# Did waterboarding help kill Bin Laden? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [May 2, 2011, 4:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-waterboarding-help-kill-bin-laden/580487 "2011-05-02T16:54:38Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 17
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2011, 2:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-waterboarding-help-kill-bin-laden/580487/321 "2011-06-03T02:01:29Z")
> [@Rand\_Rover](#): > > Today’s WSJ has an article on this subject: [http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303745304576359820767777538.html?mod=ITP\_opinion\_0](http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303745304576359820767777538.html?mod=ITP_opinion_0) > > Here are some quotes: > > So, there you go. A recent former CIA director saying that enhanced interrogation techniques are effective and specifically helped get OBL. Not that any of you deniers care. You didn’t understand what you read. It doesn’t say that torture provided the information. It said that some of the information came from people who were previously tortured. Maybe you should read it again with an eye for comprehension? ---
**Author:** ![Rand\_Rover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/db5fbb/32.png) [@Rand\_Rover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rand_Rover)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2011, 3:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-waterboarding-help-kill-bin-laden/580487/322 "2011-06-03T03:09:00Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > You didn’t understand what you read. It doesn’t say that torture provided the information. It said that some of the information came from people who were previously tortured. > > Maybe you should read it again with an eye for comprehension? And you only read the part you liked and ignored the rest. Try this on for size: > [@](#): > > In response to a direct question on the CBS Evening News about enhanced interrogation and the bin Laden success, CIA Director Leon Panetta confirmed on May 3 that, “Obviously there was some valuable information that was derived through those kind of interrogations.” Happy now? ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2011, 3:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-waterboarding-help-kill-bin-laden/580487/323 "2011-06-03T03:17:45Z")
> [@Rand\_Rover](#): > > And you only read the part you liked and ignored the rest. Try this on for size: > Happy now? Nope. [http://thinkprogress.org/security/2011/06/02/234538/hayden-birthers-truthers/](http://thinkprogress.org/security/2011/06/02/234538/hayden-birthers-truthers/) > [@](#): > > This is a strawman. No one is saying that torture won’t at least lead to some information. Indeed, Glenn Carle — a former CIA Directorate of Operations who for a time led the interrogation of a high value detainee — said “it is possible that a specific piece of information from time to time would come from” using these so-called enhanced interrogation techniques. But, “Does it justify using them?” he asked, “A categorical flat no.” > [@](#): > > Carle agrees with this sentiment. “Almost all the information obtained from EITs was recalled…because it was viewed as unreliable,” he said in an interview with ThinkProgress last month. > > But halfway through his op-ed, Hayden shifts his argument from _torture gets information_ to _torture led to bin Laden._ What’s his proof? That detainees who were waterboarded in CIA custody gave up false information. > > Putting that odd reasoning aside, there is no evidence to support the claim that torture or EITs were responsible for getting bin Laden. Former Attorney General Michael Mukasey tried to go down this road too but his arguments were thoroughly debunked. “The people who say ‘enhanced interrogation techniques’ directly led to catching Bin Laden are wrong,” said one unnamed former high-level CIA official recently. > **[Tortured Logic](https://foreignpolicy.com/2011/05/04/tortured-logic/)** > > The United States didn't need to waterboard anyone to get Osama bin Laden. > [@](#): > > In fact, the information about the existence of a courier working for bin Laden was provided by several detainees, not just waterboarded al Qaeda operatives Kalid Sheikh Mohammed and Abu Faraj al-Libi – we had one detainee in Iraq who provided information about a courier in 2006. The key pieces of information, however, were the courier’s real name and location. His family name was first uncovered by CIA assets in Pakistan through other sources. The NSA subsequently figured out his full real name and location from an intercepted phone call. Waterboarding had nothing to do with it. > [@](#): > > Matthew Alexander is a former senior military interrogator who conducted or supervised more than 1,300 interrogations in Iraq. ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2011, 5:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-waterboarding-help-kill-bin-laden/580487/324 "2011-06-03T05:03:44Z")
Director Panetta, who actually was involved says: [ > [@CIA Chief Panetta](#): > > Nearly 10 years of intensive intelligence work led the CIA to conclude that Bin Ladin was likely hiding at the compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan. there was no one “essential and indispensible” key piece of information that led us to this conclusion. Rather, the intelligence picture was developed via painstaking collection and analysis. Multiple streams of intelligence — including from detainees, but also from multiple other sources — led CIA analysts to conclude that Bin Ladin was at this compound. Some of the detainees who provided useful information about the facilitator/courier’s role had been subjected to enhanced interrogation techniques. Whether those techniques were the “only timely and effective way” to obtain such information is a matter of debate and cannot be established definitively. What is definitive is that that information was only a part of multiple streams of intelligence that led us to Bin Ladin. > > Let me further point out that we first learned about the facilitator/courier’s nom de guerre from a detainee not in CIA custody in 2002. It is also important to note that some detainees who were subjected to enhanced interrogation techniques attempted to provide false or misleading information about the facilitator/courier. These attempts to falsify the facilitator/courier’s role were alerting. > > In the end, no detainee in CIA custody revealed the facilitator/courier’s full true name or specific whereabouts. This information was discovered through other intelligence means. ]([http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/post/exclusive-private-letter-from-cia-chief-undercuts-claim-torture-was-key-to-killing-bin-laden/2011/03/03/AFLFF04G\_blog.html#pagebreak](http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/post/exclusive-private-letter-from-cia-chief-undercuts-claim-torture-was-key-to-killing-bin-laden/2011/03/03/AFLFF04G_blog.html#pagebreak)) In any case, we’ve already presented evidence that the consensus among professional interrogators believe that torture provides unreliable information. Rand Rover is, of course, free to chose to ignore that factual information. ---
**Author:** ![Rand\_Rover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/db5fbb/32.png) [@Rand\_Rover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rand_Rover)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2011, 1:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-waterboarding-help-kill-bin-laden/580487/325 "2011-06-03T13:42:34Z")
Lobo, I guess you are just trying to fool people who are new to this thread. Those of us who’ve followed the whole thing know that that consensus exists in your mind only–you’ve provided no evidence of it. You’ve repeatedly asserted it, and I’ve repeatedly said you’ve provided no evidence for it, and you’ve repeatedly asserted it again (and again). ---
**Author:** ![Rand\_Rover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/db5fbb/32.png) [@Rand\_Rover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rand_Rover)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2011, 1:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-waterboarding-help-kill-bin-laden/580487/326 "2011-06-03T13:47:01Z")
(Submitted too soon and having trouble editing:) Your debate tactics here are very much in line with the denier charge levied by the article. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2011, 2:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-waterboarding-help-kill-bin-laden/580487/327 "2011-06-03T14:35:02Z")
How is it that you have some sort of problem, here? You keep demanding proof of the alleged “consensus”, seems to me it would easy enough to prove otherwise, simply by hauling in somebody on Mr Panetta’s level of expertise to say that, yes, indeed, waterboarding did ObL. You got, you bring, yes? You no got? Then you demand that the other guy bring. The other guy brings? Well, then, you’re boned, aren’t you? ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2011, 2:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-waterboarding-help-kill-bin-laden/580487/328 "2011-06-03T14:55:48Z")
> [@Rand\_Rover](#): > > Lobo, I guess you are just trying to fool people who are new to this thread. Those of us who’ve followed the whole thing know that that consensus exists in your mind only–you’ve provided no evidence of it. You’ve repeatedly asserted it, and I’ve repeatedly said you’ve provided no evidence for it, and you’ve repeatedly asserted it again (and again). Actually, what those who have followed the thread recognize is that you have some imaginary definition of “consensus” that you employ, (carefully failing to specify the conditions that would meet it), that you wave around to dismiss the fact that a general consenus has been demonstrated through numerous citations to multiple statements from people in the intelligence community of multiple agencies in multiple nations. Now, you’re back with a handful of statements in which “EIT” (never defined, so it might be torture or it might be other methodology) is mentioned in connection with a small number of prisoners, none of whom are identified as having rendered information under the pressure of “EIT.” And, of course, you are still denying the consensus regarding torture that has already been established. The only one “trying to fool people” is you. ---
**Author:** ![gonzomax](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e8c25b/32.png) [@gonzomax](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gonzomax)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2011, 3:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-waterboarding-help-kill-bin-laden/580487/329 "2011-06-03T15:14:25Z")
ROVER is desperate to believe that torture is justified and works. There is no example of actionable info garnered from torture. After the fact, people can say a prisoner spilled a bit of data that proved to be true. But under torture they say anything to make the pain stop. They just spray out things until we quit. Then you have to decide what is true. a what is not. And then have to decide whether you can commit to action based on it. By the time you analyze the data it would probably be too damn late. The only thing that is sure, is we are a nation that tortures. You can not make that go away. We are not the people we pretended to be. Yoo, Rumsfield, Bush and Cheney are the experts in ROVER’S camp. They are civilians who ordered the military to commit atrocities because they believed, without proof that torture works. The only truth is we are torturers. We are 3rd world in our attitude toward prisoners. We have taken a giant step backwards. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2011, 6:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-waterboarding-help-kill-bin-laden/580487/330 "2011-06-03T18:05:49Z")
> [@gonzomax](#): > > There is no example of actionable info garnered from torture. I suspect his evidence comes from watching too many episodes of “24”. ---
**Author:** ![Rand\_Rover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/db5fbb/32.png) [@Rand\_Rover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rand_Rover)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2011, 1:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-waterboarding-help-kill-bin-laden/580487/331 "2011-06-04T01:56:29Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > Actually, what those who have followed the thread recognize is that you have some imaginary definition of “consensus” that you employ, (carefully failing to specify the conditions that would meet it), that you wave around to dismiss the fact that a general consenus has been demonstrated through numerous citations to multiple statements from people in the intelligence community of multiple agencies in multiple nations. > > Now, you’re back with a handful of statements in which “EIT” (never defined, so it might be torture or it might be other methodology) is mentioned in connection with a small number of prisoners, none of whom are identified as having rendered information under the pressure of “EIT.” And, of course, you are still denying the consensus regarding torture that has already been established. > > The only one “trying to fool people” is you. Please. You are so mixed up here it’s almost unbelievable. First, on the subject of EITs and “torture,” you are the one that (i) thinks all EITs are “torture” and (ii) reads statements condemning “torture” and thinks they must apply to all EITs. In reality, the EITs are each carefuly choreographed and planned operations, and any particular person who uses the term “torture” in the abstract can mean anything at all, from “any infliction of even the slightest discomfort for any period of time” to “the infliction of prolonged pain that is intended to result in death.” Second, I’m not using any odd definition of consensus. I think the definition at [dictionary.com](http://dictionary.com) is perfectly fine, which is a majority opinion or a generally accepted opinion. You select the news articles you read (the subjects of which were selected by their writers and publishers) and read various agencies condemning “torture” and somehow think that all that adds up to “there is a consensus that EITs are ineffective.” In reality, there are some agencies that have published statements against “torture” and others that haven’t said a damn thing about torture and virtually none that have said anything about the specific EITs we are talking about in this thread. There’s not a consensus on any issue, let alone that “EITs are ineffective.” Third, I’m not trying to fool anybody. I’m not even trying to convince anyone of anything. I have made no claim about whether EITs are effective or not and really have no opinion on the matter. I recognize that I’m not qualified to have an opinion–that my opinion on the matter is about as useful or valuable as an opinion about exactly how to treat a particular form of cancer. You are the one who’s formed an opinion that you are trying to push on others as the truth based on your own particular biases. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2011, 2:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-waterboarding-help-kill-bin-laden/580487/332 "2011-06-04T02:09:37Z")
People who have no opinion are usually much more succinct. ---
**Author:** ![Ranchoth](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ranchoth/32/1066_2.png) [@Ranchoth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ranchoth)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2011, 2:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-waterboarding-help-kill-bin-laden/580487/333 "2011-06-04T02:48:35Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > I was referring to a very specific incident where a mafia enforcer was brought in to torture people who had killed and buried some freedom riders. Could I get a cite for this incident? Not even related to this debate, this bit just sounds really fascinating, historically. (My view of “fascinating” runs a bit morbid, admittedly. 🙂 ) ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2011, 3:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-waterboarding-help-kill-bin-laden/580487/334 "2011-06-04T03:02:55Z")
> [@Rand\_Rover](#): > > Third, I’m not trying to fool anybody. Of course you are. You are simply pretending that the evidence you have seen doesn’t exist. > [@](#): > > I recognize that I’m not qualified to have an opinion–that my opinion on the matter is about as useful or valuable as an opinion about exactly how to treat a particular form of cancer. Your opinion is worthless precisely because you ignore the evidence we’ve given about the consensus opinion. Professional interrogators agree that torture provides unreliable information. This is demonstrated by numerous cites. You have provided nothing citing otherwise, yet still demand that your uninformed opinions are correct. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2011, 3:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-waterboarding-help-kill-bin-laden/580487/335 "2011-06-04T03:14:04Z")
> [@Rand\_Rover](#): > > Second, I’m not using any odd definition of consensus. I think the definition at [dictionary.com](http://dictionary.com) is perfectly fine, which is a majority opinion or a generally accepted opinion. You select the news articles you read (the subjects of which were selected by their writers and publishers) and read various agencies condemning “torture” and somehow think that all that adds up to “there is a consensus that EITs are ineffective.” In reality, there are some agencies that have published statements against “torture” and others that haven’t said a damn thing about torture and virtually none that have said anything about the specific EITs we are talking about in this thread. There’s not a consensus on any issue, let alone that “EITs are ineffective.” Suuuure. [PDF file] [http://students.washington.edu/wulr/Spring\_2008/Emelinova\_&\_Friedman\_The\_Effectiveness\_of\_Coercive\_Interrogation.pdf](http://students.washington.edu/wulr/Spring_2008/Emelinova_&_Friedman_The_Effectiveness_of_Coercive_Interrogation.pdf) > [@](#): > > The case made in support of coercive interrogation rests largely on hypothetical examples. Apart from the report submitted to the U.N. by the Israeli (GSS), the majority of support for coercive tactics has come from civilians with little knowledge of the realities of interrogation. The broad consensus among military interrogators (especially in America) has been that coercive methods are at best no better than non-coercive tactics and at worst guaranteed to elicit highly unreliable information. [http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1893679,00.html#ixzz1OH0GJ1YV](http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1893679,00.html#ixzz1OH0GJ1YV) A Top Interrogator Who’s Against Torture > [@](#): > > Throughout that period, Soufan says he never felt the need for harsh interrogation methods. He argues that techniques like waterboarding don’t work. “When they are in pain, people will say anything to get the pain to stop. Most of the time, they will lie, make up anything to make you stop hurting them,” he says. “That means the information you’re getting is useless.” But his main objection to the techniques, Soufan says, is moral. To use violence against detainees, he says, “is [al-Qaeda’s] way, not the American way.” > > Soufan says that view was shared by the CIA officials who worked with him on the interrogation of Abu Zubaydah and others. But then the harsh methods were introduced, he says, by CIA contractors and Soufan protested. He was backed by his bosses at the FBI and pulled out of the interrogations. This led to a rift between the Bureau and the CIA that has not fully healed. Yet Soufan says that if any CIA officials are prosecuted for the use of harsh techniques, he “will be the first person to defend them.” The real blame, he says, lies with “those who told them it is legal to do such things.” ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2011, 4:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-waterboarding-help-kill-bin-laden/580487/336 "2011-06-04T04:52:53Z")
> [@Rand\_Rover](#): > > Please. You are so mixed up here it’s almost unbelievable. > > First, on the subject of EITs and “torture,” you are the one that (i) thinks all EITs are “torture” and (ii) reads statements condemning “torture” and thinks they must apply to all EITs. In reality, the EITs are each carefuly choreographed and planned operations, and any particular person who uses the term “torture” in the abstract can mean anything at all, from “any infliction of even the slightest discomfort for any period of time” to “the infliction of prolonged pain that is intended to result in death.” And yet, you are the one claiming that I hold a position that I have never posted at any time in this thread or any other. When you can address the points I have made instead of inventing positions for me to hold, you might have a basis for participating in this discussion instead of simply bumping the thread with nonsense every time you get bored. > [@Rand\_Rover](#): > > Second, I’m not using any odd definition of consensus. I think the definition at [dictionary.com](http://dictionary.com) is perfectly fine, which is a majority opinion or a generally accepted opinion. You select the news articles you read (the subjects of which were selected by their writers and publishers) and read various agencies condemning “torture” and somehow think that all that adds up to “there is a consensus that EITs are ineffective.” In reality, there are some agencies that have published statements against “torture” and others that haven’t said a damn thing about torture and virtually none that have said anything about the specific EITs we are talking about in this thread. There’s not a consensus on any issue, let alone that “EITs are ineffective.” There have been more than enough citations to sufficient numbers of police and intelligence agencies noting the lack of effectiveness regarding torture, that your claim that no consensus has been reached amounts to chanting “la la la la la I can’t hear you” in response. Similarly, your effort, at this stage, to pretend that you are simply talking about the (never identified and never defined) "EIT"s when the posts regarding the consensus have specifically addressed torture is nothing more than you trying to move the goalposts often enough to avoid being caught. There may well be Enhanced Interrogation Techniques that do not amount to torture, but the only ones discussed in this thread–waterboarding, sleep deprivation, and a couple of others–are on the “torture” side of the line and those are the techniques that have been shown to have a consensus among police and intelligence agencies as lacking effectiveness. > [@Rand\_Rover](#): > > Third, I’m not trying to fool anybody. I’m not even trying to convince anyone of anything. I have made no claim about whether EITs are effective or not and really have no opinion on the matter. This bullshit does not work for Glenn Beck, (except among his sycophants), and it fails here. ---
**Author:** ![Ibn\_Warraq](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e19b73/32.png) [@Ibn\_Warraq](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ibn_Warraq)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2011, 5:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-waterboarding-help-kill-bin-laden/580487/337 "2011-06-04T05:32:46Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > I was referring to a very specific incident where a mafia enforcer was brought in to torture people who had killed and buried some freedom riders. There were no wild goose chases, the guy came in, tortured them and got the exact location of the bodies. I wasn’t being theoretical. Are you sure this actually happened and you’re not thinking of the movie\* Mississippi Burning \*because that sounds remarkably like a scene from the movie which the director made up. ---
**Author:** ![Rand\_Rover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/db5fbb/32.png) [@Rand\_Rover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rand_Rover)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2011, 2:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-waterboarding-help-kill-bin-laden/580487/338 "2011-06-06T02:19:54Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Suuuure. > > [PDF file] > [http://students.washington.edu/wulr/Spring\_2008/Emelinova\_&\_Friedman\_The\_Effectiveness\_of\_Coercive\_Interrogation.pdf](http://students.washington.edu/wulr/Spring_2008/Emelinova_&_Friedman_The_Effectiveness_of_Coercive_Interrogation.pdf) You have got to be kidding me. That article was written by two undergraduate students, and they cite absolutely nothing for the existence of a consensus. ---
**Author:** ![Rand\_Rover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/db5fbb/32.png) [@Rand\_Rover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rand_Rover)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2011, 2:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-waterboarding-help-kill-bin-laden/580487/339 "2011-06-06T02:30:49Z")
Tomndebb, at this point I have to assume you have crossed over into bizarro world. Your last couple of posts have been extremely strange, and they are so nonresponsive to my posts that you could have written them beforehand. Just in case there’s a chance of reaching the real tomndebb through the bizarro void, I’ll respond to each of your points. > [@tomndebb](#): > > And yet, you are the one claiming that I hold a position that I have never posted at any time in this thread or any other. > When you can address the points I have made instead of inventing positions for me to hold, you might have a basis for participating in this discussion instead of simply bumping the thread with nonsense every time you get bored. What is the position I’m claiming you hold that you don’t actually hold? I’m honestly confused here. I have claimed only that you hold the position that there is a consensus that EITs are ineffective. Also, my post that bumped this thread was “nonsense”? How’s that? It’s a former CIA director discussing his belief about the effectiveness of EITs, and specifically how they helped capture ObL. That’s what this thread is about. Or perhaps anything that goes against your ideology is nonsense–is that right? > [@](#): > > There have been more than enough citations to sufficient numbers of police and intelligence agencies noting the lack of effectiveness regarding torture, that your claim that no consensus has been reached amounts to chanting “la la la la la I can’t hear you” in response. Similarly, your effort, at this stage, to pretend that you are simply talking about the (never identified and never defined) "EIT"s when the posts regarding the consensus have specifically addressed torture is nothing more than you trying to move the goalposts often enough to avoid being caught. Here’s where your confusion is really strange. This thread is about (and I have througout only been discussing) enhanced interrogation techniques. The EITs are all very well defined–you can read the papers published by the government that describe them in extreme detail. You are the one who reads others saying that “torture isn’t effective” and extrapolates that into “EITs aren’t effective.” The burden is on you to show that all your sources discussing “torture” are also discussing the EITs. The burden is not on me to precisely define EITs, which is a weird thing for you to say anyway since they absolutely are precisely defined (and not by me). > [@](#): > > There may well be Enhanced Interrogation Techniques that do not amount to torture, but the only ones discussed in this thread–waterboarding, sleep deprivation, and a couple of others–are on the “torture” side of the line and those are the techniques that have been shown to have a consensus among police and intelligence agencies as lacking effectiveness. Right–this is you doing what I said you do above (and in my earlier posts)–deciding yourself that EITs are torture and that therefore those who say torture isn’t effective are also saying that EITs aren’t effective. > [@](#): > > This bullshit does not work for Glenn Beck, (except among his sycophants), and it fails here. Here’s perhaps the most bizarre part. In the first part of your post, you say that I’m claiming you hold a position you don’t hold. Here, you say that I hold a position I don’t hold. I’ve been very clear through this thread that I have no opinion about whether the EITs are effective and that I’m not qualified to hold such an opinion. And yet you and others insist that I’m trying to argue that EITs are effective. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2011, 2:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-waterboarding-help-kill-bin-laden/580487/340 "2011-06-06T02:36:41Z")
> [@Rand\_Rover](#): > > You have got to be kidding me. That article was written by two undergraduate students, and they cite absolutely nothing for the existence of a consensus. Says the guy who provides no cites. Your arguments, such as they are, fail. You are the only person here who thinks you have a legitimate point to make. The only reason people are still participating in this thread is a morbid fascination to see how long you will continue to hold to a thoroughly debunked notion. You have not won a point anywhere in this thread. You seem to think everyone else just misunderstands the points you are making so you are right and they are wrong. There is a landslide of evidence against your position yet you remain recalcitrant. That is a sign of mental illness. Seek help. I am not kidding. (Unless you are being intentionally argumentative for the sake of argument.) [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-waterboarding-help-kill-bin-laden/580487.md?page=16) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-waterboarding-help-kill-bin-laden/580487.md?page=18)