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

Your righteousness in hindsight is noted.

We had just been attacked. We did not know when/where the next attack would occur.

We had captured high level AQ assets that had actionable intelligence on future attacks. We needed that information.

We asked the JD to provide a legal opinion on the limits of what interrogation methods could be used to extract intelligence. They issued that opinion, classifying detainees as enemy combatants who did not abide by internationally recognized rules of warfare.

We acted on that opinion and gained actionable intelligence that stopped future attacks, including the capture of Bin Laden.

KSM is sitting comfortably today in a jail cell, unmaimed from the "torture" we administered on him. Whatever was done to him was done not out of cruelty or revenge, but to gain intelligence that would protect American lives, which it did.

Most Americans understand this intuitively, and that's why this line of political attack has never found any traction among the public.

They also understand the difference between pouring water on someone's mouth, or stress positions, or sleep deprivation versus cutting off limbs, drilling holes in people, etc.

 

You avoided all of my questions. Let me reroute you.

What is that difference exactly?

This is the definition of torture according to the U.S.C.

Please tell me how freezing somebody to death is different from torture.

Also, given that I've posted an article from a FBI agent who claims using conventional interrogation methods gained more accurate and actionable information---would you care to offer definitive proof that torture can help unzip more mouths---accurately?

It'll be hard given that same article unleashes a torrent of lies from the CIA.

BTW--

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/List_of_misquotations

The actual quote is as follows:

Perhaps your nagging thought should be this: you claim to uphold the rule of law, yet your deviations from established laws are only in association with your need to protest your own paltry fiduciary losses--when it comes to the death and suffering of others, some of whom are complete innocents (as has happened in numerous cases with CIA scoop-ups and mistaken names), your standard for what qualifies as government abuse is markedly higher.

Unfortunate that you live in a nation of laws and not of men.

-The Dame Ayn Rand

 

it really does not take a strong sense of righteousness and principles to be against torture. you must have really, really low standards when it comes to being a human being.

your new question has nothing to do with the thread, but ill reply anyway. if my family or friend was in imminent danger or if a burglar broke into my house i would not have a problem doing everything i could to neutralize that threat. but that has nothing to do with the thread, so again, your question is pointless.

and in most states, including my own, you have a right to defend yourself from deadly threats or home invaders.

again, this has absolutely nothing to do with torture or your original question so im not really sure what you are trying to do here.

 

Just to highlight how ridiculous this comparison yo made is.

Yes, we'd do everything we could to save our family, including unleashing unnecessary, sadistic levels of violence for no reason, waiting 47 days to do it, then lying about the corpse we'd left to authorities.

Oh, and we'd pocket a $2500 bonus.

 

http://www.npr.org/2014/12/12/37026...nt-work-in-the-real-world-tv-has-us-convinced

 

You're trying really hard to rationalize torture which is something that is wrong.

There is no way to rationalize it. It doesn't matter what intel the prisoner has, and it doesn't matter if we were just attacked and under threat of another attack. Torture should never be rationalized.

All of the reasons you mentioned though are actually reasons not to torture, since it would be far better to something that would be more effective at gaining actionable intel.

 

The U.S. soldiers who suffered from Waterboarding during WWII understand that it is absolutely torture.

 

Good posts Jo Mama. People need to remember that 24 is fictional but for the sake of hypothetical argument let's say a 24 situation were really to arise. Where literally you had one day to figure out how where to find a nuke in an US city yes probably any means necessary including torture would be used. In such an extraordinary and highly unlikely event we do have a system of laws that would allow someone to present that argument in front of a judge and jury for why they felt they had to take such extraordinary steps. The problem though with how torture was used by the CIA isn't that we were dealing with 24 situations but that they were using them in many cases as fishing expeditions just to see what they might find.

The problem though is making a policy for allowing for torture means that it will be less likely used for the most extreme, and unlikely situations, but that it will be used for many other situations including just as punishment.

As others have noted torture doesn't work as an effective means of getting information. The fact that CIA lied about the effectiveness of it in a few cases shows that. Leaving aside the moral issues that alone should be reason to not have a policy for allowing it.

 

You've got a long history here as someone who has distrusted government power in favor of the individual. And not without good reason. Yet you seem very willing to empower the government to undertake some of the grossest violations of human rights and dignity.

 

so did the japanese officers that we executed for ordering waterboarding of U.S. soldiers.

 

The Warren Commission said that it was a single shooter, thus that must be the case.

 

Yes. That was back when patriotic Americans and America itself stood against torture.

 

Ok, let's take that hypothetical. I'm the kind of guy who would plant a nuke that would kill a million people tomorrow. I'm caught and interrogated. First, because I did this, I'm nuts and believe in my cause and am willing and expecting to die for it, so much so that any torture you inflict will make me stronger over a short period. Second, I know I only have to resist until the bomb goes off. I'm not the kind of guy that is going to give it up easily. Third, I know I can feed you false info and it will take time for you to check it out, so I can give you stuff that would be impossible to fully investigate in such a short time frame, like say, a passenger van driving around town. You are not breaking me in such a short time with torture. You may though, break me by appealing to my long buried humanity or by threats to my family or something. The only hope you have is through psychology, not physical torture. Torture is stupid and unAmerican as is any argument that posits a rationale for using it.

 

Exactly. A tortured person with the 24 hour nuclear bomb scenario only has to give false info. The torture stops and then time expires and the bomb goes off.

We know there are better ways to get intel. There is never a situation where torture would be the best way to get intel.

On top of that it doesn't matter because it's wrong to do it, and should never be done.

 

Yes you raise an excellent point and one reason why 24 is fiction. My point isn't to argue for torture but only that if some extraordinary and highly unlikely situation were to arise the course of action should be if you feel torture is the only recourse then you should also be willing to stand before a judge and jury to justify it rather than change laws and policy to make it acceptable practice.

 

Meanwhile Dick Cheney has no regrets about any of it including the ones that were wrongfully held. He also says that PResident GW Bush knew all the details.

http://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-pre...on-tactics-i-would-do-it-again-minute-n268041

Cheney on Interrogation Tactics: 'I Would Do It Again in a Minute'

Former Vice President Dick Cheney on Sunday continued his fierce defense of harsh CIA interrogation tactics used in the wake of the 9/11 attacks, saying flatly that he "would do it again in a minute."

Cheney said there is "no comparison" between the tactics and the deaths of American citizens on September 11, 2001, adding that the CIA "very carefully avoided" the practice of torture.

"Torture is what the al Qaeda terrorists did to 3,000 Americans on 9/11," Cheney said on NBC's Meet The Press. "There is no comparison between that and what we did with respect to enhanced interrogation."

The former vice president added that he was not concerned about the capture or interrogation of foreign nationals who were ultimately revealed to be innocent.

"I have no problem as long as we achieve our objective and our objective is to get the guys who did 9/11 and it is to avoid another attack against the United States," he said.

The comments come after the release of a lengthy report spearheaded by Democrats on the Senate Intelligence Committee. That document asserted that interrogation tactics used on terror suspects were more brutal than previously known.

Pressed by host Chuck Todd about whether the practice of "rectal rehydration" was acceptable, Cheney acknowledged that it was not part of the interrogation program. But, he added, "I believe it was done for medical reasons" -- a notion that has been questioned by medical experts.

The former vice president also hit back against the report's claim that President George W. Bush was misled about the extent of the practices.

"This man knew what we were doing," he said, outlining daily briefings that included the president, the CIA director and himself. "He authorized it. He approved it."

 

Well....it was. Not sure where this analogy's going.

Honestly, this back and forth over scenarios where torture might be acceptable is the equivalent of how many angels can dance on a pin. There are instances where it's acceptable to limit free speech, but we understand that it should be done as little and limited as possible. That was not the case with the CIA.

 

It's so strange that someone who has made much of his adult life about serving in the government for the U.S. has no idea of the basic principals behind our justice system and innocents etc.

Cheney is a really crappy person, and a horrible example of an American.

 

well said. in the billion-to-one chance that it played out like an episode of 24 it would probably end up going down like this.

unless you are doing it strictly for revenge or to extract the confession you want to hear then torture is pretty pointless.

and yes, dick cheney is a total scumbag who should be executed for war crimes.