Or, alternatively, he didn’t know diddly squat and made it up as they went along. Being normal humans, that is to say, stupid, they refused to believe that they had a ringer, they refused to believe that they didn’t have a gold mine of information, so they believed that he was simply holding out on them, sending them on wild goose chases but keeping the real stuff hidden.
Though I note with chagrin that this bears the imprimatur of George W. Bush, that these interrogations were effective and saved many lives. One hesitates to cast doubt on the testimony of such a paragon of open candor and unblemished truthiness.
Yes, that’s a possibility, though in my opinion it’s unlikely. Either way though, my solution, which calls for judicial oversight, would solve that problem wouldn’t it?
I don’t know how rare those circumstances need to be, and it certainly depends on how high level the person is in the organization. The higher up, the more info the guy has. KSM was quite high up.
What’s “Mensa”? Sounds like a monthly meeting of women during their “special time”…
I am sure that what Qin meant was that if we tortured a bunch of hardcore Muslims, it might lead to information that would save some Muslim women from being stoned to death.
Oh, sure we can, Gonzo. All it takes is renoucing torture. Problem is, some of us are not gonna want to renounce torture, cause there are always sick fucks around who like stuff like that. Bush did them all an enormous favor, but he did not put them in ascendancy in America now and forevermore.
And according to the actual interrogation professionals, it’s more likely than not. That’s one reason why they don’t torture people; it is a grossly inferior form of interrogation, besides being evil. Torture is committed by people who don’t know what they are doing, by people who want to hear the appropriate lies instead of the truth, and by sadists, not serious interrogators.
The people questioning Sheikh Mohammed Khalid and his two cronies were not serious interrogators? I doubt very much that the U.S. military, with Oval Office oversight no less, turned the questioning of these men over to a random bunch of bozos who had no idea what they were doing.
No, that’s exactly what they did. The real interrogators were kind of pissed about their subjects being taken away from them and tortured by thugs, and in the process ruined as an information source. But the Bush Administration was more interested in indulging their sadism and in getting the answers they wanted to hear than it was in the the truth. Torture IS good at getting random people snatched off the street to admitting to be members of Al Qaeda.
People who in a calm moment away from the heat claim that water boarding is not torture, that it is effective or that it saves lives are disclosing that they are despicable monsters with no morality whatsoever. It doesn’t mean that they are not able to do simple math and hold jobs, but they are demonstrating that they have a completely unacceptable value system.
I’ve read the same material as you, Der, and agree it is a solid point. However, it is entirely possible that this material has not reached Starving through his, ah, news sources. The testimony of professional interrogators is very relevant, but remains uncited. I believe that, according to SDMB protocol, that citation hunt properly belongs to you.
I would go find it myself but I’m lazy and easily…oooh, shiny!
I can’t help but notice you’ve failed to answer my question regarding the relevance of your opinion of Sharia law when attempting to justify your support of torture as well.
The rhythm of the torture denial, followed by a weak confession and denying it is torture at all. Then claiming it was good and saved lives. It is in sync with his invasion of Iraq justification. I know they have weapons. They might have weapons. They don’t have WMD but it does not matter because we overthrew a mean dictator.
He keeps floating lies until he finds one the right wing press can push until weak minded people begin to believe it.
We can never go back to being a nation that does not attack a sovereign nation that did not attack us first, or at all. We can never again saying we believe in a proper treatment of prisoners and will not torture. How are we better than our enemies now? He fundamentally changed who we are and what we are. It was terrible.
We got a lot of really good, usable intelligence from interrogations in World War II. You know how those interrogators got that information? By sitting down and talking with their subjects, being friendly, maybe buying them a nice meal. It really does work.
Your argument for the effectiveness of torture is circular. Why, you ask, would we use torture if it doesn’t work? In the kindest interpretation, we use torture because a lot of people mistakenly believe that it works. Why do they believe that? Because, of course, we do it, and why would we do it if it didn’t work?
Of course, the considerably less kind interpretation, and probably more likely, is that we torture because the people doing the torturing are sadistic sociopaths who have somehow landed in positions of authority where they can carry out their sick fantasies. They don’t even need to believe that it would work, for that explanation.
I have seen many interrogators on Tv say that good intel comes from carefully cultivating a relationship and earning trust.
A person being tortured will say anything to make the pain stop. They will fill in the blanks with whatever you want to hear. It is not reliable.
Saddam gave a lot of info to the guy who was assigned to him. He was not tortured. Once you gain some trust, it is amazing how open they can become.
