Have you read the report? The CIA reported that certain information from KSM was gathered from the “enhanced techniques” (like getting the mastermind of the Bali bombing), but the text from the CIA documents show that this information came from other sources. So we know that the CIA lied.
The methods that the CIA used. I would probably exclude that “rectal feeding” thing - since that was not medically sanctioned, it was not justifiable.
Let’s say yes, and yes. A torture technique that causes permanent physical and psychological damage is found to be more effective, and interrogators are certain that a specific detainee has this info. Would you support or oppose this method be used? If not, why not?
Not according to the Committee’s minority report. Which missed being a majority report by a few months, right? If it was the majority report, would you have been trumpeting it?
Then no.
Why not?
I’m looking at the text of the CIA documents. That’s not written by Senators, but by the CIA. The CIA says that the information about the Bali bomber came from other sources, but they earlier said it came from torturing KSM. The CIA lied earlier (or lied in the documents).
Because it would cause permanent damage. That’s one of the lines I draw. At that point forced interrogation becomes punishment.
A list of methods is not a definition of torture that can be used to determine if new methods are or are not torture. Do you have a definition that you would compare other methods to, to determine if they are torture?
I gave you the cite, earlier, from six former CIA chiefs that say the program was effective. I believe they have the expertise and had access to know. You think they are liars. There’s not much to discuss.
Let me guess…you’re not considering permanent psychological damage in that, right? Only physical?
They were attempting to protect their reputations, and they brought nothing to the table to counter the tons of evidence except their "Nuh Uh!"s.
Too nebulous. If you can show, definitively, that the technique will, 100%, cause permanent psychological damage - maybe. I doubt you can.
Again, you consider all six of them liars. I don’t. Not much to discuss, is there?
So what? Why would you oppose this if it might provide better information to intelligence officers? Why do you draw this line?
I don’t know for sure if they lied (or were falsely informed), but either they are lying (or inadvertently spreading false information), or the CIA officers who wrote the partially redacted text are lying (or wrote false information). Both the CIA documents and what the CIA told Congress can’t be true – they directly conflict.
Not if you believe them and their lack of evidence and their denial of CIA reportage over the mounds of evidence-no, there really isn’t. Why you continue to argue in this thread about the report if your whole attitude is going to be “They said it-I believe it-That’s all there is to it” is really beyond me.
Fair enough. So where’s the line? Ripping out fingernails with pliers, which you have repeatedly used as an example of “real” torture, might not cause permanent physical damage–certainly not a 100% guarantee. Waterboarding, which for some bizarre reason you do not consider torture *might *cause permanent physical damage. What likelihood are you happy with? 90%? 75%?
Flag on the play: Appeal to authority
To be fair if I was willing to torture a 35 year old male who looked like a Hollywood cast boogie-man of a terrorist, I would also torture an 11 yr old girl in otherwise identical circumstances. I’d also put a controlled pair in either of their chests if lethal force was called for in attempting to capture them.
The appeal to emotion is powerful. It’s also logically weak if we’re just looking at whether torture was justified in general