Does Torture Work? The C.I.A.’s Claims and What the Committee Found

Like I've said, the victim of torture will give you the information you want if he has it. But you have to wade through all the other stuff, and find out if he had the right intel to begin with because he'll say anything he thinks the torturer wants to hear.

So even if there is good information in there, it isn't an effective way to get it.

 

That's the same story with all human intel, which I agree is inefficient but sometimes it proves invaluable.

Also, are we talking about proper torture, or are we talking about playing loud music, saying mean things, and scaring them with waterboarding? It makes a difference.

 

Torture works despite the current mantra of a specific kind of torture failing. It's just the current context lies with intel gathering which is a damn slippery slope for widening its use to less urgent things with the underlying motivation for promoting fear, oppression and compliance.

The key here for how torture works is breaking down the individual and stripping the person of his individuality and humanity. It's an attrition of time. It's a matter of when, not if. Anyone reading this should be terrified of the thought. In that tangible fear, maybe comes courage?

I read this heavy paper on how the Iran police state treats its intellectual dissidents. 1984 **** right there. And the most fearsome tactic, "white torture" could easily fall under the mid 2000's definition of "enhanced interrogation".

http://www.hrw.org/reports/2004/iran0604/5.htm

The "bleeding heart" here, which is a ****ing r****ded mouth breathing "us or them" pigeonhole definition, is whether we want to be associated what police states like Iran does.

This transcends politics even though parties pick it up. 20 years ago, "right wing" militias were worried about a growing government and the police state it implies. They would've gone ape**** at the hint of torture, assuming they had the Constitution in their breastpocket and the line about cruel and unusual punishment. There maybe perverse satisfaction that it's only done on foreigners, but these guys are untrusting lot when it comes to the government. They'd likely think, "Well maybe they're practicing it for us."

Pretty damn interesting how the political landscape shifted with Dub****. Foreign intervention, government expansion of law enforcement and intelligence, and this.

But let's just assume "bleeding heart" arose out the amnesiatic post-Bush era and everything is all simple and squared.

 

Dear guys who have never seen this. You are welcome

Spoiler

<embed src="http://media.mtvnservices.com/mgid:uma:video:mtv.com:401525/cp~vid%3D401525%26uri%3Dmgid%3Auma%3Avideo%3Amtv.com%3A401525" width="512" height="288" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowFullScreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" base="."></embed><div style="margin:0px;padding:4px;width:500px;text-align:center;font-family:Verdana,sans-serif;font-size:12px;"><a href="http://www.mtv.com/ontv/" style="color:#439CD8;" target="_blank">MTV Shows</a></div>

 

No you said it depended on their past actions. Read your own post - you said that due to past acts of brutality, somebody forfeited the right to not be tortured.

You're ok with torture. Use the word. Own it.

 

Well I've never considered loud or obnoxious movement as really being torture. But waterboarding is certainly torture. I'm reticent to talk about it because now we have a bunch of people denying torture is torture.

 

All I need to know is ho bag Feinstein played a major role in the investigation which means it's full of crap.

I agree with howard stern on this issue.

 

Another profoundly informed take.

I don't think any of the torture monkeys in this thread has read a single word or summary of the report.

Do you have any idea what "documentary evidence" is? I mean unless you're alleging a massive conspiracy involving half of the Central Intelligence Agency, the Senate Democrats on the Intelligence Committee, and members of the Bush Administration, extending over 10 years - there's nothing to doubt the credibility of the documentary evidence presented.

Are you that dumb or just lazy?

 

I just can't get over people calling it "enhanced interrogation." LOL


Now, the American-suburban culture of "everything is awesome" truly does apply to everything.

 

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/-vzQqsRBD68?list=UU1yBKRuGpC1tSM73A0ZjYjQ" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

I don't usually like to play the jaded cynic. But, your faith here strikes me as quite naive. When Yoo wrote the memos to authorize torture in the first place, they didn't tell us about it. They didn't tell us about extraordinary renditions. They didn't tell us about their domestic spy program. The point I'm making is not that we continue to torture -- I have no idea if we do or not -- only that we have no effective means of oversight at all. All we have is the word of the President. There is no transparency (Senate oversight, lol), and even when things are disclosed there is no efficacious mechanism to bring accountability (impeachment, lol). The only check we have on misconduct by the executive (on torture or whatever else) is his own moral character.

 

i can read just fine, which is why i said there is virtually nothing coming out now that we already did not know.

as for your question, it is such a pointless exercise...the 24 scenario is made-up TV garbage that has absolutely no bearing on reality.

"we have this guy and he might know something about this big attack that might be going down so we have to shove a broomstick dipped in battery acid up his poop-shoot or los angeles will be destroyed." its literally a one-in-a-billion type scenario.

remember the dean of westpoint actually went to the producers of 24 and told them to tone it down because the show was having a negative effect on our military.

im not uncomfortable with the question nor do i find it interesting.

 

torture is never an effective way to gain intel. virtually all experts in the field agree that it is counterproductive.

its unnecessary b/c the definitions were pretty cut and dry until the cheney administration came along and had its attorneys change the definition of torture to only include acts that result in organ failure or death...and even then, if they "accidentally" beat someone to death then it was not torture...because it was an "accident".

like i said in my initial post, these are sick f***s who need to be held accountable for their crimes.

 

this brings up another issue i have, which is the media totally whitewashing what was going on.

they paint it like it was just loud music, sleep deprivation and slapping...the reality is that it was rape, sexual assault and murder.

like when the abu grahib story broke and you had rush limbaugh saying it was just fraternity pranks and womens underwear on peoples heads when it was again, rape, sexual assault and murder.

all done in our name.

 

There is also a bunch of evidence that people who torture quickly lose their way. We have intentionally created a group of people with a warped view of human rights. Does anyone think most of those involved in Abu Ghraib would have acted like that had they not been in that environment?

 

Nobody told us about the Torture memos, of course they stayed secret for maybe 2 years or less, and began to be rescinded prior to even the end of Bush's first term.

If there's still secret torture memos in place I'd be very surprised.

 

All that and you still didn't answer the question. Interesting.

 

Isn't that what happened with al-Kuwaiti? I remember watching a special on how they captured Osama and they said his name came up in interrogations often, but they could never verify it and assumed it was bs. Eventually, they caught the guy on a cell phone by almost sheer luck because they (alQaida) had been so diligent with their methods up until that point.

 

That's simply not true, sometimes it works, hell sometimes it's the only thing that would work.....that said those instances are rare. Human intel is always shaky at best, human intel gathered via "enhanced interrogation" or even proper torture is even more shaky. To say that it's never an effective way to gain intel is just simply inaccurate though.

That's an inaccurate and partisan statement. I don't feel I have to elaborate.

I'm sure there were abuses, but they weren't as widespread as you are making it out to be. Most of it was playing loud music, sleep deprivation, mind games, and simulated drowning.

Just to reiterate, that doesn't mean that there weren't abuses, in fact I'll bold that so the next comment isn't something stupid like "so you're saying that they never did anything wrong?". That said, my heart doesn't exactly bleed for terrorist assholes being violated by nightsticks.


Just my 2 cents.