Amnesty International’s Ad Against Waterboarding

[billvon 3,120]

>was to only mention Hollywood advocates torture via its movies and in
>doing so it gives it's consent.

So you honestly believe that since Arnold Schwarzenegger appeared in a movie where he sliced people's heads off with circular saw blades, the governor of California is OK with decapitations?

Are you trying to be funny, or are you actually serious in your assertion that someone who makes a movie advocates everything that appears in it?

[thirdworld19 0]

Quote

Quote

I think most of the experts were saying that torture doesn't work in most cases - but I don't believe that torture is used in most cases, only in those when the nicer ways haven't worked. So if more humane ways work on 9 out of 10 prisoners, that is most likely what gets used. Torture would then be used in that 1 time when being nice failed. Therefore, it is not the most effective method.

What? No! You obviously haven't read a single piece of information that's been presented here, otherwise you could not possibly misunderstand things so badly.

Quote

There probably aren't many experts who will say that torture works because that would go against America's stated policies.

Are you joking?

Please, enlighten me. What exactly were all of the reports saying... Or are you referring only to other posters opinions?

[jakee 1,596]

Quote

Please, enlighten me. What exactly were all of the reports saying...

They explainwhy torture is less effective than other interrogation techniques, and back it up with facts. Your idea that as a technique it would be judged ineffective only because it isn't used much is, well, a stunning misunderstanding. It's just... wow.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

When was that statement dated?

Seriously, do you realise just how much of a stretch you're making by discounting these reports as 'probably propaganda'?

Especially the ones that predate the war on terror, such as this one:

…despite the complexities and difficulties of dealing with an enemy from such a hostile and alien culture, some American interrogators consistently managed to extract useful information from prisoners. The successful interrogators all had one thing in common in the way they approached their subject. They were nice to them. Maj Sherwood Moran, USMCR - Guadalcanal 1942

I'm sure General Moran had propaganda for the War On Terror in mind when he made that statement.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[jakee 1,596]

C'mon, dude, that was obviously just propaganda so that we could keep on torturing the Japs without anyone knowing about it

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[thirdworld19 0]

Quote

Oh, well if you're sure For the moment, I'll go with the report of the Intelligence Science Board who seem pretty damn sure that torture does not work.

I must not have read the same report as you. I don't think they were "damn sure" at all. After glancing through the report (I did not read the entire report) it seems that the experts are not convinced one way or the other as to the effectiveness of torture.

"although there is no valid scientific research to back the conclusion, most professionals believe that pain, coercion, and threats are counterproductive to the elicitation of good information. The authors cite a number of psychological and behavioral studies to buttress the argument, but are forced to return to the statement: 'more research is necessary.'"

[nerdgirl 0]

Quote

Perhaps it is important for America and certain groups of intellectuals to put forth these arguments against torture so we will have that deniability factor. Appearance is very important.

Quote

The experts may say one thing, but that doesn't make them true. Maybe these experts have other reasons for saying what they're saying.

Quote

Who should we turn to? Who can we turn to? There probably aren't many experts who will say that torture works because that would go against America's stated policies. Experts (people with real world experience) saying that torture does in fact work would be confirming the fact that America does engage in torture - when it does not (according to policy). So of course you won't get credible experts to admit this.

Quote

They have to keep up the charade. And reports that state that torture doesn't work is just another part of that.

Please correct my mis-understanding if it is that:

It sounds like you are suggesting that there is some sort of conspiracy across multiple agencies, multiple insitututions, multiple administrations (of both parties in the US), multiple countries, and at least six decades (probably more but WWII is a well-documented place to start) regarding the ineffectiveness of torture as an interogation method?

In post #32 of this thread, I intentionally focused on operators, i.e., military, intelligence community, and civilian LEO including those with direct experience (i.e., the USMC Interrogators and the US Army HUMINT collectors). That's a minority of reference/experiences from the operators. There's a whole 'nother literature from historians, political scientists, direct accounts from former torture victims and POWs, etc.

What you seem to be suggesting (again correct me if you mean something else), if I understand correctly, doesn't quite reach the level of 9-11 conspiracy theories, but it's firmly in revisionist history.

Unquestionably there are normative factors, international law considerations, and US foreign policy interests. I don't understand how the type of conspiracy (I wish I could think of a word with a less pejorative connotation ...) benefits long-term US foreign policy or domestic security interests?

E.g., Why does the world not trust the Russians regarding offensive bioweapons? Because they lied about the existence of their program from 1969 to 1992. After the 1979 Sverdlovsk anthrax incident, the world community became suspicious (to put it diplomatically).

The CIA head has acknowledged that waterboarding was used against 4 detainees (# of times not specified). It was John Yoo's DOJ that revisited and revised policy to make waterboarding and other "enhanced interrogation" techniques permissable as part of policy.

In January 2008, the Director of National Intelligence (DNI), Mike McConnell (Vice Admiral, USN (ret)), acknowledged “'If I had water draining into my nose, oh God, I just can't imagine how painful! Whether it's torture by anybody else's definition, for me it would be torture.' McConnell said the legal test for torture should be ‘pretty simple. Is it excruciatingly painful to the point of forcing someone to say something because of the pain?'"

VR/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[thirdworld19 0]

Quote

Quote

When was that statement dated?

Seriously, do you realise just how much of a stretch you're making by discounting these reports as 'probably propaganda'?

Especially the ones that predate the war on terror, such as this one:

…despite the complexities and difficulties of dealing with an enemy from such a hostile and alien culture, some American interrogators consistently managed to extract useful information from prisoners. The successful interrogators all had one thing in common in the way they approached their subject. They were nice to them. Maj Sherwood Moran, USMCR - Guadalcanal 1942

I'm sure General Moran had propaganda for the War On Terror in mind when he made that statement.

Rice became the Secretary of State in 2005, right? So it had to be after that. Obviously what Rice said is propaganda - either that or she is completely clueless, right? Which is it?

And to think that others (General Moran) don't engage in propaganda is absurd. Of course it wasn't for the war on terror - who said that it was? Propaganda has always been around. It is extremely naive to think that it is a stretch for government reports to be propaganda.

[thirdworld19 0]

Quote

Please correct my mis-understanding if it is that:

It sounds like you are suggesting that there is some sort of conspiracy across multiple agencies, multiple insitututions, multiple administrations (of both parties in the US), multiple countries, and at least six decades (probably more but WWII is a well-documented place to start) regarding the ineffectiveness of torture as an interogation method?

In post #32 of this thread, I intentionally focused on operators, i.e., military, intelligence community, and civilian LEO including those with direct experience (i.e., the USMC Interrogators and the US Army HUMINT collectors). That's a minority of reference/experiences from the operators. There's a whole 'nother literature from historians, political scientists, direct accounts from former torture victims and POWs, etc.

What you seem to be suggesting (again correct me if you mean something else), if I understand correctly, doesn't quite reach the level of 9-11 conspiracy theories, but it's firmly in revisionist history.

Unquestionably there are normative factors, international law considerations, and US foreign policy interests. I don't understand how the type of conspiracy (I wish I could think of a word with a less pejorative connotation ...) benefits long-term US foreign policy or domestic security interests?

E.g., Why does the world not trust the Russians regarding offensive bioweapons? Because they lied about the existence of their program from 1969 to 1992. After the 1979 Sverdlovsk anthrax incident, the world community became suspicious (to put it diplomatically).

The CIA head has acknowledged that waterboarding was used against 4 detainees (# of times not specified). It was John Yoo's DOJ that revisited and revised policy to make waterboarding and other "enhanced interrogation" techniques permissable as part of policy.

In January 2008, the Director of National Intelligence (DNI), Mike McConnell (Vice Admiral, USN (ret)), acknowledged “'If I had water draining into my nose, oh God, I just can't imagine how painful! Whether it's torture by anybody else's definition, for me it would be torture.' McConnell said the legal test for torture should be ‘pretty simple. Is it excruciatingly painful to the point of forcing someone to say something because of the pain?'"

VR/Marg

I don't know if I would use the term conspiracy either. But the US has certain policies that they want to uphold, if not in actual fact, at least in appearance. Torture is one of those things that 'civilized' people find distasteful (although most would find that the outright killing of the enemy in war to be OK).

The Intelligence Science Board report that was referenced in a previous post stated that there has been no research on the effectiveness of any interrogation techniques (and not as previously stated that torture is ineffective). The experts cannot say that torture is ineffective - as much as they want to. So which experts are you going to listen to - the ones that say it is ineffective or the ones who say that we just don't know.

Having multiple agencies following one mandate is not new or unheard of.

And I am surprised that you don't see how the US benefits from the world believing that we don't torture people. I think it was a quote in one of your posts about how torturing prisoners has detrimental effects on US soldiers, etc.

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

And to think that others (General Moran) don't engage in propaganda is absurd. Of course it wasn't for the war on terror - who said that it was? Propaganda has always been around. It is extremely naive to think that it is a stretch for government reports to be propaganda.

Sure, I've seen lots of government reports that have turned out to be propaganda. The War On Drugs is one such area such propaganda is extensively used. However, there is also a lot of credible information available countering the claims of such propaganda.

So, thirdworld19, would you be so kind as to provide for us a few examples of credible information indicating that torture is an effective way of getting reliable information from detainees/POWs?

What would be the purpose of all these people who have hands on interrogation experience to lie about how much better humane treatment of detainees works for getting information compared to torture? I don't think anyone believes that the US doesn't engage in torture, but based upon the available evidence, very few people consider torture to be a viable way to maximize intelligence obtained from detainees.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[kschilk 0]

Quote

Never opened a history book, have you?

Sure...watcha' wanna' know?!

"T'was ever thus."

[thirdworld19 0]

Quote

Quote

And to think that others (General Moran) don't engage in propaganda is absurd. Of course it wasn't for the war on terror - who said that it was? Propaganda has always been around. It is extremely naive to think that it is a stretch for government reports to be propaganda.

Sure, I've seen lots of government reports that have turned out to be propaganda. The War On Drugs is one such area such propaganda is extensively used. However, there is also a lot of credible information available countering the claims of such propaganda.

So, thirdworld19, would you be so kind as to provide for us a few examples of credible information indicating that torture is an effective way of getting reliable information from detainees/POWs?

What would be the purpose of all these people who have hands on interrogation experience to lie about how much better humane treatment of detainees works for getting information compared to torture? I don't think anyone believes that the US doesn't engage in torture, but based upon the available evidence, very few people consider torture to be a viable way to maximize intelligence obtained from detainees.

Let me try to make this understandable. The US has a policy of no torturing. They (the infamous 'they') must live a public life as if this is true - no torture. However, 'everyone knows' that we do torture - or send people to countries to do this for them. So we are saying one thing and doing another.

Now, to try to bolster our public image of 'no torture' (because everyone knows we do it) we have various experts state that it is ineffective. (As a side note, have these experts actually tortured people - is this first hand experience that they are basing their opinions on?) If torture is ineffective, why would we do it? Of course we don't. It's bad and it doesn't work anyway. (Kind of sad that this is the reason for not doing it.) The information that is put out there to support this policy of no torture is propaganda. Again, did Condi lie when she spoke of rendition flights, or did she just have no clue that we do that?

Why do we torture people? Why has it been done over hundreds of years - and why do we continue to do it? Good question. Maybe the government hires, as interrogators, a bunch of sick fucks who get their kicks on hurting people. Or, maybe because it is effective in some circumstances.

As the Intelligence Science Board report states, maybe we just need some empirical evidence to prove it one way or the other.

I don't doubt that many think that being humane works better than torture. I would think that those people didn't start off the interrogation with torture though. They probably started nice and got what they wanted - so no need to revert to torture. It's the stubborn enemy, when the humane way didn't work, who ends up with torture. Just because the humane way works better for some, or most, doesn't make torture ineffective.

[kschilk 0]

Quote

So, by your logic, US civilians are now legitimate targets, since our tax dollars pay for our military operations.

To the best of my knowledge, US civilians aren't currently being tortured by the US military.

Quote

I'm quite thankful that you're not a general.

Well, if you're a terrorist, supporter of terrorism or of those who aid them...then that would certainly be understandable. A general's job is to destroy the enemy and I do have a nasty habit of doing my job...whatever it might be.

"T'was ever thus."

[nerdgirl 0]

Quote

The Intelligence Science Board report that was referenced in a previous post stated that there has been no research on the effectiveness of any interrogation techniques (and not as previously stated that torture is ineffective). The experts cannot say that torture is ineffective - as much as they want to.

What was the context in which that quote you cited was culled?

It was *not* with respect to the effectiveness of psychological and the types of interrogation methods in Army FM 2-22.3 or the type employed by retired FBI agent Jack Collum. It was looking for any indication of effectiveness of torture, that’s where the ISB found the ambiguity. The terms of reference (TOR) for the ISB study were to assess background and validity of “enhanced interrogation techniques,” such as waterboarding.

It was with respect to the lack of evidence to back up the assertions advocating the use of controversial interrogation techniques like waterboarding.

“A major stumbling block to the study of interrogation, and especially to the conduct of interrogation in field operations, has been the all-too-common misunderstanding of the nature and scope of the discipline.”

“Most observers, even those within professional circles, have unfortunately been influenced by the media’s colorful (and artificial) view of interrogation as almost always involving hostility and the employment of force — be it physical or psychological — by the interrogator against the hapless, often slow-witted subject.” (p. 95).

One of the study’s authors (Dr. Paulette Otis, USMC Center for Irregular Warfare and Operational Culture, Quantico VA), summarized the ISB’s conclusions:

“(1) pain does not elicit intelligence known to prevent greater harm; (2) the use of pain is counterproductive both in a tactical and strategic sense; (3) chemical and biological methods are unreliable; (4) research tends to indicate that ‘educing’ information without the use of harsh interrogation is more valuable.”

Comments from another member (Col. Steven M. Kleinman, USAF) of the ISB study:

“The scientific community has never established that coercive interrogation methods are an effective means of obtaining reliable intelligence information.”

Did you read Chapter 5 on Kubark (the CIA’s “offensive interrogation manual from the 1960s) and how problematic it was?

Quote

Having multiple agencies following one mandate is not new or unheard of.

That’s actually standard & a good thing. It’s not, however, particularly relevant to the ability to perpetuate and to sustain the type of scenario -- (better word) -- you are suggesting.

Quote

And I am surprised that you don't see how the US benefits from the world believing that we don't torture people. I think it was a quote in one of your posts about how torturing prisoners has detrimental effects on US soldiers, etc.

You selectively snipped out long-term foreign policy and domestic security interests. The greatest benefit to uniformed military services members is if the USG’s policy is no torture, i.e., “Keep it Simple S___” (fill in the last “S”). Now if for the sake of argument, you imagine that the US successfully perpetuates a multi-decade façade (historically forgetting about the Church & Pike Commissions for the moment), what happens to the US credibility when it’s discovered?

When was John Yoo’s originally classified DOJ memo written? 2002. How long did it take for that to no longer be FOUO?

When did Sec of State Rice make the comments (selectively quoted) on extraordinary rendition flights? When were those flights? When were they exposed?

For better (my contention) or worse, the USG doesn’t perpetuate grand conspiracies well; individuals within the USG might. One might see as a good thing – keeps ‘em honest at least about some things.


And since you are advocating that torture as part of integration is effective, the onus now goes to you to provide some evidence of that. I’ll even start you off: Harvard’s Alan Dershowitz has cited, without specific reference, the use of torture by the Nazi’s against French resistance in his November 2007 editorial in the Wall Street Journal. That’s not the regime I want to emulate for US policy.

VR/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[kschilk 0]

Quote

So you agree the World Trade Centre was a legitimate target? After all Al Queda did declare war on US several years earlier. That would make everyone in Gitmo lawfull enemy combatants.

The enemy chose civilians as "legtimate targets", not us. They made the rules and as far as I'm concerned, we're obliged to play by those same rules. We should have chosen purely civilian targets, exactly as they did.

"T'was ever thus."

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

So, by your logic, US civilians are now legitimate targets, since our tax dollars pay for our military operations.

To the best of my knowledge, US civilians aren't currently being tortured by the US military.

Are in you a position to get such knowledge? The Bush Administration has spent much of its reign trying to codify the practice of holding citizens as enemy combatants, and any protections they may retain only work if you know they're being held.

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

Let me try to make this understandable. The US has a policy of no torturing. They (the infamous 'they') must live a public life as if this is true - no torture. However, 'everyone knows' that we do torture - or send people to countries to do this for them. So we are saying one thing and doing another.

I haven't heard that denied in this thread.

Quote

Now, to try to bolster our public image of 'no torture' (because everyone knows we do it) we have various experts state that it is ineffective. (As a side note, have these experts actually tortured people - is this first hand experience that they are basing their opinions on?) If torture is ineffective, why would we do it? Of course we don't. It's bad and it doesn't work anyway. (Kind of sad that this is the reason for not doing it.) The information that is put out there to support this policy of no torture is propaganda. Again, did Condi lie when she spoke of rendition flights, or did she just have no clue that we do that?

So you really believe it bolsters our image to torture despite claiming ing that torture is not effective? That doesn't make any sense. It hurts our image.

Quote

Why do we torture people? Why has it been done over hundreds of years - and why do we continue to do it? Good question. Maybe the government hires, as interrogators, a bunch of sick fucks who get their kicks on hurting people. Or, maybe because it is effective in some circumstances.

The information we have indicates that the latter is not the case.

Quote

As the Intelligence Science Board report states, maybe we just need some empirical evidence to prove it one way or the other.

Good luck finding volunteers for that experiment. Would you like to be one of the subjects that gets tortured? I bet they can get you to confess to killing Kennedy. Or Lincoln.

Quote

I don't doubt that many think that being humane works better than torture.

Including those with actual interrogation experience.

Quote

I would think that those people didn't start off the interrogation with torture though. They probably started nice and got what they wanted - so no need to revert to torture.

Why would they when experience has shown humane treatment works better?

Quote

It's the stubborn enemy, when the humane way didn't work, who ends up with torture. Just because the humane way works better for some, or most, doesn't make torture ineffective.

True, but there is no indication that torture will work for the hypothetical ten percent of people who offer no information when treated humanely, either.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[nerdgirl 0]

Quote

The enemy chose civilians as "legtimate targets", not us. They made the rules and as far as I'm concerned, we're obliged to play by those same rules. We should have chosen purely civilian targets, exactly as they did.

The US is obligated -- via domestic ratifying legislation -- to abide by the treaties, the laws of war, to which we are party.

It is true that most of those international and domestic laws reflect wars that were fought as state-on-state battles rather than against non-state actors (terrorists) or prolonged counterinsurgency offensives.
VR/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

Quote

So, by your logic, US civilians are now legitimate targets, since our tax dollars pay for our military operations.

To the best of my knowledge, US civilians aren't currently being tortured by the US military.

Which is neither here nor there. You claimed (paraphrasing) that civilians who pay taxes that fund the war are legitimate targets. That implies that US non-combatant tax payers are legitimate targets of the enemies of US soldiers.

Quote

Quote

I'm quite thankful that you're not a general.

Well, if you're a terrorist, supporter of terrorism or of those who aid them...then that would certainly be understandable. A general's job is to destroy the enemy and I do have a nasty habit of doing my job...whatever it might be.

Fortunately, great generals (e.g. Sun Tzu and Clausewitz) didn't advocate what you advocate. Sun Tzu even claimed such tactics were counter-productive. (I'm pretty sure Clausewitz made similar claims, but I'm not as familiar with On War as I am with The Art Of War.) Are you claiming to understand warfare better than Sun Tzu?

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[kschilk 0]

Quote

The US is obligated -- via domestic ratifying legislation -- to abide by the treaties, the laws of war, to which we are party.

Outside the US, US law is moot. As for treaties, Geneva Convention, etc....it only has bearing if all parties in the conflict, are bound by the treatie or agreement. Once any country involved breaks the rules, whether the violator is party to the agreement or not....it all goes out the window, it's a free-for-all.

"T'was ever thus."

[kschilk 0]

Quote

Which is neither here nor there. You claimed (paraphrasing) that civilians who pay taxes that fund the war are legitimate targets. That implies that US non-combatant tax payers are legitimate targets of the enemies of US soldiers.

Google Sept. 11, 2001. That was here...now, we're there....so actually, it's both.

Fortunately, great generals (e.g. Sun Tzu and Clausewitz) didn't advocate what you advocate. Sun Tzu even claimed such tactics were counter-productive. (I'm pretty sure Clausewitz made similar claims, but I'm not as familiar with On War as I am with The Art Of War.) Are you claiming to understand warfare better than Sun Tzu?

[likearock 2]

Quote

Quote

Believe it or not, we don't all live in a massive computer . . .

Are you sure of that?

Word.

[Remster 30]

Quote

it all goes out the window, it's a free-for-all.

wow....

Remster

[likearock 2]

Quote

Quote

So you agree the World Trade Centre was a legitimate target? After all Al Queda did declare war on US several years earlier. That would make everyone in Gitmo lawfull enemy combatants.

The enemy chose civilians as "legtimate targets", not us. They made the rules and as far as I'm concerned, we're obliged to play by those same rules.

Why "obliged"? We didn't have to play by the same rules to beat Germany and Japan. And we're a much stronger country because of that.

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

Google Sept. 11, 2001. That was here...now, we're there....so actually, it's both.

I will assume from your continued avoidance of answering the question that you agree that, by your standards, US civilians are legitimate targets for our enemies.

Quote

Warfare and a few other things have changed, since then. I'm quite confident that as a general now, Sun Tzu would likely get his a*s handed to him, by even the weakest of armies.

Highly unlikely. Quite the opposite is far more probable. Sun Tzu's strategies and tactics are largely timeless. Certainly today's equipment is different from in his time, but he doesn't focus on equipment and equipment related strategy. He focuses on confronting an enemy and accomplishing a mission as quickly and for the lowest cost possible, with the best possible political end state. Those goals have not changed even today.

See this Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing as an example of views of general and staff officers: STRENGTHENING NATIONAL SECURITY THROUGH SMART POWER– A MILITARY PERSPECTIVE. (note that the hearing begins at the 18:00 mark)

Witnesses Gen. Anthony Zinni, USMC (Ret.) and Admiral Leighton W. Smith, Jr., USN (Ret.) represent a group of 52 generals and admirals. The views they present are quite consistent with the teachings of Sun Tzu. They are also essentially opposite of your views. I am quite certain they are far more competent than you on the topics of military leadership and the War On Terror, so I'm inclined to dismiss your proposals as ineffective and based on ignorance (i.e. lack of knowledge and understanding) of military matters.

Quote

Greatness is opinion, nothing more.

It is naive to believe that the performance of general officer commanders are judged only subjectively. Was the mission accomplished? At what cost was it accomplished, both in terms of money and resources, as well as in terms of lives lost? Was the political end state that which was desired? How long did it take? These are largely, albeit not totally, quantifiable metrics.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!