Did waterboarding help kill Bin Laden?

[tomndebb]

@Rand_Rover

OK, I see. But I think my basic point is still applicable: you read stuff where people say “torture is ineffective,” and you think that by “torture” they must mean everything that you think is included in that term. Therefore, you think there is a consensus that what you define as torture is ineffective (and I’m not even mentioning the other problems with finding a consensus in this manner, which I’ve discussed above). In reality, people can mean a wide variety of different things by the word “torture.”

On the other hand, despite your wiggling and dancing, this thread has provided testimony from a wide variety of police and intelligence agencies, along with historical records from the Nazis, that indicate that torture is an ineffective way to gain good information. Nothing has been presented that comes close to refuting that, so claims that a “consensus” has not been demonstrated is merely hand-waving.

There may be specific actions that one person would drop in the torture column while another person would define it as “merely” enhanced interrogation techniques. This could be a legitimate discussion, although it has not been raised in any substantive fashion in this thread. I am open to the suggestion that some EIT may be outside the realm of torture. Waterboarding, the action that prompted this thread and appears in the title, falls in the torture column for everyone except the Bush administration and a couple of authoritarian governments known to employ torture for their own amusement. It was torture when the U.S. prosecuted Japanese for employing it on captured personnel during WWII and it only changed in the U.S. view for a few years for political reasons. The discussion among those who oppose torture have focused on torture, and not on EITs.

If someone wants to discuss which EIT may or may not actually be torture, they are free to do so, but no one has addressed that issue in this thread.

[GIGObuster]

@Damuri_Ajashi

Now you are torturing the facts to find an interpretation that will leave some room for the possibility that torture was not an element of the discovery of bin Laden.

Suuure.

I will let the writer of the last quote remind you that torture was not needed:

We cannot become our enemy in trying to defeat him. American interrogators safely guided us through World War II without the use of torture, fighting an enemy and interrogating prisoners every bit as brutal and dedicated as the members of al Qaeda. Our interrogators continue to prove time and time again that they are smart enough to outwit al Qaeda’s best and brightest. No one should ever doubt that we have the mental and ethical fortitude to win this war – and to do it without lowering ourselves to the level of our foes.

The point stands, the best interpretation is that it is not likely that torture got us Bin Laden, when one mentions the broken clock, is precisely because if torture works it can only apply to very specific cases and situations, not most of the time as you seem to continue to imply. The reports so far point to torture as not playing an important role in this case, much to the chagrin to the defenders of the previous administration.

[tomndebb]

@Damuri_Ajashi

Now you are torturing the facts to find an interpretation that will leave some room for the possibility that torture was not an element of the discovery of bin Laden.

No evidence has been presented that it played any role in his discovery.

So far, we have tesitmony from multiple members of the Bush administration and intelligence agencies that the information used to track him down did not result from torture.
Separately, we have information that some of the persons who might have provided information were, at different times, tortured, with no evidence, comment, remark, or implication that they gave up the information at the time of their torture. (In fact, for several of the people, the torture and the supplying of information appear to be separated by one or more years.)

You are the one who needs to link the torture to the information, so provide a citation that actually demonstrates that link.

As noted, we already know that false information used to rationalize the invasion of Iraq was extracted under torture, so we begin with a big negative on the torture side of the line:
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=13756669#post13756669

[Rand_Rover]

@tomndebb

On the other hand, despite your wiggling and dancing, this thread has provided testimony from a wide variety of police and intelligence agencies, along with historical records from the Nazis, that indicate that torture is an ineffective way to gain good information. Nothing has been presented that comes close to refuting that, so claims that a “consensus” has not been demonstrated is merely hand-waving.

There may be specific actions that one person would drop in the torture column while another person would define it as “merely” enhanced interrogation techniques. This could be a legitimate discussion, although it has not been raised in any substantive fashion in this thread. I am open to the suggestion that some EIT may be outside the realm of torture. Waterboarding, the action that prompted this thread and appears in the title, falls in the torture column for everyone except the Bush administration and a couple of authoritarian governments known to employ torture for their own amusement. It was torture when the U.S. prosecuted Japanese for employing it on captured personnel during WWII and it only changed in the U.S. view for a few years for political reasons. The discussion among those who oppose torture have focused on torture, and not on EITs.

If someone wants to discuss which EIT may or may not actually be torture, they are free to do so, but no one has addressed that issue in this thread.

There you go again, doing exactly what I said you were doing. Let me illustrate:

Let’s say you want to determine whether there is a consensus a certain four people on whether dessert is healthy. You ask them whether dessert is healthy, and all of them but the last one say no, who says yes. When thinking of their answer, they each thought of the following things as dessert: the first one thought of cakes and pies, the second one thought of whiskey and port, the third though of cookies and ice cream, and the fourth thought of fruit. So, I guess you could say there is a consensus that dessert is bad for ýou, but once you examine the consensus a little further you’ll see that no two people actually agree on anything.

[GIGObuster]

@Rand_Rover

There you go again, doing exactly what I said you were doing. Let me illustrate:

Let’s say you want to determine whether there is a consensus a certain four people on whether dessert is healthy. You ask them whether dessert is healthy, and all of them but the last one say no, who says yes. When thinking of their answer, they each thought of the following things as dessert: the first one thought of cakes and pies, the second one thought of whiskey and port, the third though of cookies and ice cream, and the fourth thought of fruit. So, I guess you could say there is a consensus that dessert is bad for ýou, but once you examine the consensus a little further you’ll see that no two people actually agree on anything.

It is a problem if you consult only the pastry makers.

Enhanced interrogation techniques

Former President Bush in his published memoirs[59] defends the utility of “enhanced interrogation” techniques and asserts that they are not torture.[60]

However, President Obama, Attorney General Holder, and Guantanamo military prosecutor Crawford called some of the techniques torture.[1] The British government has determined the techniques would be classified as torture, and dismissed President Bush’s claim to the contrary.[60][61] A report by Human Rights First (HRF) and Physicians for Human Rights (PFH) stated that these techniques constitute torture.[62] They also cite the U.S. Office of the Inspector General report which concluded that “SERE-type interrogation techniques constitute ‘physical or mental torture and coercion under the Geneva conventions.’[10]” A United Nations report denounced the US abuse of prisoners as tantamount to torture.[63] The UN report called for cessation of the US-termed “enhanced interrogation” techniques, as the UN sees these methods as a form of torture. The UN report also admonishes against secret prisons, the use of which, is considered to amount to torture as well and should be discontinued.[64]

The US press has been hesitant to call enhanced interrogation torture because as Paul Kane of the Washington Post explained, torture is a crime and nobody who engaged in “enhanced interrogation” has been charged or convicted.[65] The New York Times terms the techniques “harsh” and “brutal” while avoiding the word “torture” in most but not all[66] news articles,[67] though it routinely calls “enhanced interrogation” torture in editorials.[68]

Following NPR’s controversial ban on using the word torture[69] and Ombudsman Alica Shepard’s defense of the policy that “calling waterboarding torture is tantamount to taking sides”,[70] Berkeley Professor of Linguistics Geoffrey Nunberg pointed out that virtually all media around the world, other than what he called the “spineless U.S. media”, call these techniques torture.[71][72] In an article on the euphemisms invented by the media that also criticized NPR, Glenn Greenwald discussed the enabling “corruption of American journalism”:

What it is clear to me that you have relied on the lazy American press and misleading right wing sources to concoct your “lack of consensus” position.

[Whack-a-Mole]

@Rand_Rover

There you go again, doing exactly what I said you were doing. Let me illustrate:

Let’s say you want to determine whether there is a consensus a certain four people on whether dessert is healthy. You ask them whether dessert is healthy, and all of them but the last one say no, who says yes. When thinking of their answer, they each thought of the following things as dessert: the first one thought of cakes and pies, the second one thought of whiskey and port, the third though of cookies and ice cream, and the fourth thought of fruit. So, I guess you could say there is a consensus that dessert is bad for ýou, but once you examine the consensus a little further you’ll see that no two people actually agree on anything.

“Enhanced Interrogation Techniques” is a euphemism to avoid calling those tactics what they are…torture.

It is smoke and mirrors and one you apparently have bought as meaning most anything.

We never learned if EIT’s were effective. We have shown ample evidence that experienced interrogators prefer to rely on non-violent means to obtain information.

The CIA used an arsenal of severe interrogation techniques on imprisoned Al Qaeda suspects for nearly seven years without seeking a rigorous assessment of whether the methods were effective or necessary, according to current and former U.S. officials familiar with the matter.

The failure to conduct a comprehensive examination occurred despite calls to do so as early as 2003. That year, the agency’s inspector general circulated drafts of a report that raised deep concerns about waterboarding and other methods, and recommended a study by outside experts on whether they worked.

SOURCE: CIA reportedly declined to closely evaluate harsh interrogations

[tomndebb]

@Rand_Rover

There you go again, doing exactly what I said you were doing.

And there you go, again, playing games with the thread. Aside from your hand-waving, you have failed to provide any reason for anyone who was not rabidly pro-torture to conclude from the responses already provided that legitimate police and intelligence agencies share a consensus that torture, (not some undefined EIT), is ineffective as an intelligence gathering tool.
ETA: You have also, despite your repetitions, failed to provide a single instance in which I have equated EIT to torture as you continue to claim.

[Rand_Rover]

@tomndebb

And there you go, again, playing games with the thread. Aside from your hand-waving, you have failed to provide any reason for anyone who was not rabidly pro-torture to conclude from the responses already provided that legitimate police and intelligence agencies share a consensus that torture, (not some undefined EIT), is ineffective as an intelligence gathering tool.

I have shown in several different ways how you and others have completely failed to prove the existence of a consensus. You haven’t responded to any of my arguments. I can only conclude at this point that you don’t have a good response.

ETA: You have also, despite your repetitions, failed to provide a single instance in which I have equated EIT to torture as you continue to claim.

What I am continuing to claim is that you read someone saying “torture doesn’t work” and you think they mean the same thing that you mean when you say “torture.”

[tomndebb]

@Rand_Rover

I have shown in several different ways how you and others have completely failed to prove the existence of a consensus. You haven’t responded to any of my arguments. I can only conclude at this point that you don’t have a good response.

What I am continuing to claim is that you read someone saying “torture doesn’t work” and you think they mean the same thing that you mean when you say “torture.”

You have not posted any argument stronger than “Nuh uh.”
You spent most of the thread simply denying that any evidence of opinions, (however cumulative), actually represented a consensus and the rest of the thread pretending that posters addressing torture were simply not addressing EITs. Now, you are playing word games in which you want to pretend that there are so many interpretations of torture that none of them are even discussing the same topic.

You seem to have no point beyond keeping this thread alive.