Based on the info we have, there is also no reason to believe that he did not give up good information during that process.
Also, all of the talk in this thread about “torture” is completely off topic. This thread is about the enhanced interrogation techniques used against KSM, not “torture.”
If this was Der Trihs posting, I’d appreciate the sarcastic jibe at Rovian doublespeak. But I somehow get the impression you’re being serious.
It’s very clear in context that the “enhanced interrogation techniques” are being described as torture.
You could also call them “tickling” if you want to. Or “teasing.” Or anything.
Really it’s a good thing that some people are so loose with language–it typically shows that they are loose with their thinking as well. The “torture is bad and this is bad because it’s torture” camp is doing a good job of demonstrating the strength of their position in this thread.
Agreed. A willingness to call a spade a spade is essential if we’re going to have an honest conversation about the uses of violence. Politically correct weasel words like “enhanced interrogation techniques” only muddle the discussion.
I’m tempted to apply a different t-word to your behavior. The first sentence of your first post was on topic for this thread. The rest of your contribution has included a little junior moderation and some strawman arguments about something nobody said. Do better or find a different thread to post in.
You’re arguing from the postulate that torture was absolutely required for step 1. That is doubtful.
Thanks, I have accepted your invitation.
I have never seen anyone who was waterboarded describe it as anything other than torture.
In fact, the US prosecuted some Japanese after WWII for using waterboarding and the US described it as “torture”.
The euphemism is calling a torture technique an “enhanced interrogation technique”.
No, I said torture may have led to step 1. Where’s the “absolutely required” part?
[QUOTE=Der Trihs]
You mean something that among other things is known to cause hallucinations and general irrationality? Yeah, I’m sure you get real reliable information from someone you are in the process of driving insane.
[/QUOTE]
I suppose that any sort of interrogation technique could have a similar effect if you take it too far or don’t know what you are doing. I didn’t say that sleep deprivation was 100%…merely that I’ve heard that it and some other enhanced interrogation techniques are somewhat effective. Obviously if you use them to the point of driving the person being interrogated insane it’s not going to be all that effective.
-XT
Seems implicit to the notion that torture leading to step 1 could/should lead to one re-assessing one’s opinion on torture. If both torture and not-torture can lead to the same outcome, then the pragmatic assessment of torture is still that it’s unnecessary besides being immoral, barbaric and inhumane (or rather very very humane but then again humans are bastards)
I believe torture is a moral wrong no matter what the results. Additionally, I have not seen any information that leads me to believe that torture was required, or even beneficial, in getting this result.
I do believe that it shows that there is some value to detention of high-value terrorist suspects and well-disciplined interrogation programs. I think it possibly reinforces that Obama was correct in maintaining the Gitmo detention facilities in spite of his promise to shut it down. Whether these suspects could have been relocated is unknown, but considering the pushback from Congress the present course was probably the best one.
The obvious issue for me is if they have any ‘live’ sources that really led to the finding, they’re not going to be advertising it, and will be trying to claim it was done via alternative sources.
I dont see a way to really be sure whats going on at this point in time. I tend to agree that this is a retroactive ends justify the means scenario. You dont get to torture people because it might be useful 8 years later.
Otara
Well, there’s the qualifiers; Using this Pinochet et al criteria, we can say that initial waterboard results should be regarded as truthful, and time is of the essence.
Best wishes,
hh
And one should not forget also that in the case of Al-Libi and others, torture gave us false information connecting Osama to Iraq, sending us on the path of an elective war that drained our resources that would had taken care of Osama sooner rather than later.
And in the the end, we got about a million people death in Iraq (including about 5000 coalition forces) thanks in part to the use of torture…
Err…huh?
My Pinochet example noted that they got good intel immediately but could not discern it from bad intel (that is the point) so did not believe it. After a lot more torture they decided that was the truth but that ship had sailed and the intel at that point was worthless.
Point being is a torturer does not know good intel from bad. They get a pile of “data” and have to track it all down. It is a waste of their time.
Want good info? Do not torture the person you want info from.
As noted before even Napoleon knew this. This is not new stuff.
Let’s try putting this in more practical terms.
First, knowing what we know now, and assuming that it was the torture of KSM that led to the intelligence that led to bin Laden’s death, then if I could push a button that would rewind the clock to KSM’s capture and somehow prohibit all torture done under Bush, knowing it would lead to bin Laden not being cornered and killed a couple days ago: Would I push the button? Yes. The death of bin Laden was not worth the moral price America paid for the insitutionalization of torture. And if we’re to count bin Laden’s death as the reward for that institutionalization, then we must also count the costs–such as the effects of Abu Graib, all the stories out of Afghanistan, all the missed prosecutions, and the effect on Americans who became torturers.
Second, assuming that the torture of KSM lead eventually to bin Laden’s death: Should we reconsider the institutional use of torture for the future? No. We have ample experience and expertise telling us that torture is not generally a useful way of gathering information. That it happens to work occasionally should not gainsay all our knowledge of how often it doesn’t work, and how much more effective other techniques are.