Waterboard This...

[Leonhard]

I didn't say the information was necessarily unique,

That would in fact be an admission that the techniques were useless as they added zero value.

From what I understand that wasn't about results but methods. Which may have been quite brutal.

That makes shredding the tapes unjustifiable. If it was simply to hide what was done, and not to protect state secrets, then shredding them were a crime.

[seanD]

I didn't say the information was necessarily unique, only that the methods often worked. And he didn't have to save his ass, what he did was legal at the time. And since when do you buy into Senate reports?

I would buy into a senate report much more so than a CIA report, especially considering that's the only record we have of what went on, and especially considering senator Reps typically shill for the intelligence community. If the senate report reflected badly on the CIA's actions, that tells me those actions were deeply sinister, probably much more so than what was reported.

[seer]

That would in fact be an admission that the techniques were useless as they added zero value.

No, because everything I read information was gotten more quickly. Other methods take much longer. So if is time sensitive...

That makes shredding the tapes unjustifiable. If it was simply to hide what was done, and not to protect state secrets, then shredding them were a crime.

Well we really don't know, do we...

[seer]

I would buy into a senate report much more so than a CIA report, especially considering that's the only record we have of what went on, and especially considering senator Reps typically shill for the intelligence community. If the senate report reflected badly on the CIA's actions, that tells me those actions were deeply sinister, probably much more so than what was reported.

Nonsense Sean, they were all covering their ass at that point, no way they would give any credence to enhanced methods.

[Leonhard]

No, because everything I read information was gotten more quickly.

By your own admission we have no way of knowing this. The only one who can tell us this are the CIA, and they are not unbiased as it would cost them. The Senate who is very friendly with the intelligence community had a report that reflected badly on the CIA.

Well we really don't know, do we

That's quite a turn about you're doing. You went from being sure that actionable information was gotten, to it being an open question.

[Leonhard]

Nonsense Sean, they were all covering their ass at that point, no way they would give any credence to enhanced methods.

Can you show me a disinterested third party study of the evidence, that shows that torture works?

[seanD]

Nonsense Sean, they were all covering their ass at that point, no way they would give any credence to enhanced methods.

What is the alternative? Should I believe an organization with a rogue history, an organization that destroyed physical evidence, an organization that ran black sites that have documented proof of inhumane and brutal torture activity, and a guy, who was getting paid millions of contract money from this same organization, claiming that the methods worked in spite of everything you've heard and have been told? I mean, are you seriously asking me that?

[demi-conservative]

The senate report states that info they received from the program wasn't unique from the info they got from other intelligence sources such as from that unconstitutional method the Patriot Act.

This is actually an argument for torture, that it's effective. Ideally all intelligence should be corroborated, and this just means that the intelligence from torturing was helpful to corroborate other intel sources.

[seanD]

This is actually an argument for torture, that it's effective. Ideally all intelligence should be corroborated, and this just means that the intelligence from torturing was helpful to corroborate other intel sources.

Well, then you'd have to weigh the worth of that intelligence. The report says that the info they obtained through the program didn't do anything to impede any imminent terrorist attacks. IMO, if it did nothing to prevent imminent terrorist threats, then why does it need to be corroborated that way?

You also have to consider in that equation that there were innocent folks who got swept up in all that. The report says they barely kept any records of who they had detained, and the records they did keep were grossly inaccurate. We also know from Lawrence Wilkerson that the Bush admin kept folks at gitmo they knew were innocent but kept quiet about it. In fact, he claims the majority of detainees were innocent. God only knows how many innocent folks CIA detained at their other black sites.

I don't know how anyone could make any sort of apologetic argument for CIA and torture, other than just ignorance about what all went all.

[Leonhard]

I don't know how anyone could make any sort of apologetic argument for CIA and torture, other than just ignorance about what all went all.

I think we have to look at it a bit more darkly. Some people enjoy the idea of "those people" getting tortured. Especially after 9/11, there was a dark lust for retribution.

[seanD]

I think we have to look at it a bit more darkly. Some people enjoy the idea of "those people" getting tortured. Especially after 9/11, there was a dark lust for retribution.

I definitely think those in charge got some sort of sick fetish fulfillment out of it, especially with all the weird sexual perversion surrounding it. We know this definitely happened at ghraib. But I think for the most part, folks are just ignorant about everything that went on because they haven't dug deep into the subject enough.

[demi-conservative]

Well, then you'd have to weigh the worth of that intelligence. The report says that the info they obtained through the program didn't do anything to impede any imminent terrorist attacks. IMO, if it did nothing to prevent imminent terrorist threats, then why does it need to be corroborated that way?

Hey, obviously torture intel won't impede much. If Al-Qaeda or whoever is half-competent, information will be compartmentalised especially with the known decentralised organisations. It's not likely to add more intel compared to other methods.

Some people just want a moral fig leaf for this being done in their name.

You also have to consider in that equation that there were innocent folks who got swept up in all that. The report says they barely kept any records of who they had detained, and the records they did keep were grossly inaccurate. We also know from Lawrence Wilkerson that the Bush admin kept folks at gitmo they knew were innocent but kept quiet about it. In fact, he claims the majority of detainees were innocent.

Probably this is true. And there's nothing you or I can do about it, so

[demi-conservative]

I think we have to look at it a bit more darkly. Some people enjoy the idea of "those people" getting tortured. Especially after 9/11, there was a dark lust for retribution.

This will be big news to some people, but human nature hasn't changed or progressed.

[seer]

By your own admission we have no way of knowing this. The only one who can tell us this are the CIA, and they are not unbiased as it would cost them. The Senate who is very friendly with the intelligence community had a report that reflected badly on the CIA.

Like I said Leonhard at that point everyone was covering their ass...

That's quite a turn about you're doing. You went from being sure that actionable information was gotten, to it being an open question.

I said nothing about actionable intelligence there.

[seer]

Can you show me a disinterested third party study of the evidence, that shows that torture works?

There were no disinterested third parties...