Bush White House endorsed torture.

[jakee 1,648]

Quote

John Stuart Mill Of his own free will
On half a pint of shandy was particularly ill

Plato they say, could stick it away
Half a crate of whisky every day

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[kallend 2,230]

Quote

Quote

John Stuart Mill Of his own free will
On half a pint of shandy was particularly ill

Plato they say, could stick it away
Half a crate of whisky every day

Immanuel Kant was a real piss-ant who was very rarely stable.
Heideggar, Heideggar was a boozy beggar who could think you under the table.
David Hume could out-consume Wilhelm Freidrich Hegel.
And Whittgenstein was a beery swine who was just as sloshed as Schlegel.
There's nothing Nieizsche couldn't teach 'ya 'bout the raising of the wrist.
Socrates, himself, was permanently pissed.
John Stewart Mill, of his own free will, after half a pint of shanty was particularly ill.
Plato, they say, could stick it away, half a crate of whiskey every day!
Aristotle, Aristotle was a bugger for the bottle,
And Hobbes was fond of his Dram.
And Rene Descartes was a drunken fart:
"I drink, therefore I am."
Yes, Socrates himself is particularly missed;
A lovely little thinker, but a bugger when he's pissed.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[normiss 917]

Correct.
We have yet to parade the war dead through our villages.

[Trent 0]

Quote

Torture has been shown to be an ineffective way of getting accurate info out of people, so why use it?

So when people say that the US tortures people we're saying that these "experts" aren't the ones doing the interrogation, our interrogators have no idea what they're doing, maybe they just like torture, they don't really care about getting good intel from interrogations?

Come on. If professional interrogators agree that "torture" doesn't work, then why would there be an institutional policy to use it? I would think that interrogators are much more concerned with getting accurate info that people give them credit for.

At some point there is a middle ground that, on average, works well for getting information. Be it sleep deprivation, isolation, waterboarding, etc. I'd think it'd depend on the subject and how "hard" they are. I just don't see professional interrogators using techniques they know don't work. Why would they do that?

Oh, hello again!

[Amazon 7]

Quote

I'd think it'd depend on the subject and how "hard" they are. I just don't see professional interrogators using techniques they know don't work. Why would they do that?

Ever met a true sadist???

I have ......... their process is more thrilling to them than any possible information that thy may glean.

[billvon 3,173]

>our interrogators have no idea what they're doing . . .

I suspect like many in our government they think they know what they are doing, and they tell themselves that so often it becomes true (to them.)

>If professional interrogators agree that "torture" doesn't work, then
>why would there be an institutional policy to use it?

Same reason that we told the world with great confidence that we would find the WMD's, and that the war might take six days, six weeks, probably not six months. Because we screwed up, and because people who thought they knew what they were doing got in the way of the people who actually did.

>I would think that interrogators are much more concerned with
>getting accurate info that people give them credit for.

Agreed. Which is why listening to pro-war types who get all their information from Kiefer Sutherland defend torture is so laughable.

[jakee 1,648]

Quote

Come on. If professional interrogators agree that "torture" doesn't work, then why would there be an institutional policy to use it?

Because the administration wanted to look tough. I doubt it had much at all to do with what experienced, professional interrogators were doing.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[Trent 0]

As for sadists, I hate to use it but there's bad apples for sure. I know people who did interrogations for the military and they never seemed like idiots or sadists to me. They even busted local police's balls for beating on suspects. Go figure.

I don't think an administration would implement torture as a policy to "look tough" then try realy hard to keep it under wraps. Seems silly.

I still don't think that our military people are as incompetent as to knowingly use techniques that don't work, and make them look bad, just because they can. It doesn't float. But, hey, I give the benefit of the doubt to our guys.

Oh, hello again!

[nerdgirl 0]

Quote

He voted against the new bill because he didn't believe the Army manual had substantial interrogation techniques.

Do you have any evidence of that?

I would argue he voted against that specific legislation becuase of the extensive amount of executive privilege, specifically limiting the access of Congress.

The biggest divide inside the Beltway is not Republican v Democrats; it's Executive v Congress.

VR/Marg

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

[nerdgirl 0]

Quote

I still don't think that our military people are as incompetent as to knowingly use techniques that don't work, and make them look bad, just because they can. It doesn't float. But, hey, I give the benefit of the doubt to our guys.

No benefit of the doubt needed: the professional interrogators of the US military ARE very competant w/r/t interrogation.
The US military is also clear on the ineffectiveness of torture for interrogation.


US Army FM 34-52 Intelligence Interrogation (large pdf file) states in Chapter 1, under the heading “Prohibition Against Use of Force”

“Experience indicates that the use of force is not necessary to gain the cooperation of sources for interrogation. Therefore, the use of force is a poor technique, as it yields unreliable results, may damage subsequent collection efforts, and can induce the source to say whatever he thinks the interrogator wants to hear. However, the use of force is not to be confused with psychological ploys, verbal trickery, or other nonviolent and noncoercive ruses used by the interrogator in questioning hesitant or uncooperative sources.”

“The psychological techniques and principles outlined should neither be confused with, nor construed to be synonymous with, unauthorized techniques such as brainwashing, mental torture, or any other form of mental coercion to include drugs. These techniques and principles are intended to serve as guides in obtaining the willing cooperation of a source. The absence of threats in interrogation is intentional, as their enforcement and use normally constitute violations of international law and may result in prosecution under the UCMJ.”

Unilateral, non-ambiguous statement with further detailing what not to do, i.e., don't use torture because it's not effective.

FM 35-42 also warns: “Revelation of use of torture by U.S. personnel will bring discredit upon the U.S. and its armed forces while undermining domestic and international support for the war effort.”


The United States Marine Corps Interrogator Translator Teams Association (composed of active duty and retired Marines) notes:

“…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.”

The folks with operational experience, i.e., military and civilian LEO including those with direct experience (i.e., the USMC Interrogators and the US Army HUMINT collectors, FBI); all the former Secretaries of State including GEN Colin Powell, USA (ret); Sen John McCain; the Intelligence Science Board; the former director of the Defense Intelligence Agency; multiple former CIA Directorate of Operations (DO) officers have been explicit on the non-effectiveness of torture in interrogation and opposition to it.

None of the known incidences or even accusations of torture, of which I am aware, were executed by professional interrogators in the US military.

VR/Marg

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

[kallend 2,230]

Wasn't the bill Bush vetoed (and McCain voted to uphold the veto) one requiring the CIA to comply with military standards?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[jakee 1,648]

Quote

I still don't think that our military people are as incompetent as to knowingly use techniques that don't work, and make them look bad, just because they can. It doesn't float. But, hey, I give the benefit of the doubt to our guys.

I don't think that those members of the military who were fully trained and experienced interrogators would be using crude and ineffectual techniques.

However, I do doubt that, in the recent and ongoing conflicts, all personnel who were in charge of detaining or questioning prisoners had the requisite level of training. Think, what purpose did the numerous and well documented shenanigans at Abu Ghraib serve? They looked to be a prime example of some soldiers doing things 'just because they could'.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[nerdgirl 0]

Quote

If you are holding an enemy that has information that might save american lives, NOT doing everything possible to extract that information should the crime in my opinion.

Under the closed to the notional scenario you suggest ("holding an enemy with useful information to save american lives"), I would want the most effective interrogation method used, i.e., *not* torture. Traditional interrogation methods have been shown to work under extreme circumstances, e.g., the real-world “ticking time bomb scenario”:

“[Jack] Cloonan [32-year FBI veteran, whose experience included counterintelligence, counterterrorism, the Joint Terrorism Task Force] and a New York Police Department detective secured actionable intelligence from a suspect in the foiled millennium-bombing plot in just six hours on December 30, 1999 -- by following FBI procedure, and by encouraging a suspect to pray during his Ramadan fast. The suspect even agreed to place calls to his confederates, which led to their speedy arrests.”

(1) In the 3 cases in which CIA has acknowledged use of waterboarding (Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, Abu Zubaydah, & Abd al Rahim al Nashiri) it is unclear to dubious that “enhanced interrogation” did anything that traditional interrogation would not have. On the contrary, there is significant evidence that “enhanced interrogation” led to reams of false confessions, which took away time & resources, and may have undermined the useful intel for prosecution.

(2) In at least two “ticking time bomb” scenarios, useful intelligence has been gained without the use of “enhanced interrogation,” waterboarding, or torture.

(3) Bad information obtained through torture by thirdparty states has produced bad/faulty intel that has been passed on to US policymakers, e.g., Ibn al Shaykh al Libbi.

(4) At least 60 years of operators, across multiple agencies have observed the ineffectiveness of torture in interrogation.

Taken in consideration with the other 3 arguments against torture (reciprocity on US service members, impedance of US foreign policy and national defense goals, and morals/ethics), there is no strategic, operational, or tactical advantage to employing waterboarding or “enhanced interrogation” as a euphemism for torture as part of investigatory process. One may argue that such a policy has (strongly) negative strategic, operational, and tactical repercussions.

If you really want to advocate for effective tools in the notional scenario suggest you look to what the US military recognizes: torture is ineffective as a means of interrogation and such a policy puts US soldiers, sailors, airmen, Marines, and US foreign nationals, such as defense and intelligence civilians deployed at greater risk (than they already are).

Torture is not a policy that any nation should employ.

VR/Marg

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

[nerdgirl 0]

Quote

Wasn't the bill Bush vetoed (and McCain voted to uphold the veto) one requiring the CIA to comply with military standards?

Yes.

VR/Marg

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

[kallend 2,230]

Quote

Quote

Wasn't the bill Bush vetoed (and McCain voted to uphold the veto) one requiring the CIA to comply with military standards?

Yes.

VR/Marg

So all the dicussion of military competence at interrogations is ..... irrelevant to the topic at hand which is Bush's explicit endorsement of torture by the CIA.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kallend 2,230]

Quote

Quote

Torture has been shown to be an ineffective way of getting accurate info out of people, so why use it?

So when people say that the US tortures people we're saying that these "experts" aren't the ones doing the interrogation, our interrogators have no idea what they're doing, maybe they just like torture, they don't really care about getting good intel from interrogations?

Come on. If professional interrogators agree that "torture" doesn't work, then why would there be an institutional policy to use it? I would think that interrogators are much more concerned with getting accurate info that people give them credit for.

At some point there is a middle ground that, on average, works well for getting information. Be it sleep deprivation, isolation, waterboarding, etc. I'd think it'd depend on the subject and how "hard" they are. I just don't see professional interrogators using techniques they know don't work. Why would they do that?

Who ever said that logic played a part in any of Bush's decisions?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[nerdgirl 0]

Quote

War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself.
--John Stuart Mill, 1806-1873

Very good & apt w/r/t torture, or more specifically fighting against ethical injustices as being a worthy moral pursuit.

The full version of the quote from Mill's The Contest in America:

“But war, in a good cause, is not the greatest evil which a nation can suffer. War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things: the decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks nothing is worth a war, is worse. When a people are used as mere human instruments for firing cannon or thrusting bayonets, in the service and for the selfish purposes of a master, such war degrades a people. A war to protect other human beings against tyrannical injustice – a war to give victory to their own ideas of right and good, and which is their own war, carried on for an honest purpose by their free choice – is often the means of their regeneration. A man who has nothing which he is willing to fight for, nothing which he cares more about than he does about his personal safety, is a miserable creature who has no chance of being free, unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself. As long as justice and injustice have not terminated their ever-renewing fight for ascendancy in the affairs of mankind, human beings must be willing, when need is, to do battle for the one against the other."

He was writing about those in the North who opposed the Civil War. He's arguing for the importance of *not* sacrificing principle -- what he calls "virtuous cause" -- for ease.


One of the arguments -- altho' not the one I usually argue -- is the moral and ethical opprobrium of torture.

Paritcularly notable is the last line:

"As long as justice and injustice have not terminated their ever renewing fight for ascendancy in the affairs of mankind, human beings must be willing, when need is, to do battle for the one against the other."

Mill is speaking about the kind of battle both metaphorical and literal against those would advocate for (in the metaphorical & literary battle) and use (in the literal battle) torture.

Reducing oneself to the behavior of those who uses torture does not make "us" better. Being willing to stand-up metaphorically and literally against such injustices is the kind of thing Mill would advocate worth fighting for.

VR/Marg

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

[FallingOsh 0]

Quote

Quote

He voted against the new bill because he didn't believe the Army manual had substantial interrogation techniques.

Do you have any evidence of that?

I would argue he voted against that specific legislation becuase of the extensive amount of executive privilege, specifically limiting the access of Congress.

The biggest divide inside the Beltway is not Republican v Democrats; it's Executive v Congress.

VR/Marg

Just from his explaination in the article kallend posted.

Clicky

--------------------------------------------------
Stay positive and love your life.

[FallingOsh 0]

Quote

So all the dicussion of military competence at interrogations is ..... irrelevant to the topic at hand which is Bush's explicit endorsement of torture by the CIA.

Again, that goes back to what you think is being done and what you consider torture. Do you think they're breaking people's arms and cutting fingers off? Or do you consider sleep deprivation torture?

McCain has always been a front runner against torture, including waterboarding. He supported the veto which leads me to believe there were not unacceptable practices in the CIA.

To make a broad sweeping statement like you did, defining what you think is happening and what you consider torture is important.

--------------------------------------------------
Stay positive and love your life.