Do You Want Obama to pursue Prosecution For Torture

I will agree that there isn't a strong case that torture delivers the information. But what I am confused about is that if torture has no value in extracting intel, why do so many intelligence agencies across the world use and have used it since when? 100's of years?

It's like saying there's no evidence that Chinese medicine has validity, but yet people find that it works for them and helps them because hey, there's something to it after a few thousand years.

I just think taking it off the table as a means of extracting info would be handicapping our agencies. There might be cases when it's use is called upon, and we need to have that. I'm thinking of imminent threat type situations.

 

How many times does it have to be pointed out that interrogation experts have specifically said that torture is COUNTERPRODUCTIVE. In other words, torture nets us LESS reliable information than alternative methods of interrogation.

 

which experts? unbiased experts?

 

Countries have used it in the past because they assumed they could get good intel out of it. Other countries simply have sadistic bastards in them and no moral standards they have to comply with. Either way, the US military has studied the issue for decades and have found that torture doesn't work.

We stopped using it for two reasons. It doesn't work and it goes against our moral code. Why would you want to keep it on the table again? Oh, that's right, because it works on "24."

 

B-Bob's second reason (it's immoral) should be enough all by itself. I honestly don't understand why these conversations don't stop there. (Well, maybe I can guess, but I'm still curious what proponents have to say to rebut this argument.)

As to why people still do it if it doesn't provide good intelligence, I can guess at a couple reasons. One is that harsh interrogation techniques are akin to inflicting punishment on people you suspect of committing a crime. The torture is more about vengeance than intelligence gathering, and so some people would be inclined to do it even if it did not lead to good information. Another reason is that people desperately want all the information they can get because they desperately want to stop the perpetrators from acting again. I think our natural instinct is that if you put the screws to them they will talk, and it is harder to ignore your instinct than it is to ignore historical success.

 

Unbiased experts including the United States military. Do some reading, brah, it's fundamental.

http://www.military.com/news/article/exinterrogator-torture-doesnt--work.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A2302-2005Jan11.html

http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/1114/p09s01-coop.html

 

Could I just reiteriate my first point again?

We signed the Geneva convention. Look at articles 3 and 4 of the Geneva Convention. That alone....despite the moral issues, being counterproductive, or whatever.....is why we should not and....until W....did not torture.

http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/91.htm

 

The U.S. military, experts who were actually present and took part in the interrogations.

I'm sorry you've been asleep for so long.

 

With everything that is going on, I cannot imagine a scenario where a prosecution of this type would be good for the morale of the country. In fact, I believe that the nation would become more fractured than it has been since reconstruction.

In short, doing so at this point in history would be very short sighted.

 

Agreed, but Obama is all about scoring political points and boosting his image. It doesn't matter what is good for the country. Remember, this is the man that chose to work out at the Ritz Carlton in Germany instead of visiting the wounded troops in Landstuhl. It's all about image and superficiality -- it's what his voters value.

 

So much for the 'only used three times' claim that the apologists cling so strongly to.

[rquoter]
Khalid Sheikh Mohammed Was Waterboarded 183 Times in One Month

I've put this detail in a series of posts, but it really deserves a full post. According to the May 30, 2005 Bradbury memo, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was waterboarded 183 times in March 2003 and Abu Zubaydah was waterboarded 83 times in August 2002.

On page 37 of the OLC memo, in a passage discussing the differences between SERE techniques and the torture used with detainees, the memo explains:

<blockquote><i>The CIA used the waterboard "at least 83 times during August 2002" in the interrogation of Zubaydah. IG Report at 90, and 183 times during March 2003 in the interrogation of KSM, see id. at 91.</blockquote></i>

Note, the information comes from the CIA IG report which, in the case of Abu Zubaydah, is based on having viewed the torture tapes as well as other materials. So this is presumably a number that was once backed up by video evidence.

The same OLC memo passage explains how the CIA might manage to waterboard these men so many times in one month each (though even with these chilling numbers, the CIA's math doesn't add up).

<blockquote><i> ...where authorized, it may be used for two "sessions" per day of up to two hours. During a session, water may be applied up to six times for ten seconds or longer (but never more than 40 seconds). In a 24-hour period, a detainee may be subjected to up to twelve minutes of water appliaction. See id. at 42. Additionally, the waterboard may be used on as many as five days during a 30-day approval period.</blockquote></i>

So: two two-hour sessions a day, with six applications of the waterboard each = 12 applications in a day. Though to get up to the permitted 12 minutes of waterboarding in a day (with each use of the waterboard limited to 40 seconds), you'd need 18 applications in a day. Assuming you use the larger 18 applications in one 24-hour period, and do 18 applications on five days within a month, you've waterboarded 90 times--still just half of what they did to KSM.

The CIA wants you to believe waterboarding is effective. Yet somehow, it took them 183 applications of the waterboard in a one month period to get what they claimed was cooperation out of KSM.

That doesn't sound very effective to me.

[/rquoter]

 

Sorry, Ottomoton, but a kook fringe blog that counts every droplet of water touching a terrorist as 'waterboarding' isn't very convincing.


next...

 

So you think it is fair to describe official CIA documents as the product of 'a kook fringe blog'?

I'm sure employees of the CIA everywhere would be saddened and hurt that you think so little of them. Unless, of course, they followed your posts. In that case they would chuckle at your empty bluster like the rest of us.

 

In the time it took you to respond, I just waterboarded myself 67 times while washing my hands.


UNJUST

 

Ottomaton,

I agree that we should not have waterboarded Khalid Mohammed. We should have shot him...with a 50cal...in the balls.

 

that is not the point
The point being. . . the whole WE WERE JUST FOLLOWING ORDERS thing does not fly
If you in Violation . . .You in violation
whether it is condone by YOUR government or not.

How can Americans expect other countries to follow the rules
when we cannot?

Rocket River

 

If you decide to 'put him down' that is one thing. But sadism for the sake of revenge degrades you, not him.

 

You and I will never see eye to eye on this.

 

So is the power to extrajudicially shoot people in the nuts for the express purpose of maximizing suffering reserved only for the USA? Or do you support it, for instance, when Russia does it or Iran does it?

 

not saying this to you - more in general - but i find it strange when practicing conservative "christians" commend actions like torture, seeing as it's such a blatant affront to one of the basics tenets of christianity.