Did waterboarding help kill Bin Laden?

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@ElvisL1ves

Please, people, it isn’t torture, it’s “enhanced interrogation techniques” when you want to pretend your hands are clean. And Santorum says McCain doesn’t understand them. :D:D:D:D:D

:smack:

To put McCain’s experience into perspective, torture was not an effective means of interrogation in that instance. I’m not even sure what sort of information they thought McCain might have?

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@Kobal2

That’s not the point.
The point is, if I tell you “Miami AAAARGH no wait they’re in Seattle AAAAAARGH ok ok you got me they’re in NYC”, you have no idea which one is correct. Maybe I was being truthful the first time. Maybe I bluffed but your second twist really got to me. Maybe the third lead was just me throwing out what I thought you wanted me to say.

So now you have to send people in every single location I designate, and remember: I’m giving you a new one each time you even look at my nuts sideways. Either because I know something important and I’m tough enough to hide it, or because I know something important and you didn’t believe me when I told you, or because I know jack shit. You have no way to know.

So, really, torture only “works” inasmuch as you might have gotten the same amount of *actual *shit done by casting a purely random net of investigations at the wall to see what sticks. Or, y’know, perhaps done a professional one, checked my past, where I’ve been, where I’ve gone, who are my contacts, where they might be etc… without asking me the time of day. That works too.

But dawg, that shit takes time, can’t we just fry his nuts ?! **Damuri **says it works !

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.

[Czarcasm]

@Damuri_Ajashi

I’ve seen those threads and in every one, people simply state “torture doesn’t work, I have a cite where some guys says so” I provide a cite that says it does work and the response is “you’re going to believe a torturer? Those guys are scum, you can’t believe a single thing they say”

Of course torture works in some cases, the question has always been, is it the best (or even an effective) method in this particular case.

Jaw drops
It’s like arguing with a parrot who has memorized a few phrases but has no idea what they mean. I don’t think that there are any links or cites possible, from any authority whatsoever, that would have prevented you from giving the above response.
As far as this topic is concerned, I am done with you. Bad parrot-no cracker.

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@Der_Trihs

Nonsense. First, it’s quite possible he never knew where the dead bodies were in the first place

You have to know what information you are looking for any you have to have a high degree of certainty that they actually know that information. Torture is not a panacea.

Second, he has no reason to think you’ll realize he told the truth and will stop torturing him even if he knows and tells you.

That’s kind of where the verifiable feedback comes in.

Third, he has no reason to assume that you won’t keep right on torturing him just for the fun of it no matter what he says.

All you have when you are being tortured is the hope it will stop. Its really hard to resign yourself to the notion that it will never stop no matter what you do or say.

Fourth, the odds are excellent that you already have kept on torturing him after he gave a correct answer.

Once again, verifiable feedback.

And fifth, extreme stress like torture distorts the rational process and memory; he isn’t going to be calmly weighing the options about what he should say, and his memory will rapidly become unreliable.

Not if its done right.

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@gonzomax

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/05/19/cia-chiefs-letter-confirms-torture-did-not-lead-to-osama-bin-laden/
Leon Penetta sets the standard. he is head of the CIA. He says waterboarding had nothing to do with the Osama killing. On the other hand you have Hannity and Rush Limburger. They certainly have the gravitas to counter the head of the CIA. For a dead head right winger.

That was part of my point. When people thought that torture had something to do with it, people were like “well who ever said torture doesn’t work” now people are back to the whole “torture doesn’t work” crap. Noone really seemed surprised to hear that torture works, now it is once again obvious to some people that torture simply doesn’t work.

[gonzomax]

Even if you believe that torture will work, don’t you have to consider whether it is right to do it? Many did not want to become a nation that tortures. Now we are . We stay far down the level of mature countries with torture and the death penalty. But that is who we are.

[Der_Trihs]

@Damuri_Ajashi

All you have when you are being tortured is the hope it will stop. Its really hard to resign yourself to the notion that it will never stop no matter what you do or say.

Hard or not, that’s what will happen after they’ve been tortured the 50th time for information they don’t have. Assuming they are still sane, of course.

@Damuri_Ajashi

Not if its done right.

There IS no right way to do it since it’s a mistake in itself.

[Rand_Rover]

@Der_Trihs

There IS no right way to do it since it’s a mistake in itself.

Once again, you are conflating the issues of whether it’s effective with whether it should be done.

[Lobohan]

@Rand_Rover

Once again, you are conflating the issues of whether it’s effective with whether it should be done.

Well, since the consensus of professional interrogators agree that torture provides unreliable information, the matter about its effectiveness is settled. At least to those willing to accept factual information.

Your mileage may vary.

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@Great_Antibob

Was this ever the argument? I don’t think it was.

There were several arguments against waterboarding, but I don’t recall any that said all the intel garnered from the technique was false.

The two salient arguments I can recall were:

1. You could get actionable intelligence, but it would also be mixed in with a bunch of junk.

2. There are more efficient interrogation techniques. Retired intelligence and military interrogation officers have come out and repeated this and there are decades old US interrogation manuals that also back this up.

I can get apples off my tree by blasting them with a shotgun, but it’s probably a better idea to find a ladder.

And if I want to kill a bear, I could probably club it to death with a ladder but a ladder is not as helpful as a shotgun. Is someone saying that torture always works or is always the best method of interrogation?

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@Czarcasm

Jaw drops
It’s like arguing with a parrot who has memorized a few phrases but has no idea what they mean. I don’t think that there are any links or cites possible, from any authority whatsoever, that would have prevented you from giving the above response.
As far as this topic is concerned, I am done with you. Bad parrot-no cracker.

Yeah, I’m the one that keeps repeating talking points. :rolleyes:

I only need to be right once to prove you are wrong but even providing several cites doesn’t seem to make a dent. You seem to think that people who say torture works also think that torture is a good thing that we should use liberally. I don’t know about everyone else but I think we have to admit that torture can work sometimes and we have to get into the tougher discussion that the “torture doesn’t work” crowd wants to avoid by discussing whether we want to use torture in those cases where it can work.

[Der_Trihs]

@Rand_Rover

Once again, you are conflating the issues of whether it’s effective with whether it should be done.

Unless the motive is sadism and terror (which it typically is), of course it shouldn’t be done if it doesn’t work. :rolleyes:

@Damuri_Ajashi

You seem to think that people who say torture works also think that torture is a good thing that we should use liberally.

Because they generally are.

@Damuri_Ajashi

I don’t know about everyone else but I think we have to admit that torture can work sometimes and we have to get into the tougher discussion that the “torture doesn’t work” crowd wants to avoid by discussing whether we want to use torture in those cases where it can work.

Anyone who engages in torture should be imprisoned for life or killed, no exceptions, no mercy, no forgiveness. Whether or not it “works”. It’s not a “tough question”.

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@Marley23

Not a bit.
That wouldn’t be a reasonable claim.

And yet people have flat out said “torture doesn’t work” without any caveats.

The argument against torture (aside from the fact that it’s torture) is that you can get the in other ways that don’t have the same problems as torture. When you torture someone, they will tell you whatever they think you want to hear - which doesn’t mean that it’s all false, but that not all of it is reliable.

You can’t always get it in other ways. If the subject refuses to talk at all (just name rank and serial number), what do you do then? Just move on and figure that you’ll find out what they know some other way some day?

[Der_Trihs]

@Damuri_Ajashi

If the subject refuses to talk at all (just name rank and serial number), what do you do then? Just move on and figure that you’ll find out what they know some other way some day?

You keep trying, with methods that have a demonstrated record of success and aren’t utterly evil.

[tomndebb]

@Damuri_Ajashi

And yet people have flat out said “torture doesn’t work” without any caveats.

You keep saying that, yet that is not what the posters currently arguing with you have said, so who do you claim is saying it?

@Damuri_Ajashi

You can’t always get it in other ways. If the subject refuses to talk at all (just name rank and serial number), what do you do then? Just move on and figure that you’ll find out what they know some other way some day?

This is just silly. There are numerous references available to people who have engaged in non-torture-related interrogation techniques who have indicated that the number of captives who actually hold to “just name rank and serial number” are miniscule and that standard interrogation across large numbers of captives will be quite sufficient to bring information to light. Making up a hyppthetical scenario to rationalize the use of torture does not make it effective, it just means that one is willing to engage in it and then make the false claim that one “had” to use it.

[tomndebb]

@Czarcasm

Bad parrot-no cracker.

Making the analogy that one’s opponent’s arguments are similar to the rote repetition of a parrot are not pleasant, but are acceptable.
Calling one’s opponent a parrot is name-calling.

Knock it off.

[ /Moderating ]

[Kobal2]

@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.

And my broken clock is ultra precise some of the time, too. An anecdote is not data, it’s certainly not statistical evidence that torture is more (or even as) useful or efficient than not-torture.

Do also note that in your particular cite, the information obtained through torture also happens to throw the whole case to the dogs and is very likely to get the bad guy set free in spite of the fact that he’s guilty as sin.
So there’s that.

[GIGObuster]

@Damuri_Ajashi

Note I am NOT saying that torture ALWAYS works or that torture is always the best method of interrogation or even that torture can’t sometimes make matters worse but it can work and it can be reliable.

Nope, the evidence is against you, as I said, it may work; but if it was reliable it would be recommended by all experts or the evidence would had piled up in your favor. As it is, the evidence is still in favor of torture being right on occasion like a broken clock. And as history shows, the main reason torture is used is as a tool to instigate fear, not to get good information. They torture to justify a path that fools even a nation.

In the end you really just avoided dealing with the fact that torture gave us false information to justify the Iraq war, and under a situation that should had been “the right circumstances” for it to work.

[gonzomax]

Torture does not work. Since a person will say anything to make the pain stop. what is the value? If all they told was the truth, you would have something. But they just start blabbing whatever they think you want to hear in order to make the pain go away. So torture is worthless.
When Saddam was jailed, the interrogator said he had to get close to him to get intell. He had to be friends and ingratiate him to Saddam. He said he hated Saddam, but he had to cover it up to get the info.

[Rand_Rover]

Today’s WSJ has an article on this subject: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303745304576359820767777538.html?mod=ITP_opinion_0

Here are some quotes:

For all of its well-deserved reputation for pragmatism, American popular culture frequently nurtures or at least tolerates preposterous views and theories. Witness the 9/11 “truthers” who, lacking any evidence whatsoever, claim that 9/11 was a Bush administration plot. And then we have the “birthers” who, even in the face of clear contrary evidence, take as an article of faith that President Obama was not born in the United States and hence is not eligible to hold his current office.

Let me add a third denomination to this faith-based constellation: interrogation deniers, i.e., individuals who hold that the enhanced interrogation techniques used against CIA detainees have never yielded useful intelligence. They, of course, cling to this view despite all evidence to the contrary, despite the testimony of four CIA directors, and despite Mr. Obama’s chief counterterrorism adviser John Brennan’s statement that there’s been “a lot of information that has come out from these interrogation procedures that the agency has in fact used against the real hard-core terrorists.”

But let the record show that when I was first briefed in 2007 about the brightening prospect of pursuing bin Laden through his courier network, a crucial component of the briefing was information provided by three CIA detainees, all of whom had been subjected to some form of enhanced interrogation.

So that there is no ambiguity, let me be doubly clear: It is nearly impossible for me to imagine any operation like the May 2 assault on bin Laden’s compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan, that would not have made substantial use of the trove of information derived from CIA detainees, including those on whom enhanced techniques had been used.

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.