One thing baffles me. What kind of useful information can you reasonably expect to get out of a guy who you've just beaten to death or allowed to die from hypothermia? Does the CIA's black budget stretch to ouija boards?
...actually, it probably does, come to think of it...
And the same goes for surgery! Look at how many people die on the operating table every year! Just what do doctors hope to achieve by allowing people to die when they're trying to save them!?
(I see your fatuous statement and raise you ten. Double or nothing?)
And an investigation that started with a mission statement of "we've got to find something wrong here" said something different. Who'd a' thunk it, eh?
Your strawman argument is that I somehow torture is "done for kicks" and that this is ok. I didn't. I believe that coercing compliance/cooperation or revealing information by physical or psychological means is a valid tactic. And based on the experiences of the CIA and I dare say most if not all intelligence agencies in the world; they seem to think it's a valid tactic too.
The trouble is your tactic requires that the person you're doing bad things to actually has information to share. Did these acts stop any attacks from happening? I've yet to see any evidence of this. Bits and pieces were given up of course such as ideas they'd had and other tidbits but did these beatings allow the FBI to conduct a raid that stopped an attack that was imminent?
For me I think it all dates back to the almost mythical status these bad guys were given in the immediate aftermath of 9/11. Thousands of terrorists hell bent on the destruction of the west.. plotting to set off dirty bombs in every city and threaten our freedoms. How much of that was really true and how much of it was a false narrative exaggerated for effect?
Osama.. the number 1 intelligence target.. the crown jewels.. was captured in Pakistan from under the noses of their military. Not because of water boarding.. not because someone was made to stand up for a week. That's the reality.
And an investigation that started with a mission statement of "we've got to find something wrong here" said something different. Who'd a' think it, eh?
It's a miracle the report exists in the first place. I'm inclined to accept its points.
Why do you assume that using torture in a ticking timebomb (literally) situation would work?
Well, I don't believe I did. It wasn't really a technical question but since you mention it verification isn't going to be much of a problem. If you're going to get picky about the 24 hours I'll make it 48 hours or 72 hours.
And the same goes for surgery! Look at how many people die on the operating table every year! Just what do doctors hope to achieve by allowing people to die when they're trying to save them!?
(I see your fatuous statement and raise you ten. Double or nothing?)
In terms of "likelihood of death" there's a quite substantial difference between, say, removing an infected organ and smacking someone over the head repeatedly, wouldn't you say?
Although while we're here, if someone died on the operating table because the doctor was using techniques which had actually been banned, then I'd rather hope that doctor had to face some sort of justice.
The trouble is your tactic requires that the person you're doing bad things to actually has information to share. Did these acts stop any attacks from happening? I've yet to see any evidence of this. Bits and pieces were given up of course such as ideas they'd had and other tidbits but did these beatings allow the FBI to conduct a raid that stopped an attack that was imminent?
And yet, careful monitoring of suspected individuals has yielded what exactly? An attack on public transport that came out of the blue, one dead illegal immigrant who wasn't a terrorist, and a murdered soldier killed in broad day light.
I can't tell you the attacks that have been stopped by good old surveillance and friendly buddy buddy interrogation techniques. But I CAN tell you about where those techniques were used and where they failed.
For me I think it all dates back to the almost mythical status these bad guys were given in the immediate aftermath of 9/11. Thousands of terrorists hell bent on the destruction of the west.. plotting to set off dirty bombs in every city and threaten our freedoms. How much of that was really true and how much of it was a false narrative exaggerated for effect?
The Mujaheddin WAS an army of thousands, trained by the the US ironically. But the important thing here is that you don't need a large organisation. You just need a few people who are absolutely committed to a cause. People who are "true believers" in what they do.
The WTC attacks, London bombings and more are testament to that. And those type of people are not just going to give up the good if you manage to catch them, because you lock them up in a cell and give the softly softly approach - they're not wired that way. And besides...you don;t always have the luxury of time.
The way people are acting, it's as if aggressive interrogation (because I'd hardly class a bit of roughing up an a few accidental deaths as "torture") is somehow the only tool that the CIA used. It's not. It's a tool that was used along with all the other intelligence gathering techniques that identified the person they were making stand in pressure positions was somebody who was very likely to have useful information about an attack that was likely to happen in the near future.
Osama.. the number 1 intelligence target.. the crown jewels.. was captured in Pakistan from under the noses of their military. Not because of water boarding.. not because someone was made to stand up for a week. That's the reality.
The reality was that it was a freak occurrence that gave Bin Laden's location away. You don't always have the luxury of waiting more than a decade to nail a person because of an unexpected break. This is where the guy was forced into hiding after the fact - wouldn't you rather stop attacks before they happen?
So why mention other countries and groups who use torture.
Unless you are using torture as a means of abuse rather than gaining intelligence you have to consider CIA torture on its own merits and not anyone else's.
It failed to produce useful intelligence. It cost billions. It wasted the time of personnel. It was a complete waste of effort WHICH COULD HAVE BEEN USED ELSEWHERE MORE EFFECTIVELY.
Why do you keep supporting torture?
So not only does it appear that you do not know what a strawman argument is, it appears that you don't even know who you're responding to.
So neither of us absolutely know if it was of use or not. I'm not the one saying torture does not work in capital letters though.
Well, I don't believe I did. It wasn't really a technical question but since you mention it verification isn't going to be much of a problem. If you're going to get picky about the 24 hours I'll make it 48 hours or 72 hours.
There's evidence in the guy Fawkes case that the government already knew who the conspirators were and that guy added a few people who werent involved. The report on the CIA makes it clear that torture did not work despite 400 years of 'developments'
As for ticking time bomb - you brought up the subject, its up to you to show that its works
If someone is out to kill me I'm not too bothered about those people being tortured.
That's a thick thing to say in this context. Many of those "interrogated" weren't trying to kill anyone. What they got for their trouble was years of torture including but not restricted to:
Sleep deprivation
Close confinement in coffin sized boxes
Rape and sexual assaults
Humiliation
Severe beatings
Being chained to cold concrete floors (at least one person froze to death)
Some people, once deemed no longer useful, were driven insane, deliberately, so that they would be unable to speak or be normal for the rest of their lives.
The absolute terror and torture these people were subjected to was evil beyond evil.
Gotta say, the fact that "torture" may have occurred, alone, doesn't bother me a great deal.
If there was a report which showed that a large number of people who turned out to be innocent had been tortured, I'd be more upset but, without knowing the details, I can't really manage to get upset about the possibility that a bunch of scumbags got waterboarded.
Also, I gotta say that I feel kinda sorry for the USA about this.
I'm sure there are people sat in front of their TV sets all over europe tutting over how naughty the USA is but I bet they were quite happy to receive any information the USA supplied as a result of these interrogations.
It's kinda like criticising Indian sweat-shops while happily buying all your clothes in Primark.
Osama.. the number 1 intelligence target.. the crown jewels.. was captured in Pakistan from under the noses of their military. Not because of water boarding.. not because someone was made to stand up for a week. That's the reality.
Refresh my memory as to where the intelligence that led to Bin laden's capture did come from?
Apparently staff morale at the CIA is currently "very low".
I'd make them listen to an endless loop of 'Metal Machine Music' while covered in towels that smell of the local swimming baths and a rectal vindaloo with Chicken Tikka skewer starters until they told me exactly how soft.
But I'm a wimp
But that is the problem, and for many it is worth being upset about.
Well, feel free to get upset about it.
Just don't expect everybody to share that opinion, assume it's more valid or worthy than anybody else's or expect anything to be done on the basis of it.
Just don't expect everybody to share that opinion, assume it's more valid or worthy than anybody else's or expect anything to be done on the basis of it.
Well obviously. It wouldn't be DS if there weren't a slew of people indifferent to government torture. ;-)
So not only does it appear that you do not know what a strawman argument is, it appears that you don't even know who you're responding to.
Whoops.
Strawman - a false argument used to defeat another argument. In this case mentioning that others use torture is the false argument designed to deflect from the CIA's use of torture
Comments
And the same goes for surgery! Look at how many people die on the operating table every year! Just what do doctors hope to achieve by allowing people to die when they're trying to save them!?
(I see your fatuous statement and raise you ten. Double or nothing?)
The CIA said that? Who'd have thunk it?
And an investigation that started with a mission statement of "we've got to find something wrong here" said something different. Who'd a' thunk it, eh?
The trouble is your tactic requires that the person you're doing bad things to actually has information to share. Did these acts stop any attacks from happening? I've yet to see any evidence of this. Bits and pieces were given up of course such as ideas they'd had and other tidbits but did these beatings allow the FBI to conduct a raid that stopped an attack that was imminent?
For me I think it all dates back to the almost mythical status these bad guys were given in the immediate aftermath of 9/11. Thousands of terrorists hell bent on the destruction of the west.. plotting to set off dirty bombs in every city and threaten our freedoms. How much of that was really true and how much of it was a false narrative exaggerated for effect?
Osama.. the number 1 intelligence target.. the crown jewels.. was captured in Pakistan from under the noses of their military. Not because of water boarding.. not because someone was made to stand up for a week. That's the reality.
It's a miracle the report exists in the first place. I'm inclined to accept its points.
So neither of us absolutely know if it was of use or not. I'm not the one saying torture does not work in capital letters though.
Well, I don't believe I did. It wasn't really a technical question but since you mention it verification isn't going to be much of a problem. If you're going to get picky about the 24 hours I'll make it 48 hours or 72 hours.
In terms of "likelihood of death" there's a quite substantial difference between, say, removing an infected organ and smacking someone over the head repeatedly, wouldn't you say?
Although while we're here, if someone died on the operating table because the doctor was using techniques which had actually been banned, then I'd rather hope that doctor had to face some sort of justice.
And yet, careful monitoring of suspected individuals has yielded what exactly? An attack on public transport that came out of the blue, one dead illegal immigrant who wasn't a terrorist, and a murdered soldier killed in broad day light.
I can't tell you the attacks that have been stopped by good old surveillance and friendly buddy buddy interrogation techniques. But I CAN tell you about where those techniques were used and where they failed.
The Mujaheddin WAS an army of thousands, trained by the the US ironically. But the important thing here is that you don't need a large organisation. You just need a few people who are absolutely committed to a cause. People who are "true believers" in what they do.
The WTC attacks, London bombings and more are testament to that. And those type of people are not just going to give up the good if you manage to catch them, because you lock them up in a cell and give the softly softly approach - they're not wired that way. And besides...you don;t always have the luxury of time.
The way people are acting, it's as if aggressive interrogation (because I'd hardly class a bit of roughing up an a few accidental deaths as "torture") is somehow the only tool that the CIA used. It's not. It's a tool that was used along with all the other intelligence gathering techniques that identified the person they were making stand in pressure positions was somebody who was very likely to have useful information about an attack that was likely to happen in the near future.
The reality was that it was a freak occurrence that gave Bin Laden's location away. You don't always have the luxury of waiting more than a decade to nail a person because of an unexpected break. This is where the guy was forced into hiding after the fact - wouldn't you rather stop attacks before they happen?
So not only does it appear that you do not know what a strawman argument is, it appears that you don't even know who you're responding to.
Whoops.
If it did, they'd be the first in history to make it work instead of the usual mass of incoherent false leads that people say to make it stop.
As for ticking time bomb - you brought up the subject, its up to you to show that its works
OH DEAR, POOR THEM.
That's a thick thing to say in this context. Many of those "interrogated" weren't trying to kill anyone. What they got for their trouble was years of torture including but not restricted to:
Sleep deprivation
Close confinement in coffin sized boxes
Rape and sexual assaults
Humiliation
Severe beatings
Being chained to cold concrete floors (at least one person froze to death)
Some people, once deemed no longer useful, were driven insane, deliberately, so that they would be unable to speak or be normal for the rest of their lives.
The absolute terror and torture these people were subjected to was evil beyond evil.
Anyone who offers any defence of it is evil scum.
Probably still better than the morale of the civilians they tortured though.
If there was a report which showed that a large number of people who turned out to be innocent had been tortured, I'd be more upset but, without knowing the details, I can't really manage to get upset about the possibility that a bunch of scumbags got waterboarded.
Also, I gotta say that I feel kinda sorry for the USA about this.
I'm sure there are people sat in front of their TV sets all over europe tutting over how naughty the USA is but I bet they were quite happy to receive any information the USA supplied as a result of these interrogations.
It's kinda like criticising Indian sweat-shops while happily buying all your clothes in Primark.
But that is the problem, and for many it is worth being upset about.
Refresh my memory as to where the intelligence that led to Bin laden's capture did come from?
But I'm a wimp
Well, feel free to get upset about it.
Just don't expect everybody to share that opinion, assume it's more valid or worthy than anybody else's or expect anything to be done on the basis of it.
Well obviously. It wouldn't be DS if there weren't a slew of people indifferent to government torture. ;-)
Or a slew of people getting all bent out of shape in a bid to defend the civil rights of terrorists.
Damn, if you had just said 'human rights' I'd have completed by DS Bingo Catchphrase card for the day!
I called bingo on mine after reading your first couple of posts in this thread.