• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Bin Laden film attacked for 'perpetuating torture myth'

Hatfields... but that could have been a typo now that I see where the keys are.

They could use anything... being in Saudi Arabia was enough to galvanize an entire terror organization against us.

Torture? Just an excuse.

Sure. No one cares about family members and friends being tortured. Why would they? Everyone should expect a little torture, especially when not guilty of anything. I'm sure you'd gladly offer up your loved ones.

:coffeepap
 
Well, that is a pretty big dishonest unprovable you have there...I don't think anyone has ever said that other interrogation techniques don't work as well, but as for some of the information that came to us about the courier, that came directly through EIT, nothing else as reported by the people that were in the damned room. Now, three people ever had waterboarding done to them, three. It is a fact that we found out who the courier was through EIT, and you are saying what? That we could have gotten the same information by serving hot chocolate, and asking pretty please? Prove that.

J, I've seen nothing objective that shows that torture got us anything. I know you think because someone you want to believe said they did that it must be true. But willingness to believe is not objective evidence.

And no where did I or anyone else say anything about serving hot chocolate. Silliness doesn't make your argument any more sound.
 
[h=1]Bin Laden film attacked for 'perpetuating torture myth'[/h]So, apparently three senators are upset that a Hollywood movie is less than 100% factually accurate. In other news, one M. Mouse is revealed to be a cartoon rodent and dinosaurs can't really be cloned from DNA locked in amber for millions of years.

Really? Is this what members of Congress are drawing a salary for doing?

In the defense of the radical right they do believe that the flintstones was a documentary about prehistoric times.
 
Intelligence was gathered from a person who was subject to EIT. That is the closest positive claim that can safely be made a bout the effectiveness of EIT as an interrogation tool in this case. Anything beyond that is based on guesses.

Well.... Information was gathered from persons subject to EIT, that at one point made up about 3/4ths' of what we knew about AQ senior leadership, and was turned into intelligence. This occurred after other interrogation methods on the same individuals (who were trained in resistance) had failed - after EIT, one of the subjects said that EIT helped him to cooperate because Allah only demands his soldiers resist up until the point at which they no longer can, and then they are free to cooperate in order to make their situation as best for them as they can.

From perhaps the only person on this forum (that I have seen willing to discuss it) who is actually an eyewitness to real torture (whether or not scaring someone with a loud sound falls under that category, I'll leave to another discussion): the worst thing about torture is that it works.

Four separate CIA directors from both administrations have testified in favor of the incredible wealth of information that came to us through the enhanced interrogation program. We know that the information gleaned helped stop major terrorist attacks, we know that it made us more effective against AQ, and yes, thanks to Wikileaks we know Know that it helped lead to OBL.
 
Not exactly, no. What I said was that when two politicians who disagree on almost everything find common ground, it is time to sit up and take notice.

If two politicans who disagree on almost everything find common ground on something they typically disagree with, it is time to sit up and take notice.

If two politicians who disagree on almost everything, but almost always agree on a specific issue, find common ground on that specific issue....it's kind of par for the course.

If you tell me Mitch McConnell and Joe Lieberman agreed on Stimulus I may sit up and take notice.

if you tell me Mitch McConnell and Joe Lieberman agreed on something regarding the War on Terror I'd probably go "yeah, so?"

Intelligence was gathered from a person who was subject to EIT.

Which is reasonable. Whether it would've been gathered in other forms, whether or not it was right or wrong to gather it in such a way, whether or not it was of dire importance or not, etc are all things we simply can't know (and to be perfectly frank SHOULDN'T know. IET was utilized in the process of gaining intelligence within the string that ultimately landed Bin Laden. Beyond that, there's question marks.

My basic thing though was the incongruity of people seemingly dismissing a politicians statements regarding the "beyond that" portion becuase he's a politician with political reasons to state it...and then promoting hte statements regarding "beyond that" of another politician despite that person ALSO being a politician with political reasons to state it.
 
EIT? You mean torture. I hate the way military types like to mask the worst behaviour, policies or strategies by creating acronyms and euphemisms to confuse the public as to what they are really discussing.

EIT = torture
extraordinary rendition = kidnapping
collateral damage = killing civilians
black site = secret prison and torture facility
sleep management = sleep deprivation
multilateral diplomacy = waging war without saying so

War by Euphemism
 
Bin Laden film attacked for 'perpetuating torture myth'

So, apparently three senators are upset that a Hollywood movie is less than 100% factually accurate. In other news, one M. Mouse is revealed to be a cartoon rodent and dinosaurs can't really be cloned from DNA locked in amber for millions of years.

Really? Is this what members of Congress are drawing a salary for doing?

I think the most serious objection is that it perpetuates the myth that torture works and that torture led to the capture of Osama bin Ladin. Since these movies grow in the popular culture of easily manipulated citizenry as more accurate than history, the false imagery of torture as useful is reinforced. All they had to do was try GWShiiteForBrains and his cadre of perps for War Crimes and Human Rights violations and we would not be involved in this charade. Just a note. The reason KSM is being tried by a Military tribunal is because any evidence obtained by torture is not submissible in a civilian courtroom and the charges would probably have to be dismissed. Ain't that a crock of shiites. He's guilty as sin, but also entitled to justice.
 
I know. I post links to texts from professionals in the field like those used by the USMC, the CIA, etc.

You might want to look at the career of Hanns Scharff. An extremely effective Nazi interrogator who elicited secrets from allied prisoners of war. We all know that the Nazis were free to resort to most any sort of despicable behavior and torture they wished. So his methods were culled from the best of the best of those.

It's interesting that you mention Scharff, because he pretty much invented the good cop/bad cop routine. His method was to make the subject think he was the subject's best friend in captivity. He was notable for not using physical means in interrogation. And you are absolutely correct - we did take the best parts of his technique and adapt them into our own.

However, the professionals I was referring to are, of course, psychologists; the field I was referring to was Psychology. The common thread between syndromes like Stockholm Syndrome and Battered Person Syndrome is traumatic bonding. The mind's psychological defenses kick in when presented with traumatic situations (not necessarily just physical or emotional abuse), and typical responses include identification with those who appear to be in charge, switching of allegiance, and even the feeling that one's captors are omniscient (especially when exposed to physical violence or the threat of physical violence... but not just in those cases).

Again, though, that's why I said "unfortunately". The methods do, in fact, work, but the basis for their operation are quite unfortunate.

allow me to finish the sentence for you:
It really is unfortunate that "advanced interrogation methods" actually work to motivate the opposition

What motivates the opposition is propaganda. For those already against us, their minds are made up. How our actions are presented to those on the fence... that is a job for propaganda. If you think I am wrong, then how does AQ have a single supporter in the world when they like to kidnap and behead journalists, or strap bombs onto women and children and slay civilians en masse? Wouldn't that motivate the opposition?

Motivation is always a matter of which information one has access to, and how that information is delivered.
 
I know. I post links to texts from professionals in the field like those used by the USMC, the CIA, etc.

If we use the same definition of torture as broadly applied to the military/CIA, you could claim that the police torture their interrogation "victims," and that every time you step foot in a court room you are subjecting yourself to torture.

It's true that some of the methods utilized in the past cross the boundary of physical action, but not all interrogation methods involve so-called "torture."
 
After watching The Hurt Locker, and seeing her on Colbert, I respected Katheryn Bigelow.

Not anymore. She has sold her soul to the devil, and become yet another Hollywood mouthpiece advancing government propaganda. A pity, for sure.
 
If we use the same definition of torture as broadly applied to the military/CIA, you could claim that the police torture their interrogation "victims," and that every time you step foot in a court room you are subjecting yourself to torture.

It's true that some of the methods utilized in the past cross the boundary of physical action, but not all interrogation methods involve so-called "torture."

That's nonsense. The effort to try and minimalize torture is shameful.
 
That's nonsense. The effort to try and minimalize torture is shameful.

I am not trying to minimize, nor advocate, torture. Refer to my other posts in this thread how I call the use of those methods "unfortunate." I am merely pointing out that shock media sells, and shock media wants to paint a picture that the CIA and the military at large have hordes of muslim civilians strung up in secret torture camps throughout the world. They also have sold this idea that "torture" doesn't work. If by "torture," you mean "systematically beating someone until they talk," you would be correct.... but that is not how advanced interrogation works.
 
I am not trying to minimize, nor advocate, torture. Refer to my other posts in this thread how I call the use of those methods "unfortunate." I am merely pointing out that shock media sells, and shock media wants to paint a picture that the CIA and the military at large have hordes of muslim civilians strung up in secret torture camps throughout the world. They also have sold this idea that "torture" doesn't work. If by "torture," you mean "systematically beating someone until they talk," you would be correct.... but that is not how advanced interrogation works.

What you write is in and of itself an exaggeration. There doesn't need to be hordes for it to be a problem and have an effect, a negative effect. I accept that you know it was wrong, but it isn't something that becomes meaningless if we show the numbers weren't to the level of hordes. The fact is, we did, let others do it for us, and then tried to excuse it. That is enough to paint us with the torture brush.
 
What you write is in and of itself an exaggeration. There doesn't need to be hordes for it to be a problem and have an effect, a negative effect. I accept that you know it was wrong, but it isn't something that becomes meaningless if we show the numbers weren't to the level of hordes. The fact is, we did, let others do it for us, and then tried to excuse it. That is enough to paint us with the torture brush.

Which advances us back to my initial contribution to the thread - unfortunately, enhanced interrogation techniques do, in fact, work. That's why they got used.

Even more unfortunate, everyone in the world uses them. Governments would use them on their own citizens if they thought they could get away with it (and some do). We thought we could get away with it, and when we didn't, the cry of "foul" went up. It's no secret that governments rarely if ever apply their own laws unto themselves. Any government. Those in power will always think themselves beyond the law because it takes force to wield power over others, and those with the force to wield are those in power.

The US isn't singularly bad in the world for having and using interrogation methods beyond what is "allowed" at your local police station. We are just singularly called out for it because that's what sells newspapers.
 
Which advances us back to my initial contribution to the thread - unfortunately, enhanced interrogation techniques do, in fact, work. That's why they got used.

Even more unfortunate, everyone in the world uses them. Governments would use them on their own citizens if they thought they could get away with it (and some do). We thought we could get away with it, and when we didn't, the cry of "foul" went up. It's no secret that governments rarely if ever apply their own laws unto themselves. Any government. Those in power will always think themselves beyond the law because it takes force to wield power over others, and those with the force to wield are those in power.

The US isn't singularly bad in the world for having and using interrogation methods beyond what is "allowed" at your local police station. We are just singularly called out for it because that's what sells newspapers.

It is one thing to SAY they work. It is another thing to prove they work. All the literature says they work real well for confessions, but actual information is often unreliable. And we have verifiable examples of us using unreliable intel (see al Libi). We also have a body of evidence showing other techniques are much more effective.

I'm also not convinced all the world tortures. Perhaps those who we know torture are not the kinds of governments and people we should be emulating. Having a moral center isn't easy, nor should it be, but having values , morals and standards means we don't take the easy route, especially against an enemy that has no real way to defeat us, no need to short cut more effective measures. At the end of the day, this is about who we are.
 
It is one thing to SAY they work. It is another thing to prove they work. All the literature says they work real well for confessions, but actual information is often unreliable. And we have verifiable examples of us using unreliable intel (see al Libi). We also have a body of evidence showing other techniques are much more effective.

I'm also not convinced all the world tortures. Perhaps those who we know torture are not the kinds of governments and people we should be emulating. Having a moral center isn't easy, nor should it be, but having values , morals and standards means we don't take the easy route, especially against an enemy that has no real way to defeat us, no need to short cut more effective measures. At the end of the day, this is about who we are.

I tend to agree with you about the values and morals. But there is a case to be made for timely intelligence and certain, ah, "questionable" methods used to extract it. Again though, we have to ask ourselves if a timely resolution to a time-sensitive operation is more for the sake of the citizenry or for the sake of politics.

It is not true that all enhanced interrogation techniques breach the definition of torture. It is also not true to say that none of them do. But how we define "torture" itself is often a moving goalpost. If making someone believe they are about to die is torture, that can be accomplished with mere words alone. If sleep deprivation is considered torture, certain job markets in the US would apply due to the availability or lack thereof of jobs in a "normal" 9-5 setting (I know someone right now who is working nights at a restaurant and early mornings at a coffee shop, due to lack of anything else she is qualified for... is the job market "torturing" her?). If putting someone under any kind of duress is considered torture, then most police actions are torturous. If putting someone in solitary confinement is considered torture (or just confining them, period), then our prison system executes systematic torture.

It can be a clear cut case by definition when people are beaten or mutilated, and indeed those cases rarely yield anything beyond the first words the victim thinks might make it stop, but take the example of waterboarding. There is no physical harm done, but the subject does undergo a great deal of mental and emotional stress. Well, what level of "mental stress" is considered torturous? Until someone breaks and willingly gives up information? Well, that just means that it works and we have an ethical argument for if the ends justify the means. But if we set the limit at "lasting psychological harm," then we should never arrest anyone ever again, as that can be a traumatic experience for an individual, as well as an undefinable limit to be able to legislate into our moral code. Is spanking a child "lasting psychological harm"? What about raising your voice? What about the potential damage done to a fragile ego by merely explaining how they might be wrong?
 
I tend to agree with you about the values and morals. But there is a case to be made for timely intelligence and certain, ah, "questionable" methods used to extract it. Again though, we have to ask ourselves if a timely resolution to a time-sensitive operation is more for the sake of the citizenry or for the sake of politics.

It is not true that all enhanced interrogation techniques breach the definition of torture. It is also not true to say that none of them do. But how we define "torture" itself is often a moving goalpost. If making someone believe they are about to die is torture, that can be accomplished with mere words alone. If sleep deprivation is considered torture, certain job markets in the US would apply due to the availability or lack thereof of jobs in a "normal" 9-5 setting (I know someone right now who is working nights at a restaurant and early mornings at a coffee shop, due to lack of anything else she is qualified for... is the job market "torturing" her?). If putting someone under any kind of duress is considered torture, then most police actions are torturous. If putting someone in solitary confinement is considered torture (or just confining them, period), then our prison system executes systematic torture.

It can be a clear cut case by definition when people are beaten or mutilated, and indeed those cases rarely yield anything beyond the first words the victim thinks might make it stop, but take the example of waterboarding. There is no physical harm done, but the subject does undergo a great deal of mental and emotional stress. Well, what level of "mental stress" is considered torturous? Until someone breaks and willingly gives up information? Well, that just means that it works and we have an ethical argument for if the ends justify the means. But if we set the limit at "lasting psychological harm," then we should never arrest anyone ever again, as that can be a traumatic experience for an individual, as well as an undefinable limit to be able to legislate into our moral code. Is spanking a child "lasting psychological harm"? What about raising your voice? What about the potential damage done to a fragile ego by merely explaining how they might be wrong?

Not so many years ago weatherboarding was clearly defined as torture. I suggest that the ones making NEW definitions have largely been those who want to use torture. There is a difference in a largely voluntary sleep deprivation, and what interrogators use. I'm sure they know the difference as well. Rumsfeld make similar comments about positing, and yet someone died largely due to the positing in Afghanistan.

In short, I don't think we really have a definition problem. And I believe I once read a CIA Manuel describing these techniques as more devasting to the individual than physical torture. If this is true, then we've found a way to be more brutal and harmful and excuse it easier. Again, as you agree, this is about who we are.
 
Not so many years ago weatherboarding was clearly defined as torture. I suggest that the ones making NEW definitions have largely been those who want to use torture. There is a difference in a largely voluntary sleep deprivation, and what interrogators use. I'm sure they know the difference as well. Rumsfeld make similar comments about positing, and yet someone died largely due to the positing in Afghanistan.

In short, I don't think we really have a definition problem. And I believe I once read a CIA Manuel describing these techniques as more devasting to the individual than physical torture. If this is true, then we've found a way to be more brutal and harmful and excuse it easier. Again, as you agree, this is about who we are.

You use the term "more devastating" than physical torture. Ok, so what is the devastation, exactly? Mental stress? Captivity? Capacity for lasting emotional scars? All of these things can be applied to our justice system when carried out to the letter of the law.

I do agree that this debate is all about who we are. I just don't think we can naively go into it thinking the world is a kind and gentle place is all.
 
You use the term "more devastating" than physical torture. Ok, so what is the devastation, exactly? Mental stress? Captivity? Capacity for lasting emotional scars? All of these things can be applied to our justice system when carried out to the letter of the law.

I do agree that this debate is all about who we are. I just don't think we can naively go into it thinking the world is a kind and gentle place is all.

As I understand it, serious life shattering scars.

And torture isn't justice. Justice is when someone is convicted. Tired. Charged and judged with evidence and rebuttal. Torture has not worked that way. Which is we have from time to time tortured the wrong people.

Also, be moral and just isn't kind and gentle. The two are not one and the same.
 
Last edited:
I don't really care if torture is effective. It's evil. And we are evil if we employ it. If we become evil to fight evil, then we have lost. Sacrificing the things that make us different from our enemy destroys us even more effectively than any weapons they could ever use against us. In the last decade, we have become more like the people Al Qaeda and their ilk want us to be. That's a victory for them, not for us, no matter how many of them we kill.
 
I am not trying to minimize, nor advocate, torture. Refer to my other posts in this thread how I call the use of those methods "unfortunate." I am merely pointing out that shock media sells, and shock media wants to paint a picture that the CIA and the military at large have hordes of muslim civilians strung up in secret torture camps throughout the world. They also have sold this idea that "torture" doesn't work. If by "torture," you mean "systematically beating someone until they talk," you would be correct.... but that is not how advanced interrogation works.

Have you no conscience? You accept without question the mistreatment of another human. "Condone" might be the right word, but I'm not sure.:doh
 
You use the term "more devastating" than physical torture. Ok, so what is the devastation, exactly? Mental stress? Captivity? Capacity for lasting emotional scars? All of these things can be applied to our justice system when carried out to the letter of the law.

I do agree that this debate is all about who we are. I just don't think we can naively go into it thinking the world is a kind and gentle place is all.

Whatever you want to call it, that it is done to another person without permission or due process is what's wrong.
 
Sure. No one cares about family members and friends being tortured. Why would they? Everyone should expect a little torture, especially when not guilty of anything. I'm sure you'd gladly offer up your loved ones.

:coffeepap

And now you digress into emotional blathering... having trouble countering facts? Of course you are... :lol:

Silliness doesn't make your argument any more sound.

Pot meet... umm... meet... ?
 
As I understand it, serious life shattering scars.

And torture isn't justice. Justice is when someone is convicted. Tired. Charged and judged with evidence and rebuttal. Torture has not worked that way. Which is we have from time to time tortured the wrong people.

Also, be moral and just isn't kind and gentle. The two are not one and the same.

When I said "justice," I was specifically referring to the US Justice System, not the concept of justice itself. Is incarceration "just"? Isn't it just kidnapping, only done by "legitimate" institutions? And doesn't captivity tend create "life shattering scars"? How about solitary confinement? How about rape? All of those are found in our justice system. Is going to jail considered "torture"?
 
Have you no conscience? You accept without question the mistreatment of another human. "Condone" might be the right word, but I'm not sure.:doh

Whatever you want to call it, that it is done to another person without permission or due process is what's wrong.

Define "due process".

You seem to be quick to judge me, but it looks like you haven't a clue where I am coming from or what the basis of my argument is.
 
Back
Top Bottom