Torture memos

[classicman]

[classicman]

Originally Posted by Jill

I've cited the results of studies done by historians and scientists, that show that these techniques do not provide reliable information.

There were cites also posted by professionals that counter the opinion of your cites.
Why won't you answer his question?

[tw]

Originally Posted by classicman

There were cites also posted by professionals that counter the opinion of your cites.

Honest people routinely cite you for posting accusations without facts. You even lie (as caught doing so previously) to protect a political agenda. Stir the pot to create confusion. Never post supporting facts for your myths. Attack others with soundbyte accusations based only in a wacko extremist mantra. You would do it again to Jill? When do you post your research from a responsible source? Oh. classicman does not have any research - as any good extremist when knowledge comes only from Rush Limbaugh, et al. That justifies classicman's cheapshot post?

I can confirm that Jill's citations are the popular opinion among federal agents who do or did this stuff. This poster has personal statements from those who did real world work even on some famous cases. Have repeatedly said almost everything in Jill's citations.

Where is classicman's research - also known as vaporware. Knowledge based only in "I feel it is true" research.

Jill's citations introduce one concept that others never mentioned. Torture was once used not for information. Its purpose was criminal punishment. Numerous others who did this stuff - not one ever mentioned this criminal punishment aspect for torture.

So how does a disciple of Wingnut News know more than professionals? classicman again *knows* which explains numerous supporting facts in his every soundbyte accusation. classicman would take a cheap shot rather than contribute facts? I am not the only one who has accused him of doing this.

Professionals routinely state that torture only poisons the well. But those so extremists as to support Cheney still deny because Cheney, et al said so. Cheney is an professional? Well Cheney also thought he was a world class military strategist. When did Cheney become a god - to be blindly believed by wacko extremists?

When does classicman post anything but empty accusations? classicman is accused of doing to Jill what he does routinely - soundbyte accusations - cheap shots this time at Jill.

[sugarpop]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

You have no frigging idea what you are talking about.

I am going by what experts, including SERE trainers, have said in interviews on TV.

The psychology part, it doesn't take an expert to tell me that it would be different when you are doing a training exercise where you KNOW the people in charge aren't going to let something happen to you, and being a prisoner where you really actually fear for your life. That is basic psychology 101.

[sugarpop]

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

And for people whose driving ideals are so unpopular they must use violence to persuade instead of reason -- id est, terrorists -- this is bad how?

All mankind except for sugarpop, who has never once looked at it this way, wants these enemies of humanity in precisely that state of mind. Thus, they may be cracked, and certain of their fellow creatures thereby denied a chance to assail other human beings.

The difference you're so concerned with is therefore unimportant. The terrs are people, sugarpop, who would as cheerfully lop off your head as they would mine, in your case after multiple gang rapes and sundry mutilations. Ever seen that one "after" picture of the partisan girl the Nazis got hold of in Russia? That might be you. That is their human rights record, and it is far worse than ours.

And I wouldn't do it to them. Despite knowledge of their human rights record. That's because I'm so much better a man than they can be. You might try being a sensible woman.

So because they do it, that means WE should? That is a very poor argument for doing things that are inhumane and immoral to another human being. The United States of America is supposed to above such things. We are supposed to be the moral leaders of the world. How can we claim such a title when we lower ourselves to the level of the terrorists that we so hate?

I have a question for all of you who think what we did isn't torture, those pictures from Abu Ghraib, if they had been reversed, and it was OUR soldiers who were treated like that, how would you have felt? You would all have been screaming bloody murder that they were tortured, but since it was US who did it, you feel the need to make excuses. You really need to examine that.

[sugarpop]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

You would kill the Japanese soldiers even if they weren't returning fire; you'd also kill civilians, who happened to be unlucky enough to be driving across a bridge at the wrong time, or working in a plant you destroyed.


We've already had that McClatchy story in the thread, and we've discussed it at length. The CIA IG didn't say enhanced techniques weren't effective, period; he said they weren't helpful in thwarting any specific imminent attacks.


What I find remarkable is how certain you are of the effectiveness of these methods. How could you have this level of certainty? You're at odds with the CIA interrogators whom, I'm certain, know more about it than do you or I or anybody writing for McClatchy. I'm guessing that it works because the CIA interrogators think it works. I'm also guessing that it works because I personally am a huge pussy, and would tell every intimate detail I had in order to avoid even getting tased.


I am guessing that your certainty is driven less from application of careful thought, and more from the fiery passionate hate you hold for torture. Your passion is admirable, and shows you deeply care. But don't let it burn you because at the end of the day there is no substitute for careful thought.

I'm pretty sure Jill has careful thought. She certainly seems to, from her posts anyway. My opinions, well, my opinions come from looking at different times in history when torture has been used, like the Inquisitions. Everything I've read makes me believe that evidence gained during torture is unreliable. Add to that all the experts who have testified or said in interviews that torture is an unreliable way to gain information makes me believe it even more. And my moral compass tells me it's wrong. No one can make me believe it is actually OK for a civilized country or people to act in that way, no matter what is at stake.

UT, the scenario you described above, the accidental killing of innocent victims while striking at an enemy, is far different from torturing someone who is in custody. One is collateral damage that is an accident, the other is purposeful and intentional mistreatment of someone who is already in custody.

[DanaC]

Jill. That was brilliant. Really interesting.

This, right here, that we are describing is the ragged edge. We cannot as peoples dictate which threats will occur and which dangers we will face. We can only dictate our response. It is up to us, whether or not that response robs us of our humanity, or proves it. .

[DanaC]

Just as an aside though; it's wrong to say torture isn't effective...look how many witches we managed to root out in the middle-ages.

[Jill]

Originally Posted by classicman

There were cites also posted by professionals that counter the opinion of your cites.

Would you mind pointing those out to me, please? I've read through this entire thread and I failed to find any cites that counter, not the "opinions" as you characterize them, but the first-hand testimony and scientific research that I provided.

In post #69, Undertoad provided a link to an editorial, written by the former speech writer to President Bush, that you quoted in the following post, that attempts to "decode" the memos that are the subject of this thread. The author goes on and on about what we all know now is false information about what interrogation techniques actually resulted in thwarting the planned attack in Los Angeles. It's been proven that that attack was uncovered nearly a year before waterboarding started being applied.

So since that cite was nothing more than an obviously politically biased editorial that has been thoroughly debunked, I feel no compunction to accept it as countering any cites I provided.

Then we have your post #82, with a link to an article alluding to a secret memo by President Obama's National Intelligence Director, wherein he allegedly says that "high value information . . . a deeper understanding of the al-Qaida network" [was obtained using the harsh interrogation methods]. That would seem to support your claim. However, we aren't made privy to the actual memo that allegedly went out. We have no way of determining context, intent, or even whether those quotes were pulled completely out of context, and don't mean what the author alleges they mean. And the clarification that was provided, was brushed aside as "hedging."

You will note, that in post #128, Redux provides a link that also mentions the private memo and the same allegations of its content as your cite. However, it goes on to expose a serious flaw in that allegation.

Interrogations’ Effectiveness May Prove Elusive

. . .

Many intelligence officials, including some opposed to the brutal methods, confirm that the program produced information of great value, including tips on early-stage schemes to attack tall buildings on the West Coast and buildings in New York’s financial district and Washington. Interrogation of one Qaeda operative led to tips on finding others, until the leadership of the organization was decimated. Removing from the scene such dedicated and skilled plotters as Mr. Mohammed, or the Indonesian terrorist known as Hambali, almost certainly prevented future attacks.

But which information came from which methods, and whether the same result might have been achieved without the political, legal and moral cost of the torture controversy, is hotly disputed, even inside the intelligence agency.

The Justice Department memorandums released last week illustrate how difficult it can be to assess claims of effectiveness. One 2005 memorandum, for example, asserts that “enhanced techniques” used on Abu Zubaydah and Mr. Mohammed “yielded critical information.”

But the memorandum then lists among Abu Zubaydah’s revelations the identification of Mr. Mohammed and of an alleged radiological bomb plot by Jose Padilla, the American Qaeda associate. Both those disclosures were made long before Abu Zubaydah was subjected to harsh treatment, according to multiple accounts.

. . .

Then we get to your post #192, wherein we get a nifty little biography of some of the bad guys, then this:

John Kiriakou, a former CIA officer who witnessed the interrogation, told ABC’s Brian Ross: “The threat information that he provided disrupted a number of attacks, maybe dozens of attacks.”

He divulged, according to Kiriakou, “al-Qaeda’s leadership structure” and identified high-level terrorists the CIA didn’t know much, if anything, about. It’s been suggested that Zubaydah and al-Nashiri’s confessions in turn led to the capture of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.

Ok, I'll accept this one as a cite that you believe provides evidence contrary to what I've provided. However, there are two distinct problems with it.

1.) John Kiriakou, as a former CIA officer who supposedly witnessed the interrogation, has a very personal vested interest in Covering His Ass. His testimony, therefore, should be weighed very lightly before we allow it any credence.

2.) It goes on to say that "It’s been suggested" that these interrogations led to the capture of another bad guy. Suggested by whom? Not to mention that a "suggestion" isn't remotely the same as a "proven connection."

Ironically, your next cited post, post #198, completely contradicts the cite in your previous post, saying "Kiriakou said he did not witness Abu Zubaida's waterboarding but was part of the interrogation team that questioned him in a hospital. . . " So which version of his story should I believe? He either witnessed the waterboarding as alleged in your cite in post 192, or he didn't, as he later claims in your cite in post #198.

I find Kiriakou to be an unreliable witness and feel comfortable dismissing any evidence provided by him until such time as he has to testify under oath.

There aren't any more referenced cites between there and when I re-entered the discussion in post #234.

Originally Posted by classicman

Why won't you answer his question?

Because it's completely irrelevant and off-topic in the scope of this discussion.

Originally Posted by sugarpop

I'm pretty sure Jill has careful thought. She certainly seems to, from her posts anyway.

Originally Posted by DanaC

Jill. That was brilliant. Really interesting.

Thank you sugarpop and DanaC. I appreciate the compliments and kind words.

[classicman]

Originally Posted by Jill

Would you mind pointing those out to me, please?

No I won't. I'm done with this discussion for now. As tw pointed out my opinions are irrelevant since they disagree with his.

[glatt]

I thought this was interesting. According to a recent poll, the more often Americans go to church, the more likely they are to support the torture of suspected terrorists.

Turn the other cheek. Ha!

[classicman]

The analysis is based on a Pew Research Center survey of 742 American adults conducted April 14-21. It did not include analysis of groups other than white evangelicals, white non-Hispanic Catholics, white mainline Protestants, and the religiously unaffiliated, because the sample size was too small.

I wonder if the timing of this poll had any impact on the outcome. I wonder if they did a similar poll back in 2001 or 2005 or... just to see a trend.

[classicman]

I went looking for polls on torture. Incredibly, it's nearly impossible to find any polls. The only recent poll was in December by ABC News/Washington Post Poll. Amazingly, neither ABC nor the Pentagon Post published the results, as far as I can tell:

"Just your best guess, do you think the U.S. government as a matter of policy is or is not using torture as part of the U.S. campaign against terrorism?"

Torture Using Not Using Unsure
12/15-18/05 56% 39% 5%
5/20-23/04 51% 43% 6%

"Would you regard the use of torture against people suspected of involvement in terrorism as an acceptable or unacceptable part of the U.S. campaign against terrorism?"

--------------Acceptable Unacceptable Depends
12/15-18/05--------32%------ 64%----- 3%

So what do we learn from this data?

Despite Bush's repeated lies that "the U.S. does not torture," Americans aren't fools. In 5/04, a 51%-43% majority believed the U.S. was torturing prisoners; by 12/05, that majority increased to 56%-39%. Now that Bush has admitted we use "alternative methods" to interrogate prisoners - which everyone else calls torture - that majority should be trending towards 100%-0%.

And how do Americans feel about our use of torture? By 2:1 (64%-32%), Americans consider torture of terrorism suspects to be unacceptable.

Link
I'm not sure of the validity of this, but it is rather damning.

[dar512]

Originally Posted by glatt

I thought this was interesting. According to a recent poll, the more often Americans go to church, the more likely they are to support the torture of suspected terrorists.

Well I must be the oddball then. I do not support torture. I said so when this first came out and I have written my congressman with my opinion. In general I support humane treatment of prisoners because it is the ethical path and because I want humane treatment for our men and women if they are captured.

Over and above that I can't see how anyone can approve torture for people who have been convicted of no crime.

As for the poll, I never doubted that I was a:

[TheMercenary]

An interesting bit about the history of torture by the Brits in WW2 on NPR today.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...ryId=103728934