their actions. In their mindset, showing useful intelligence obtained through torture would justify their actions. Of course they felt their actions were justified in the first place simply because they were torturing our enemies.

[gaffa]

Realistically torture is historically used to solicit confessions, and typically in scenarios where the torturer doesn't really care at all if the person is guilty or not--they just want the person to say they are.

However you can still use it to get answers to questions you care about in certain controlled situations. (For example if you're a home invader wanting a homeowner to open up a wall safe.)
The flaw in your example is this: We don't know where the safe is, what type of lock it has, whether there are other safes, if the safe is booby-trapped to explode if a wrong combination is entered, or a huge number of other variables.

Wow, I suggest you don't watch the news if that kind of thing can make you throw up. I didn't have any reaction at all to Abu Ghraib.
I watch five hours of news a day. I suggest you look at the Abu Ghraib photographs more closely. It was the stupidest possible move by a group of moronic bullies, the only possible result of which was to convert opponents into sworn blood enemies.

[TriPolar]

However you can still use it to get answers to questions you care about in certain controlled situations. (For example if you're a home invader wanting a homeowner to open up a wall safe.)


The flaw in your example is this: We don't know where the safe is, what type of lock it has, whether there are other safes, if the safe is booby-trapped to explode if a wrong combination is entered, or a huge number of other variables.


The flaw in his example is that home invaders are criminals and torturers.

[gaffa]

The flaw in his example is that home invaders are criminals and torturers.
Good point.

[Fotheringay-Phipps]

I disagree. I can think of lots of things that could be learned while applying torture that would not be very useful (to finding OBL or fighting AQ) but where the inadmissibility of such evidence would be notable.Of course. That's obvious.

But there are also things which are not admissable but are nonetheless useful. So it does not follow that anything which is inadmissable is also pointless.

I'm not sure whaat you're saying here. Are you claiming that valid information was obtained WRT incriminating KSM (but rendered useless by its inadmissibility) but WRT nothing else? Why would that be?

[Martin Hyde]

First, because they always brag about their successes because there are so few. No successful intelligence operation stays under wraps for very long. They need to claim success frequently, and bring forth an actual success once in a while in order to keep wasting money, violating our rights, making money drug trafficing, and failing at their job.

Second, because they are desperate to justify their actions. The torturers, whether the hands operatives or their taskmasters, will spend the rest of their lives in fear of prosecution or persecution for their actions. In their mindset, showing useful intelligence obtained through torture would justify their actions. Of course they felt their actions were justified in the first place simply because they were torturing our enemies.

I don't think either of these points are anything other than conjecture. How do you know they always brag about their successes? That's talking about evidence not available to us, it's essentially a black box.

I don't know that a large number of these individuals are desperate to justify their actions--the vast majority of them are unaccountable to the public because we do not and will not ever know their names. Some of the higher up political appointees and even higher up intelligence bureaucrats have gone on to say stupid stuff on Fox News and such in retirement, but I don't think that is evidence of all the stuff you're saying here.

Not saying you're wrong, either, but you're basically making an assumption that isn't supportable by any evidence I've seen.

[Martin Hyde]

The flaw in his example is that home invaders are criminals and torturers.

How is that a flaw? Their being criminals is irrelevant to my point, I was only talking about the practical efficacy of torture and the concept that universally, torture can never give valid information.

For some reason lots of people who are ideologically opposed to torture are desperate to believe that torture can never yield viable results, even in hypothetical scenarios where "any unbiased rational observer" would admit it could yield viable results. If you're ideologically opposed to torture on moral grounds, the efficacy argument should be irrelevant as your moral convictions on whether something is right or wrong shouldn't be based on whether that action is useful vs. useless.

My only point was there are definitely situations where I think any logical observer would agree torture could yield valid information. Specifically scenarios where there are "known unknowns." If I know a safe is hidden in this guy's home office, because of inside information from the cleaning lady who saw him open it one day, then I know there is a combination that I don't know, but the owner does know. I can use torture to get that information.

gaffa's reply is facetious by the way. If me and some compatriots have you tied to a chair in your house and are torturing you, it is irrelevant whether or not the safe might be rigged to self destruct its contents, lock permanently if you enter the wrong combination or etc--because we have physical possession of you any attempt to lie to screw us out of the contents of the safe would result in vast physical pain for you, and likely death. I think very few people would be willing to die to protect the contents of a home safe.

[TriPolar]

Not saying you're wrong, either, but you're basically making an assumption that isn't supportable by any evidence I've seen.

I agree. It is impossible to prove with the available evidence. So is the conjecture that we've obtained useful information through torture, because nobody has provided evidence that it has. I can only look at the possible circumstances for that and consider which is more likely. Either torture works and the evidence to prove it is covered up because we want people to believe it is true, but don't want to totally convince them. Or because torture doesn't provide useful information. You make the call.

[Martin Hyde]

I don't think intelligence gatherers have any particular desire one way or the other to prove torture works. Maybe higher up bureaucrats do, or people looking to get on Fox News, or people in politics looking to justify controversial policies. Actual intelligence agents though, I suspect if they can get reliable information they are happy to get that information whether we know their methods work or whether we think they are useless. I don't think it's easy to know or even possible to know without classified information if America has retrieved useful information from torture.

However in general torture definitely can retrieve useful information, see: this (http://www.cbsatlanta.com/story/15438010/fulton-couple-tied). In that case some robbers wanted a home safe opened, the homeowner declined, they tortured his wife with a hot iron, the safe became opened. It definitely got what they wanted and worked for them.

[TriPolar]

So your proof that torture produces useful intelligence information is that psychopathic criminals use it to steal money in home invasions? That's general proof?

[gaffa]

If you're comfortable with your government behaving no better than the characters in the movie Funny Games (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0808279/)...

The principal fault with the "Ticking Bomb" fallacy is this: You never want only one piece of information from a prisoner.

Humane methods can turn enemies into informants. Inhumane ones can only produce intransigence. I've been working on the Wikipedia page for Juan Pujol (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joan_Pujol_Garcia), aka Garbo the Spy. He was unique, in that he deliberately set out to become a double agent, but Britain had a couple of dozen double-agents (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_Cross_System#List_of_Double-Cross_agents), all of whom had started out as enemy spies. Through humane methods, all were turned into useful sources of information and conduits for counter-intelligence.

Watch this interview with Jack Cloonan (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fCXnZUu3o1E), retired FBI interrogator. He reduced an al Qaeda member to tears just by letting him talk to his sister on the telephone.

By the way, I note that not one torture defender has answered my Mafia comparison. Again, the American and Italian governments defeated an evil, multinational criminal organization and did not have to dive into a cesspool to do it.

[Martin Hyde]

So your proof that torture produces useful intelligence information is that psychopathic criminals use it to steal money in home invasions? That's general proof?

Yes, it is general proof. Why does the fact they are psychopaths effect the efficacy of their techniques? I've already pointed out the argument that "torture doesn't get good information" isn't a moral argument, so morality has nothing to do with that proposition.

[Martin Hyde]

If you're comfortable with your government behaving no better than the characters in the movie Funny Games (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0808279/)...

The principal fault with the "Ticking Bomb" fallacy is this: You never want only one piece of information from a prisoner.

Humane methods can turn enemies into informants. Inhumane ones can only produce intransigence. I've been working on the Wikipedia page for Juan Pujol (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joan_Pujol_Garcia), aka Garbo the Spy. He was unique, in that he deliberately set out to become a double agent, but Britain had a couple of dozen double-agents (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_Cross_System#List_of_Double-Cross_agents), all of whom had started out as enemy spies. Through humane methods, all were turned into useful sources of information and conduits for counter-intelligence.

Watch this interview with Jack Cloonan (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fCXnZUu3o1E), retired FBI interrogator. He reduced an al Qaeda member to tears just by letting him talk to his sister on the telephone.

By the way, I note that not one torture defender has answered my Mafia comparison. Again, the American and Italian governments defeated an evil, multinational criminal organization and did not have to dive into a cesspool to do it.

Oh, I think anyone who knows anything about interrogation agrees that making friends with the subject is far and away the best method of creating a long term intelligence asset or getting them to freely give you all extraneous information.

Has nothing to do with the more or less absurd claim that you can't get an accurate answer to your direct question via torture.

[gaffa]

Has nothing to do with the more or less absurd claim that you can't get an accurate answer to your direct question via torture.
Find an FBI interrogator who supports your side then. I've got mine.

[md2000]

The safe-combination is a variant on the ticking-bomb argument. A simple, testable single piece of information can be gotten out of someone with sufficient persuasion - plus the victim's knowledge that the information is testable, and if wrong, will result in rounds 2 and more of the same treatment or worse.

For simple, short-term-unprovable information, or information you cannot be sure the person even has, denial and misdirection work just as well. So "enhanced" interrogation is no more useful than regular interrogation.

Besides, what under "find Bin Laden" questions falls in the category of "ticking bomb, need answer NOW!" to justify torture?

People also will say whatever they think their interrogators want to hear. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maher_Arar A canadian citizen, Mr. Arar confessed under torture to attending an Al Qeda training camp, even though there is no evidence or timing that could justify this. After a year of torture, even Syria concluded he was not a terrorist; Canada paid $10M for its complicity and stupidity; the USA still insists he is a terrorist and is on their no-fly list, since to admit their mistake would open them to liability too.

[Martin Hyde]

Find an FBI interrogator who supports your side then. I've got mine.

I don't have a "side", I've just simply stated it is possible to get the information you want via torture. I proved it with my linked news article. Someone wanted a safe combination, they tortured someone, they got the safe combination. I don't have a side or even a claim--I have an absolute proof.

I'm not saying torture is wise, moral, or even generally very effective, I'm just saying the position that you can never get valid information from torture is so easily demonstrated to be false that it's laughable.

It took 20 seconds of Google searching.

[Martin Hyde]

The safe-combination is a variant on the ticking-bomb argument. A simple, testable single piece of information can be gotten out of someone with sufficient persuasion - plus the victim's knowledge that the information is testable, and if wrong, will result in rounds 2 and more of the same treatment or worse.

For simple, short-term-unprovable information, or information you cannot be sure the person even has, denial and misdirection work just as well. So "enhanced" interrogation is no more useful than regular interrogation.

Besides, what under "find Bin Laden" questions falls in the category of "ticking bomb, need answer NOW!" to justify torture?

People also will say whatever they think their interrogators want to hear. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maher_Arar A canadian citizen, Mr. Arar confessed under torture to attending an Al Qeda training camp, even though there is no evidence or timing that could justify this. After a year of torture, even Syria concluded he was not a terrorist; Canada paid $10M for its complicity and stupidity; the USA still insists he is a terrorist and is on their no-fly list, since to admit their mistake would open them to liability too.

Right, and I'm not significantly disagreeing with most of this. I'm just saying in certain contrived circumstances torture can obviously get what you want. A ticking time bomb is a little more fanciful than a safe combination (we have real world examples of torture to get safes open, I don't know if the ticking time bomb thing has ever happened IRL.)

[md2000]

Right, and I'm not significantly disagreeing with most of this. I'm just saying in certain contrived circumstances torture can obviously get what you want. A ticking time bomb is a little more fanciful than a safe combination (we have real world examples of torture to get safes open, I don't know if the ticking time bomb thing has ever happened IRL.)

Yeah, but ticking-bomb is always cited as a good excuse why sometimes torture is justified... despite the lack or real world examples.

In fact the ticking-bomb often fails the safe-combination scenario test, since in most scenarios the ability to find and disable the ticking bomb does not give you a chance to apply round 2 if the information was misleading. Presumably the victim knows this, and knows all they have to do is stall with incorrect information.

[gaffa]

Yeah, but ticking-bomb is always cited as a good excuse why sometimes torture is justified... despite the lack or real world examples.
As FBI Interrogator Jack Cloonan said, in the very first link I posted in this thread (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lvsvO9kvSdo&feature=relmfu):

I have been hard-pressed to find a situation where anybody can tell me that they've ever encountered a "ticking bomb" scenario. It's a bit of a red herring. It's thrown up there, we have a really strong reaction to that..."What if...?".

In a real world, it doesn't happen.

The Israelis, who have been doing this for a long time and are really good at it...they don't believe in this stuff. And they've never had a situation where there is a quote "ticking bomb".

And so, when we have a show like 24, who popularized that, and they show them sticking a wire on this guy to get him to talk because he's got the Keys to the Kingdom...it makes all of us believe this is real. It's not. Throw that stuff out. Doesn't happen.

Watch the link. Feel free to Google to find an actual expert, that is someone who had the day-to-day job of getting criminals to provide information, who believes the opposite.

[What the .... ?!?!]

Huh? It's kind of hard to keep hush-hush a raid into another country without their consent that results in a helicopter being destroyed. I suspect anyone who knew about the OBL house would know something happened before we had a chance to proces any intelligence gathered. Even if they did not know where he was, a black ops raid on a house that stirred the anthill as badly as this did would certainly spook the rest of al Qeda. They would have scurried with or without boasting. I'm sure some had contacts in the Pakistani intelligence (so the popular wisdom goes) so they would have had warning right away that something had broken open. The only real mystery is whether any of the "dead" are sitting in cell in Cuba.



Charles Krauthamer told me that the admin was too eager to list in too much detail all of the good intelligence they got rather than just use it.

I suppose you can believe that all of the terrorists would have closed up and moved from all of their safe-houses immediately ... I don't.

[md2000]

Charles Krauthamer told me that the admin was too eager to list in too much detail all of the good intelligence they got rather than just use it.

I suppose you can believe that all of the terrorists would have closed up and moved from all of their safe-houses immediately ... I don't.

I suppose you can believe that OBL and friends left a up-to-date list and map of where others were hiding out where anyone could read it so it did not take days or weeks of analysis to find the details. Which would imply that like OBL, all the other top brass would basically broadcast the location of their safe houses to couriers and others. Or that despite being relatively incommunicado, OBL was receiving up-to-the-minue updates on everyone else.

I think the White House knew the news would get out, so they made the most of the media opportunity and moved to hog the lime-light while the camera lights were on... justifiably so. In the end, it was a white house call to approve the mission and the method and the instructions on anything so sensitive. I don't think anyone diminished the role of the Seal Team.