If I remember correctly, the last time we debated this, not one supporter of torture was able to come up with one single verifiable example of torture working in the shopworn “ticking bomb” scenario. And I was able to find a genuine “ticking bomb” situation (the London bus bombings) were the parents of the other perpetrators gave their own sons up because they knew that they would not be tortured.
I also posted an interview with Jack Cloonan, the FBI Interrogator for the Bin Laden unit who interviewed Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and other al-Qaeda members.
To somewhat modify my earlier point, the fact that Cheney did not release them when it was within his power to do so proves that they either 1)do not exist or 2)do exist and (in Cheney’s opinion) need to be kept secret to protect national security.
Ergo, Cheney is either a liar or a poltroon who puts his own personal interests ahead of America’s safety. Pick one*.
*Admittedly, the two conclusions are not mutually exclusive, but these two particular lines of supporting evidence are.
Whatever else al-Qaeda are, they are not imbeciles, and only an imbecile would expect that trick to work again. It depends on the assumption that hijackers are either garden-variety extortionists or clowns who want a soapbox, and that the best way to get out alive is therefore to play along with them. That assumption obviously did not survive the 9-11 attacks – indeed, it broke down during the 9-11 attacks.
I stopped an invasion of Austin, Texas by Lizard People through my use of torture on one of their operatives. My proof ? Well, is Austin being overrun by Lizard People as we speak ? I rest my case.
– Since then I believe cockpit doors have been reinforced and the pilots will not open it for anything.
– IIRC there were one or two cases where some yahoo charged the cockpit and the passengers pretty much dog piled on the guy mere moments after he started.
No Americans will sit still for a hijacking again I don’t think. Not for a loooong time anyway. 9/11 took the notion out of passengers mind that a hijacking meant maybe sitting in a hot plane for a few days till someone negotiated their rescue.
As always, Sam, I am impressed with your ability to ferret out fair, balanced, and unbiased news sources the rest of us might never have heard of. “CNS News - The Right News, Right Now”. Certainly fills one to brimming with confidence in their objectivity.
But I wonder if you happened to read into the “comments” section? Wherein a reader points out that the disruption of the plot, the arrest of its leader, took place before KSM was arrested? The commenter offers a link, I followed it, and it verifies his contention.
No doubt you would have mentioned that, had you not been pressed for time.
Further, this whole mythos about KSM, master of skullduggery, is looking more thin as time goes on. We are offered his confession, IIRC, to being said, ah, “mastermind”. Well, Shirley, no one would admit such a thing if it were not so! Why might someone confess such a thing if it weren’t true? I can’t think of any reason, can you?
After all, this is the criminal genius who trained Richard Perle! Who attempted to bring down an airplane by setting off the explosives in his shoes with matches! Truly, we are threatened by cunning malefactors of the first order!
To this day, the stupidity of the open cockpit doors drives me berserk! We had been seeing planes hijacked for fifty years, and nobody locked the cockpit doors? Christ on a rubber crutch! Just one little lock and the whole thing would have dissolved, they would be stuck in the cabin with their box cutters and their thumbs up their butts!
Well…I think they had locks but were not very sturdy and could be bashed in.
Additionally I think the SOP would have the captain go back to talk to the hijackers (so opening the cockpit door). I am unaware of anytime before where the hijackers had training to fly a plane and killed the pilots to fly it themselves.
Likely these pilots figured they’d have to fly to Cuba or something and then wait it out as in the past. Their first priority was to save passenger lives and that was the best way to do it.
Now however the risk that the hijackers will crash the plane anyway and kill everyone on board PLUS nuking a building and more people there has made it a safe bet the pilots from here on will tell the hijackers to go piss up a pole and land the plane at the nearest available airport…regardless of hijacker threats.
The down side is just now far too great to do otherwise even if it means the hijackers start offing passengers. The passengers, being aware of the above, may say “fuck it” and mob the hijackers as they are better off for the attempt even if some few get injured or killed. A few hundred people in a little tube five miles above the ground trumps a handful of terrorists even if they have guns…much less box cutters.
So, as mentioned, worked once but not again for a long time (not to mention I bet the government pays a lot closer attention to who is taking commercial pilot lessons).
Meh, don’t think it would have made a difference pre-9/11. How many civilians with their throats cut can a pilot bear the guilt of before he unlocks the door, if he thinks the hijacker is intending to use the hostages as bargaining chips, or to be taken somewhere ?
The only solution would be a door locked on the ground which can’t be opened at all in flight, but that’s a safety hazard in case of a crash or similar emergency. Do you want to risk a pilot being trapped in his cabin as the plane is on fire ?
Again, not if the passengers expected that letting the hijackers hack a few of them would lead to the stubborn pilot opening the door and letting the hijackers take control of things, at which point the survival expectancy becomes much higher (assuming, again, that what hijackers want is transportation, extortion or negociation). Sucks to be the one hacked, but it’s Someone Else’s Problem. And even in cases in which rushing the highjackers seems like the most survivable scenario, no one wants to be the first to rush. Taking one for the team is fine and dandy, assuming I’m part of the team what’s being taken a bullet for :rolleyes:.
It’s the same mentality that leads to such unbelievable and infuriating news items as the Kitty Genovese incident, or girls raped by single, unarmed assailants in full view of an entire subway car and nobody lifting a finger. Reading these news, we all feel that if it had happened with *us *in the car, things would have gone a different route… but they never do, do they ?
Torture is a vague word. How do you distinguish between discomfort, extreme discomfort and torture? The only relevance of whether it’s “torture” is whether it fits in to the meaning of the word as used in some law/treaty that the US passed/ratified. That’s one for the lawyers (& pedants).
The only thing that really counts from a moral (non-legal) standpoint is whether the ends justify the means.
That’s kind of a general argument for selective censorship. “We can’t allow this information out because it’s not reliable and will mislead the people”. I doubt if you endorse this as a general principle.
If the people believe that the torture wasn’t effective anyway, they have little incentive to vote against leaders who oppose it, even if these leaders would oppose it regardless. Beyond this, I don’t think your assertion is necessarily true to begin with - I don’t think you can separate the morality from the effectiveness of torture, either on the part of the leaders or the people.
[At the risk of entering Analogyland, imagine if a politician announced that he opposed abortion as a matter of principle, and also that abortions endangered the lives of women. Now he also wants to keep confidential information that has a bearing on the latter factual claim. Would you say that this information is “largely irrelevant” because this guy opposes abortion in any event?]
In that case, don’t bring up the issue altogether. As above, the effectiveness of torture is a fundamental part of the issue. You seemed to acknowledge that earlier. If you’re saying that this part can’t be known, then the entire consideration of the issue is virtually moot, at least from the perspective of many people involved.
Essentially you (& others who share this viewpoint) are trying to have public consideration of an issue, with real policy and legal consequences, without allowing consideration of evidence that might not favor your point of view.
I disagree. There’s a world of difference between unofficial and official. Prior to the release of the memos, it was widely known that torture may have been used.
But that’s a far cry from evidence that it was officially sanctioned. That’s pretty damning to the Bush Admin and the US in general. But what was the benefit of releasing those legal memos? It seems to me that there were more drawbacks to releasing them.
Why not? The actual intelligence doesn’t need to be released in detail. Heck, even the legal memos were heavily censored.
Correct. But if we have already made that decision, what harm is there in admitting that it may have gotten good results? Or more specifically, if we have made the decision not to torture, why not release all the accounts where it didn’t work, there by cementing public opinion on it? Remember, Obama can cherry pick what he wants…
Well, first, I assume there would be more of a mixed deck of results. Some vital information gained, some useless or false information gained. Maybe even information that led to pointless deaths of servicemen. It would only be a stacked deck if the results were overwhelmingly useful.
But you are right, there’s a lot of other side effects of torture that are hard to quantisize. However, I don’t buy that we should be arguing from a point of ingorance if we don’t have to. Why not get all the facts, and then argue about stuff that we truly don’t know, rather than argue about stuff that is known, but they won’t tell us?
It seems to me that you are saying that since we can’t know everything, then we should know as little as possible about it, so we don’t leap to conclusions…
Depends on what you consider a drawback. Perhaps the Obama admin is floating these to set the stage for prosecution of some Bush admin officials. Or is just a ploy…threaten the possibility of legal ramifications and gain concessions somewhere else.
Certainly if you want to prosecute these guys then releasing them and getting the public aware of and used to the idea is not a bad move.
I think the issue here is it should not matter if it worked or not. I think that shifts the debate to where you draw a line on how much torture is ok based on expected results. A slippery-slope if ever there was one.
Torture is bad and needs no evidence of effectiveness or lack of to make that determination. We should not be doing it…period.
Bollocks it wasn’t. Torture wasn’t solely to gain information, and I would imagine it wasn’t even predominately to gain information. That’s why in answer to the earlier question about would it have been ordered before other methods have been tried - absolutely yes.
How do you deal with people who aren’t scared of dying? (Note this does not necessarily apply to all or any of the prisoners, but it certainly was the view of the captors that soem of them saw themselves as religious martyrs unafraid to die). To punish these people, you denegrate their religion, or you inflict pain on them. And you let it be known that you do it. It’s a stupid policy, but I have no doubt it was the policy.
It doesn’t matter if the person knows anything. Just as long as others realize that something the captors believe they view as worse than death awaits them if they take up arms. Kind of like the Sopranos episode where the Hassidic Jew will not sign a divorce without receiving part of his father in laws motel business until Hesch recommends giving him a bris with a pair of bolt cutters.
There was an element of attempted intelligence gathering. But there was also a big element of showing people we were mean ass mothers who could not be pushed around.
Agreed. But we simply cannot stop there, too much at stake. Our opponents purely love to depict themselves as the hard-headed realists, that we should put our trust in them. They are the “grown-ups”, willing to make the hard decisions to protect our nation, as compared to the lily-livered pantywaist liberals. It is an insidious propaganda, and must be confronted.
So we are compelled to confront the issue of “effectiveness”, however distasteful and repulsive. They haven’t a leg to stand on and we should not let them pretend that they do.
Mr. Cheney claims to have proof that his torture regime bore fruit. Why, then, we must wonder, didn’t he tell us this sooner? Classified information? He could have declassified it, I believe on his own authority, as granted by The Doofus. The information was too “sensitive”? Then why was it too sensitive a month ago, but not now?