Waterboard This...

[seanD]

The enhanced interrogation techniques, the euphemism for torture techniques, did produce corpses. But that is not the main problem, with policies endorsing the use of torture.

The tensions between liberty and security, are we willing to crush a child's testicles to coerce the father to reveal information is an example of a line few would cross, the ticking time bomb scenario shows a line many are willing to cross.

Abu Ghraib is an example of the other extreme, little was accomplished and American interests were affected, military discipline collapsed along with the military police reserve unit's effectiveness.

I would say waterboarding is the euphemism, because they did far more things than waterboarding. They got downright medieval, and even implications of weird sexual perversion, sadomasochism and rape. But everyone uses PR term waterboarding like that's supposed to be the real issue.

[simplicio]

I would say waterboarding is the euphemism, because they did far more things than waterboarding. They got downright medieval, and even implications of weird sexual perversion, sadomasochism and rape. But everyone uses PR term waterboarding like that's supposed to be the real issue.

Waterboarding is probably the most well known of the techniques used, it is putting a towel over the face and pouring water over it, for the purpose of drowning. It plays the central role in discussions about torture because it does lay bare all the ambiguities and controversies over torture.

Waterboarding is not always wrong, we waterboard service members for training, so it is not absolutely wrong. And torture is not necessarily ineffective, it can and does produce results.

There is a continuum, the benign techniques of interrogation to use of long sessions of questioning which the police use today, harsher techniques of bright lights, then techniques ruled illegal such as third degree techniques (sleep deprivations of forty eight hours, repeatedly hanging, beatings, hunger).

I think the arguments against torture largely hinge on questions of morality, arguments for it hinge largely on pragmatism.

[seanD]

Waterboarding is probably the most well known of the techniques used, it is putting a towel over the face and pouring water over it, for the purpose of drowning. It plays the central role in discussions about torture because it does lay bare all the ambiguities and controversies over torture.

Waterboarding is not always wrong, we waterboard service members for training, so it is not absolutely wrong. And torture is not necessarily ineffective, it can and does produce results.

There is a continuum, the benign techniques of interrogation to use of long sessions of questioning which the police use today, harsher techniques of bright lights, then techniques ruled illegal such as third degree techniques (sleep deprivations of forty eight hours, repeatedly hanging, beatings, hunger).

I think the arguments against torture largely hinge on questions of morality, arguments for it hinge largely on pragmatism.

The bold is absolutely false and I can't believe there are those still using that canard. It doesn't take a genius to figure out the person getting tortured is going to say whatever his torturer wants to hear to get them to stop. In spite of CIA talking points to justify it, this has been debunked by experts. Harsh police interrogations haven't always been reliable either, and have been shown to get false confessions just based on psychological tactics, much less physical pain. I advise you to read the senate report on torture. But it's a long one.

[simplicio]

The bold is absolutely false and I can't believe there are those still using that canard. It doesn't take a genius to figure out the person getting tortured is going to say whatever his torturer wants to hear to get them to stop. In spite of CIA talking points to justify it, this has been debunked by experts. Harsh police interrogations haven't always been reliable either, and have been shown to get false confessions just based on psychological tactics, much less physical pain. I advise you to read the senate report on torture. But it's a long one.

Which underscores my point about the difficulties in assessing torture and waterboarding.

It is like the difference between killing and murder, killing is not absolutely or objectively wrong, the discussions involve the dividing lime between killing and murder.

The use of waterboarding in training, to prepare airmen for any possible torture they may face, has some advocates. In that capacity it is not used as an interrogation technique.

We allow some techniques in police interrogations, effective means to induce confessions.

I am not advocating the harsh interrogation techniques, but noting the continuum makes it hard to define the line between legal and illegal, moral and immoral. Keeping a suspect up a half hour past his bedtime is hardly harsh and coercive, but 36 hours without sleep is. Five hours between meals is not harsh but 36 hours without food has been deemed illegal and immoral. It is for these reasons that I think the topic will always be evolving, just as punishments for crimes change with the times; traitors are no longer drawn and quartered.

I have read a bit on it, because I remember the discussions on it when McCain was the (almost) sole voice against it. At the time, I disagreed with McCain. I have since changed my stance. The reasons and well as the reasoning behind errors are important, they give insight on how to choose a right course of action.

[seer]

I would say waterboarding is the euphemism, because they did far more things than waterboarding. They got downright medieval, and even implications of weird sexual perversion, sadomasochism and rape. But everyone uses PR term waterboarding like that's supposed to be the real issue.

No Sean, the OP is speaking of waterboarding and other "enhanced" measures like sleep derivation. These are the only things that James Mitchell was involved in, as far as I know. Of course there were black sites where some of this other stuff happened.

[seer]

In spite of CIA talking points to justify it, this has been debunked by experts.

That is just false, they did work and often. You want experts, read James Mitchell's book, and he was an expert. They got a lot of actionable intelligence. Of course the Senate was going to come to a different conclusion - no one at that point was going to justify it on any level.

[Leonhard]

That is just false, they did work and often. You want experts, read James Mitchell's book, and he was an expert. They got a lot of actionable intelligence. Of course the Senate was going to come to a different conclusion - no one at that point was going to justify it on any level.

If the evidence so clearly supports the CIA, why did they shred it?

[simplicio]

If the evidence so clearly supports the CIA, why did they shred it?

But that is part of the problem, torture is effective in many cases. Many can bravely assert that they can resist tortures, but no one knows just how long they can withstand it.

That is from the perspective of the potential victim. From the perspective of the perpetrators, it yields false data sometimes. People do confess to things not true, there have been several cases of prisoners freed on DNA evidence in spite of the coerced confession. And those examples do not use the most extreme forms lf coercion

I would guess that the documents were shredded to obscure how widespread it was.

[Leonhard]

But that is part of the problem, torture is effective in many cases... I would guess that the documents were shredded to obscure how widespread it was.

Then why shred them if it was effective?

[simplicio]

Then why shred them if it was effective?

Because torture is controversial. If it was widespread, it would have been a propaganda victory for our enemies, Abu Ghraib is an example.

[Leonhard]

But that is part of the problem, torture is effective in many cases.

What verifiable evidence do we have of this?

[seanD]

That is just false, they did work and often. You want experts, read James Mitchell's book, and he was an expert. They got a lot of actionable intelligence. Of course the Senate was going to come to a different conclusion - no one at that point was going to justify it on any level.

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. Assuming Mitchell isn't just an intelligence shill or was flailing to save his own behind, you would have to cite specific claims Mitchell makes that contradict that report to convince me otherwise.

The DB:

The CIA relied on two outside contractors who were psychologists with experience at the Air Force’s Survival, Evasion, Resistance and Escape school to help develop, run, and assess the interrogation program. Neither had experience as an interrogator, nor any specialized knowledge of al Qaeda, counterterrorism, or relevant linguistic expertise, the committee found. In 2005, these two psychologists formed a company, and following this the CIA outsourced virtually all aspects of the interrogation program to them. The company was paid more than $80 million by the CIA.

Sounds to me like a bit of conflict of interest.

[seer]

If the evidence so clearly supports the CIA, why did they shred it?

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

[seer]

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. Assuming Mitchell isn't just an intelligence shill or was flailing to save his own behind, you would have to cite specific claims Mitchell makes that contradict that report to convince me otherwise.

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?

[demi-conservative]

Of course there were black sites where some of this other stuff happened.

And of course this stuff doesn't make its way into public reports or books, why bother with book/report justified/does not X or Y?