Torture memos

[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!

[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:

[tw]

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.

I had a friend who worked in boiler rooms. Telephone scams. He loved the most religious. They would most often believe anything he told them; were so easy to close a deal.

When I watch people religiously watching World Wrestling, I wonder what they believe.

[TGRR]

Originally Posted by tw

I had a friend who worked in boiler rooms. Telephone scams. He loved the most religious. They would most often believe anything he told them; were so easy to close a deal.

When I watch people religiously watching World Wrestling, I wonder what they believe.

[sugarpop]

Originally Posted by 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.

How many of those people do you think were actually witches? Which is another argument that it doesn't work. People were ratting out anyone and everyone just to make it stop.

[DanaC]

Originally Posted by sugarpop

How many of those people do you think were actually witches? Which is another argument that it doesn't work. People were ratting out anyone and everyone just to make it stop.

*blink* well, obviously m'dear, that was my point :P

In answer to your question I think none of them were 'witches'.

[sugarpop]

Originally Posted by DanaC

*blink* well, obviously m'dear, that was my point :P

In answer to your question I think none of them were 'witches'.

After I reread it, I kinda got that.

I think some of them probably were for sure, but the majority definitely not. I imagine the number of people who were actual witches was probably pretty low.