Americans love torture

[aujeff11 6,243]

Save the "but the Bible says" argument and "it destroys the psyche of individuals" arguments and let the terrorists reap what they deserve. If terrorists can kill a bunch of school kids, morals and sacred texts should go out the window for the interrogation process. As far as the third reason, what means of interrogation are more effective than torture that was not already tried?

[TitanTiger 20,472]

Save the "but the Bible says" argument and "it destroys the psyche of individuals" arguments and let the terrorists reap what they deserve. If terrorists can kill a bunch of school kids, morals and sacred texts should go out the window for the interrogation process. As far as the third reason, what means of interrogation are more effective than torture that was not already tried?

First, congrats on confirming exactly what I said.

Second, I shouldn't have to do your research for you. Expert interrogators will tell you that getting prisoners to talk is much more about rapport, cunning, cleverness and outsmarting the person than it is threatening, beating, inflicting pain and so on. Nothing is simple. It takes some work and skill. But in the end, the experts repeatedly say that when you do it the right way, you get more info and the info you get is far more reliable and actionable than what you get as a result of torture. Because when you are inflicting severe physical and/or psychological trauma on a person, their only goal is to get it to stop. They aren't the least bit concerned with telling you the truth. Hell, you might not even believe the truth. What they are concerned with is saying whatever they need to say...making it up if necessary...that they think you want to hear and will make you stop hurting them.

You are a liberal......very liberal. Get used to being described as you are.....liberal.

As I said...clueless. Embarrassingly so.

You are a liberal......very liberal. Get used to being described as you are.....liberal.

As I said...clueless. Embarrassingly so.

I dont know about that. I very rarely see anything you post that confirms a conservative perspective except when the topic is the thought police and even many liberals think those people routinely go too far.

Translation: "You don't affirm all of the contemporary GOP talking points on all the issues, therefore you a liberal."

Nope but I can certainly understand that being YOUR take.

Then I can only conclude you don't read very much of what I've said. That or you don't read very well.

[TheBlueVue 177]

Save the "but the Bible says" argument and "it destroys the psyche of individuals" arguments and let the terrorists reap what they deserve. If terrorists can kill a bunch of school kids, morals and sacred texts should go out the window for the interrogation process. As far as the third reason, what means of interrogation are more effective than torture that was not already tried?

With the terrorists using a text that urges them to enslave Christians and to kill all Jews, we're at a distinct disadvantage if we're using the Bible as our directive force and simply going to turn the other cheek.

[Grumps 3,704]

The dishonest title of this thread lessens the real message, in my opinion.

[TitanTiger 20,472]

Save the "but the Bible says" argument and "it destroys the psyche of individuals" arguments and let the terrorists reap what they deserve. If terrorists can kill a bunch of school kids, morals and sacred texts should go out the window for the interrogation process. As far as the third reason, what means of interrogation are more effective than torture that was not already tried?

With the terrorists using a text that urges them to enslave Christians and to kill all Jews, we're at a distinct disadvantage if we're using the Bible as our directive force and simply going to turn the other cheek.

False dilemma. There's a large swath of middle ground between torture and simply turning the other cheek that is permissible within a "just war" framework. Our only choices are not "sit by and do nothing" or "torture."

[TheBlueVue 177]

"Expert interrogators will tell you that getting prisoners to talk is much more about rapport, cunning, cleverness and outsmarting the person than it is threatening, beating, inflicting pain and so on."

If you had listened to the the guy who administered the use of EITs at Gitmo, you'd know that is what they did. They employed a "good cop-bad cop" paradigm allowing them to avoid experiencing any kind of EITs altogether in building rapport. Seems you'd also know, by now, this Senate Intelligence report was politically motivated to the extent that they ignored most of what happened and focused almost entirely on those things they though they could use as a cudgel in excoriating the CIA. It was little more than a Di Fi vendetta for breeching her computer's security.

[AUDub 11,147]

You are a liberal......very liberal. Get used to being described as you are.....liberal.

As I said...clueless. Embarrassingly so.

You are a liberal......very liberal. Get used to being described as you are.....liberal.

As I said...clueless. Embarrassingly so.

I dont know about that. I very rarely see anything you post that confirms a conservative perspective except when the topic is the thought police and even many liberals think those people routinely go too far.

I've seen several over the years. We've disagreed on a number of things. The difference is he's actually thoughtful and there are so many over-the-top, knee-jerk assertions that tend to dominate this forum that he ends up responding to. He's definitely center-right, but he's not a caricature.

This. I've gotten into it with Titan a number of times. Even apologized once or twice for arguing with strawmen in my debates with him. Anyone that describes him as a liberal needs their head examined.

[Grumps 3,704]

Do we know how the article defines "torture"? Are we defining torture as anything that is in violation of the law or as anything that can be seen as unethical? I think that means of interrogation that are unsuccessful should be stopped just because they don't work. I certainly think that torture should never be used solely as a means to degrade the person being tortured. However, I don't have a problem with legal, effective means being used to obtain information from prisoners even if those means hurt their feelings.

[TitanTiger 20,472]

"Expert interrogators will tell you that getting prisoners to talk is much more about rapport, cunning, cleverness and outsmarting the person than it is threatening, beating, inflicting pain and so on."

If you had listened to the the guy who administered the use of EITs at Gitmo, you'd know that is what they did. They employed a "good cop-bad cop" paradigm allowing them to avoid experiencing any kind of EITs altogether in building rapport. Seems you'd also know, by now, this Senate Intelligence report was politically motivated to the extent that they ignored most of what happened and focused almost entirely on those things they though they could use as a cudgel in excoriating the CIA. It was little more than a Di Fi vendetta for breeching her computer's security.

It's a distinction without a difference. The dynamic is still the same. The subject will tell the "good cop" whatever he thinks they want to hear to make the "enhanced interrogation techiques" stop. He doesn't want "bad cop" to come back.

And the Senate report merely reaffirmed what experts have said for decades.

[TheBlueVue 177]

Save the "but the Bible says" argument and "it destroys the psyche of individuals" arguments and let the terrorists reap what they deserve. If terrorists can kill a bunch of school kids, morals and sacred texts should go out the window for the interrogation process. As far as the third reason, what means of interrogation are more effective than torture that was not already tried?

With the terrorists using a text that urges them to enslave Christians and to kill all Jews, we're at a distinct disadvantage if we're using the Bible as our directive force and simply going to turn the other cheek.

False dilemma. There's a large swath of middle ground between torture and simply turning the other cheek that is permissible within a "just war" framework. Our only choices are not "sit by and do nothing" or "torture."

The problem here is you keep hyperventilating about torture and ignoring the fact TWO different Justice Depts thoroughly investigated everything that was done and, unlike you, neither concluded the practices employed constituted torture.

[TheBlueVue 177]

"Expert interrogators will tell you that getting prisoners to talk is much more about rapport, cunning, cleverness and outsmarting the person than it is threatening, beating, inflicting pain and so on."

If you had listened to the the guy who administered the use of EITs at Gitmo, you'd know that is what they did. They employed a "good cop-bad cop" paradigm allowing them to avoid experiencing any kind of EITs altogether in building rapport. Seems you'd also know, by now, this Senate Intelligence report was politically motivated to the extent that they ignored most of what happened and focused almost entirely on those things they though they could use as a cudgel in excoriating the CIA. It was little more than a Di Fi vendetta for breeching her computer's security.

The dynamic is still the same. The subject will tell the "good cop" whatever he thinks they want to hear to make the "enhanced interrogation techiques" stop.

And the Senate report merely reaffirmed what experts have said for decades.

"Expert interrogators will tell you that getting prisoners to talk is much more about rapport, cunning, cleverness and outsmarting the person than it is threatening, beating, inflicting pain and so on."

If you had listened to the the guy who administered the use of EITs at Gitmo, you'd know that is what they did. They employed a "good cop-bad cop" paradigm allowing them to avoid experiencing any kind of EITs altogether in building rapport. Seems you'd also know, by now, this Senate Intelligence report was politically motivated to the extent that they ignored most of what happened and focused almost entirely on those things they though they could use as a cudgel in excoriating the CIA. It was little more than a Di Fi vendetta for breeching her computer's security.

The dynamic is still the same. The subject will tell the "good cop" whatever he thinks they want to hear to make the "enhanced interrogation techiques" stop.

And the Senate report merely reaffirmed what experts have said for decades.

They got a helluva lot of intel about Al Qaeda from Khalid sheikh Mohammed. At that time, they knew virtually nothing about them but by the time they were done with him they knew their structure, how they raised money, who their leaders were and more.

[TitanTiger 20,472]

Save the "but the Bible says" argument and "it destroys the psyche of individuals" arguments and let the terrorists reap what they deserve. If terrorists can kill a bunch of school kids, morals and sacred texts should go out the window for the interrogation process. As far as the third reason, what means of interrogation are more effective than torture that was not already tried?

With the terrorists using a text that urges them to enslave Christians and to kill all Jews, we're at a distinct disadvantage if we're using the Bible as our directive force and simply going to turn the other cheek.

False dilemma. There's a large swath of middle ground between torture and simply turning the other cheek that is permissible within a "just war" framework. Our only choices are not "sit by and do nothing" or "torture."

The problem here is you keep hyperventilating about torture and ignoring the fact TWO different Justice Depts thoroughly investigated everything that was done and, unlike you, neither concluded the practices employed constituted torture.

The problem here is that you keep making the mistake that "legal" and "moral/ethical" are one in the same.

I could also point out the silliness of the US investigating itself for wrongdoing, but that would just be piling on.

[aujeff11 6,243]

does building a rapport with terrorists include releasing them for POW's? I'm sure that is really effective

[TitanTiger 20,472]

They got a helluva lot of intel about Al Qaeda from Khalid sheikh Mohammed. At that time, they knew virtually nothing about them but by the time they were done with him they knew their structure, how they raised money, who their leaders were and more.

The CIA's own records say different:

The CIA waterboarded its gold-star detainee, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, mastermind of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, 183 times in a single month to force him to reveal potential further strikes, according to the Senate's 500-page report Tuesday on CIA interrogation techniques.

The campaign — which also included tactics with such evocative names as "rectal rehydration" and "attention grab" — was largely fruitless and took place while the CIA plotted to block FBI access to Mohammed, the report says...

"Within just three or four days, the on-site medical officer concluded that waterboarding was ineffective, according to the report, because Mohammed, knowing interrogators couldn't afford to let him die, "figured out a way to deal" with it — an assessment that even some of Mohammed's interrogators quickly reached.

One interrogator reported informing superiors that the harsh techniques weren't working and complained that "I'm ostracized whenever I suggest [Mohammed and another detainee] did not tell us everything. How dare I think KSM was holding back."

And Mohammed wasn't just holding back, according to the report. He was outright lying, sending U.S. operatives on wild goose chases. Dozens of times, the report describes information the CIA promoted as "critical" as having been "fabricated," "unfounded" or "not supported by internal CIA records."

http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/cia-torture-report/rectal-hydration-inside-cias-interrogation-khalid-sheikh-mohammed-n265016

does building a rapport with terrorists include releasing them for POW's? I'm sure that is really effective

If you'd like to offer a question or comment that isn't a non-sequitur, I'm all ears.

[TheBlueVue 177]

Save the "but the Bible says" argument and "it destroys the psyche of individuals" arguments and let the terrorists reap what they deserve. If terrorists can kill a bunch of school kids, morals and sacred texts should go out the window for the interrogation process. As far as the third reason, what means of interrogation are more effective than torture that was not already tried?

With the terrorists using a text that urges them to enslave Christians and to kill all Jews, we're at a distinct disadvantage if we're using the Bible as our directive force and simply going to turn the other cheek.

False dilemma. There's a large swath of middle ground between torture and simply turning the other cheek that is permissible within a "just war" framework. Our only choices are not "sit by and do nothing" or "torture."

The problem here is you keep hyperventilating about torture and ignoring the fact TWO different Justice Depts thoroughly investigated everything that was done and, unlike you, neither concluded the practices employed constituted torture.

The problem here is that you keep making the mistake that "legal" and "moral/ethical" are one in the same.

I could also point out the silliness of the US investigating itself for wrongdoing, but that would just be piling on.

When a mortal enemy kills 3000 innocent American people in one day, Im not that interested in the moral dilemmas of torture.

[TitanTiger 20,472]

When a mortal enemy kills 3000 innocent American people in one day, Im not that interested in the moral dilemmas of torture.

Well, given that one of the ways that you can say that you're better than them is that you adhere to moral and ethical standards while they don't, I am interested.

[aujeff11 6,243]

Save the "but the Bible says" argument and "it destroys the psyche of individuals" arguments and let the terrorists reap what they deserve. If terrorists can kill a bunch of school kids, morals and sacred texts should go out the window for the interrogation process. As far as the third reason, what means of interrogation are more effective than torture that was not already tried?

With the terrorists using a text that urges them to enslave Christians and to kill all Jews, we're at a distinct disadvantage if we're using the Bible as our directive force and simply going to turn the other cheek.

False dilemma. There's a large swath of middle ground between torture and simply turning the other cheek that is permissible within a "just war" framework. Our only choices are not "sit by and do nothing" or "torture."

The problem here is you keep hyperventilating about torture and ignoring the fact TWO different Justice Depts thoroughly investigated everything that was done and, unlike you, neither concluded the practices employed constituted torture.

The problem here is that you keep making the mistake that "legal" and "moral/ethical" are one in the same.

I could also point out the silliness of the US investigating itself for wrongdoing, but that would just be piling on.

When a mortal enemy kills 3000 innocent American people in one day, Im not that interested in the moral dilemmas of torture.

exactly, let dirty Harry do his damn Job.

[AUDub 11,147]

"He who fights monsters should see to it that he himself does not become a monster."

- Friedrich Nietzsche

[TheBlueVue 177]

They got a helluva lot of intel about Al Qaeda from Khalid sheikh Mohammed. At that time, they knew virtually nothing about them but by the time they were done with him they knew their structure, how they raised money, who their leaders were and more.

The CIA's own records say different:

The CIA waterboarded its gold-star detainee, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, mastermind of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, 183 times in a single month to force him to reveal potential further strikes, according to the Senate's 500-page report Tuesday on CIA interrogation techniques.

The campaign — which also included tactics with such evocative names as "rectal rehydration" and "attention grab" — was largely fruitless and took place while the CIA plotted to block FBI access to Mohammed, the report says...

"Within just three or four days, the on-site medical officer concluded that waterboarding was ineffective, according to the report, because Mohammed, knowing interrogators couldn't afford to let him die, "figured out a way to deal" with it — an assessment that even some of Mohammed's interrogators quickly reached.

One interrogator reported informing superiors that the harsh techniques weren't working and complained that "I'm ostracized whenever I suggest [Mohammed and another detainee] did not tell us everything. How dare I think KSM was holding back."

And Mohammed wasn't just holding back, according to the report. He was outright lying, sending U.S. operatives on wild goose chases. Dozens of times, the report describes information the CIA promoted as "critical" as having been "fabricated," "unfounded" or "not supported by internal CIA records."

http://www.nbcnews.c...ohammed-n265016

does building a rapport with terrorists include releasing them for POW's? I'm sure that is really effective

If you'd like to offer a question or comment that isn't a non-sequitur, I'm all ears.

There is a lot of emphasis on water boarding but it was NOT that widely used. I have no problem with whatever they did though. I saw the interview with the guy who administered the entire program. Nobody has ever said mistakes weren't made and somethings taken too far but Im not that concerned with criticizing them 13 years later strictly for political reasons. Surely, you're not suggesting the entire thing was not politically motivated are you? Why did they choose NOT to talk to anybody with the CIA? I mean a terrorist has a day in court, in fact, they recently concluded the trial of one of the guys responsible for the Benghazi attack. If allegations are going to be leveled, Im of the opinion those accused of wrongdoing should have an opportunity to defend themselves. That's all. I also believe a lot of valuable information was gotten from those detainees and I also believe lives were saved. I understand you do not.

[TitanTiger 20,472]

There is a lot of emphasis on water boarding but it was NOT that widely used.

183 times on one guy is a pretty large amount of waterboarding for so,etching not used that much. But regardless, congrats on another random cherry picking episode. I never limited this to waterboarding.

I have no problem with whatever they did though. I saw the interview with the guy who administered the entire program. Nobody has ever said mistakes weren't made and somethings taken too far but Im not that concerned with criticizing them 13 years later strictly for political reasons.

I do. Not only was it mostly a waste of time and resources, but perhaps you noticed that about 25% of the people they did this stuff to were innocent? I'd think anyone that believes themselves to be ethical or moral at all would have a problem with that.

Surely, you're not suggesting the entire thing was not politically motivated are you? Why did they choose NOT to talk to anybody with the CIA? I mean a terrorist has a day in court, in fact, they recently concluded the trial of one of the guys responsible for the Benghazi attack. If allegations are going to be leveled, Im of the opinion those accused of wrongdoing should have an opportunity to defend themselves. That's all. I also believe a lot of valuable information was gotten from those detainees and I also believe lives were saved. I understand you do not.

Well the difference is, the facts back me up. Supposition is all you've got.

[TheBlueVue 177]

There is a lot of emphasis on water boarding but it was NOT that widely used.

183 times on one guy is a pretty large amount of waterboarding for so,etching not used that much. But regardless, congrats on another random cherry picking episode. I never limited this to waterboarding.

I have no problem with whatever they did though. I saw the interview with the guy who administered the entire program. Nobody has ever said mistakes weren't made and somethings taken too far but Im not that concerned with criticizing them 13 years later strictly for political reasons.

I do. Not only was it mostly a waste of time and resources, but perhaps you noticed that about 25% of the people they did this stuff to were innocent? I'd think anyone that believes themselves to be ethical or moral at all would have a problem with that.

Surely, you're not suggesting the entire thing was not politically motivated are you? Why did they choose NOT to talk to anybody with the CIA? I mean a terrorist has a day in court, in fact, they recently concluded the trial of one of the guys responsible for the Benghazi attack. If allegations are going to be leveled, Im of the opinion those accused of wrongdoing should have an opportunity to defend themselves. That's all. I also believe a lot of valuable information was gotten from those detainees and I also believe lives were saved. I understand you do not.

Well the difference is, the facts back me up. Supposition is all you've got.

The facts huh? you kill me dude, you're hilarious. THREE different guys were water boarded which BTW, was not illegal. If it was, one or both Justice Depts under Bush and/or Obama would have concluded that it was. I dont have a problem with it. Obviously you do. Thats fine and just another of every other thing that we disagree on. I simply see NOTHING gained from releasing that report...NOTHING except Di Fi got to pick her bone with the CIA and she did as she loses her Chairmanship of the Senate Intel Committee and with it, if not now, the opportunity to present her moral outrage later. They've had this info in its entirety for over 8 years but felt no compulsion until now to release it.

No system is perfect. They were under intense pressure. That is not speculation or conjecture...that is fact. If they made mistakes, they reported them and I have NO PROBLEM overlooking them given the context of the situation. By contrast, you seemingly prefer quoting scripture and kvetching about the treatment of a few who were a party to the worst most heinous attack against America on American soil in history. Im not. At that point you can have your moral high ground. Im more interested in doing everything possible in the name of national security. After all, that IS the federal govts #1 responsibility.

[TitanTiger 20,472]

The facts huh? you kill me dude, you're hilarious. THREE different guys were water boarded which BTW, was not illegal.

Once again, for the slow: I never limited this to waterboarding, you did in some attempt to make a point no one cared about. Secondly, I've never once made an argument about legality. That is another distraction you wish to keep fanning the flames of.

No system is perfect. They were under intense pressure. That is not speculation or conjecture...that is fact. If they made mistakes, they reported them and I have NO PROBLEM overlooking them given the context of the situation. By contrast, you seemingly prefer quoting scripture and kvetching about the treatment of a few who were a party to the worst most heinous attack against America on American soil in history. Im not. At that point you can have your moral high ground. Im more interested in doing everything possible in the name of national security. After all, that IS the federal govts #1 responsibility.

See, I think subjecting one out of four people who were innocent to the stuff mentioned in this report as a real problem. You may believe that's acceptable collateral damage, I do not.

And amazingly, I can point out the moral and ethical problems that come with this sort of tactic AND see that there are far better ways of getting the info you we want to protect American lives.

[homersapien 11,367]

Very disheartening-- particularly the breakdown along religious lines:

http://dish.andrewsu...d-love-torture/

We are a country that has lost it's way.

Notice the only group who thinks torture is not justified. Hmmmmm....

[homersapien 11,367]

There's also this mistaken notion that to be opposed to torture signals some sort of sympathy for terrorists. It has nothing to do with that. I think the terrorists are evil. My (and others') opposition both moral and practical.

1. I believe it is against everything the Jesus/Bible teaches.

2. I believe that performing torture on another human, however despicable that human may be, damages the soul/psyche of the person doing it.

3. It does not give us the best, most reliable and useful intel which ostensibly is the whole point of doing this sort of stuff in the first place.

Even if you disagree with the first two, the last point should be enough. Do what really works and doesn't waste precious time, effort and people chasing down idiotic stuff a person under extreme duress says because he thinks it's what you want to hear.

Excellent points and well stated!

And #2 applies to a nation, especially regarding it's status and respect in the world.

[AURaptor 1,122]

Of course, the premise that we actually DID torture anyone is beyond absurd. If anything, we toned down the water boarding after the very first session, because it WAS excessive.

No electrodes to genitals. No bamboo shoots under fingernails. No broken knee caps. No clipped off fingers , ears or noses.

We didn't do anything to those who want to murder 1000's of Americans that we don't also do to our own soldiers.

It wasn't torture.