• 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!

Senate panel releases scathing report on CIA interrogation...

cpwill said:
Yes. We do this all the time with most of the detainees that we are able to get. It's called "Interrogation", and we have some amazingly talented professionals who serve this country by working hard to perfect it.
Click to expand...

Waterboarding is torture. We charged and convicted our previous enemies of it. I'm sure the people subjected to it talked. The point is the amazingly talented professionals don't need to torture.

Well then I would refer you to the testimony of those who have been tortured, who have generally agreed that everyone eventually breaks and gives the information the questioner is looking for.
Click to expand...

And also to the testimony that they agreed to all kinds of things that were false because they wanted the torture to stop. I cited a link above that includes a story about a guy who admitted to being a Catholic priest, son of a king, a Buddhist monk, and a dozen other untrue things to get the water torture to end.

Traditional interrogation techniques have severely degraded performance against those who are trained or especially motivated to resist them (which is why we train the people who might be captured in how to do so), which is why we used the Enhanced Interrogation Technique program. As for torture, I imagine that it would also be effective against that populace. I myself have only seen it work against mid-level AQI leadership.
Click to expand...

OK, so we're back to it's OK because it works. Except you can't bring yourself to admit waterboarding is torture.

:shrug: well, we've been killing innocent civilians in warfare for a couple of centuries now - would you say that is morally superior to slapping a terrorist in the face in order to shock his sensibilities (that was an EIT) or wrapping a towel around his neck to protect him from whiplash before throwing him into a fake wall that would make a loud sound, making him think he'd been thrown harder than he had been (that was also an EIT)?
Click to expand...

If you're justifying the U.S. intentionally killing civilians in war, we need to get over the notion that we're somehow different than a terrorist. I don't think that's your point, but if not I can't see what it is. We're not accidentally torturing people, so comparing that to the inevitable collateral damage to civilians in a war is nonsense.

Generally speaking, if the military can do it to me, I'm a little skeptical with the idea that it's torture.
Click to expand...

So, a procedure that leaves you unable to breath, and if continued will result in you losing consciousness and eventually in your death by asphyxiation, isn't torture because in a training situation all that is very controlled with personnel examining you before, during and after to make sure nothing bad happens?

Now, it's still not nice. It's still application of pain and discomfort and fear and all of those things in order to break someone's mental barriers and put them in a situation where they feel completely controlled by an omnipotent/omniscient interrogator.
Click to expand...

That's a good description of, among other things, torture and why it's effective.

Well, let's take a single reduced-complexity example. Let us say that Mokhtar Belmokhtar has just been brought in, and we think he has just approved a plan to bomb a series of trains in France in retaliation for France's actions in the Sahel. We really need that information, and we don't have weeks or months to build up a rapport and hope that the feel-nice program works. However, if we waterboard the guy, later al-Murabitun might target US soldiers in the region in order to retaliate above what they already would do in order to retaliate against us for capturing him in the first place and being the evil Americans etc. (so that's the differentiation, not 0 risk to risk).
Click to expand...

And if waterboarding fails, what's next on the list? Shoot him in the knee? Or as suggested above, torture his child, rape his daughter, and if that works, it's OK because it works? If you're OK with torture, then the moral reasoning that allows that would allow all those things. What's different about a shattered kneecap versus stopping an attack? His daughter can survive rape, many children in America are raped every day and survive...
 
Boo Radley said:
No. It doesn't even hold water logically. There is no real way we'd ever risk the same harm to us that others experienced. Remember, one person died in a stress position. But the fact is, no one above you is really claiming it is the same. And the one called to testify clearly stated it wasn't. People we torture endured even after they collapsed, and beyond. And not one 48 hour stretch but on going bouts of it. So, no, it is hubris to think you endured the same thing.
Click to expand...
Crocodile tears for terrorists.
 
I happened to catch an interview (I think it was CBS) on the world news last night. Scott Pelly was interviewing two admitted CIA torturers.

One guy had never been active CIA, military, or anything else that could be listed as possible requirements for the job. I was thinking: Here come the scapegoats. I guess they must have a written test to discover who the sadists are. I've always thought that it would be odd for a highly credentialed man or woman to be actually getting their hands wet. Those two guys were just scum looking for a great paycheck. It's ****ing laughable.
 
Boo Radley said:
A claim isn't equal to fact. Looking at what you did and what you got is the objective method.
Click to expand...

It would have been interesting if they did that. They did not. They selectively interpreted documents, and as now revealed, rejected opportunities to clarify events and results. No amount of spin, or heel clicking, is going to change that. That is a fact. An interpretation is not fact, it is an opinion.
 
j-mac said:
Crocodile tears for terrorists.
Click to expand...

No one is doing that. The person who died wasn't a terrorist. He was a father and husband and worked hard as a taxi driver. We found nothing to link him to even being a combatant let alone a terrorist. We also later learned the person who pointed him out just picked someone at random in an effort to get an in to help attacks on us. So, what you really mean is that you have as low regard for innocent lives as terrorist do, right? Not do mention no moral core to know that torture is wrong, evil. We condemn terrorist because what they do is wrong. It is right to do that to hold terrorist accountable. But we don't win by being more like them than our ideals.
 
Boo Radley said:
Yep. No matter who makes the claim, any claim, evidence is required. Evidence and not talk is what we need.
Click to expand...

Feinstein's own words makes the claim.....her actions now goes against what she said. That is evident.
 
ocean515 said:
It would have been interesting if they did that. They did not. They selectively interpreted documents, and as now revealed, rejected opportunities to clarify events and results. No amount of spin, or heel clicking, is going to change that. That is a fact. An interpretation is not fact, it is an opinion.
Click to expand...

That's what they say they did. You'll have to prove they didn't.
 
MMC said:
Feinstein's own words makes the claim.....her actions now goes against what she said. That is evident.
Click to expand...

So, that's not at all shocking. But again, it is not about what anyone says. It's about evidence.
 
MMC said:
Mornin Jasper. :2wave: The facts are by the CIA that they worked. They would know. Not some politicians that are out in front of the cameras every two to three days. There is none, not even with this report that can say they didn't work. Well they can say it but then they wouldn't be telling the truth. Showing a few cases out of hundreds that didn't bring any benefit. Doesn't change the facts about all those others that did.
Click to expand...

Except when they provide a list of examples when it 'worked' they come up empty handed or at best with examples that are ambiguous. The Library Tower and OBL are good examples.

Some politicians known as the Gang of 8 were shown the enhanced techniques. They had no problem with them when they were shown. So even more validation of how this was done out of Spite over Politics.
Click to expand...

That is a side issue IMO. If we are as a country going to accept torture as a legitimate, sanctioned interrogation tool, the public needs to be informed and buy off on America becoming that kind of country.

The Justice Dept with Holder felt the same way as these Democrats do. They investigated and could not find anything criminal. What does that tell you? Or does the left want to say Holder and his Team didn't do their job?
Click to expand...

No, what that tells me is people exercising vast unchecked powers don't often voluntarily curtail their ability to exercise vast, unchecked powers. Holder is part of the WH, which like all leaders would prefer to operate without meaningful restraints.

Now it is understandable that Feinstein wants a little revenge with the CIA for keeping tabs on her. She should have looked to throw her tantrum in a different way.
Click to expand...

They hacked into the committee's computers and attempted to remove files. It's an outrageous act. Sheesh, surely you're not justifying or minimizing the danger of a CIA arrogant enough to target lawmakers are you? That's a very scary situation IMO, and that it didn't immediately result in a dozen heads rolling at CIA is even scarier. What information do they have that protects them from really ANY consequences of that. Must be something big....
 
Boo Radley said:
No one is doing that. The person who died wasn't a terrorist. He was a father and husband and worked hard as a taxi driver. We found nothing to link him to even being a combatant let alone a terrorist. We also later learned the person who pointed him out just picked someone at random in an effort to get an in to help attacks on us. So, what you really mean is that you have as low regard for innocent lives as terrorist do, right? Not do mention no moral core to know that torture is wrong, evil. We condemn terrorist because what they do is wrong. It is right to do that to hold terrorist accountable. But we don't win by being more like them than our ideals.
Click to expand...
Ok, so then you must also have a problem with the drone program under Obama right?
 
Boo Radley said:
Here's the point:

The torture report released Tuesday by the Senate Intelligence Committee says the CIA deceived the nation with its insistence that the harsh interrogation tactics had saved lives. It says those claims are unsubstantiated by the CIA’s own records.

Senate report: Harsh CIA tactics didn't work | The Rundown | PBS NewsHour

Whine about left and right all you want, the point is still the point.
Click to expand...

The REAL point is that this report was conceived by, prepared by, funded by and championed by the Democrats on the committee. This was published as a last poke in the eye to President Bush and to keep the attention off the hearings concerning Gruber and the Benghazi cover-up.
 
cpwill said:
Actually one of the purposes of the program in SERE is to disorient you so that you don't know the time, the day, or when anything will stop. And no, soldiers in training don't always know when punishment that is now associated with the EIT program will stop. I can't think of a single time I was placed in stress positions where I knew that I had any stopping point beyond the idea that eventually I would hopefully graduate boot camp. And KSM used to actually count off the seconds on his fingers in order to demonstrate to his captors that he knew that they had a time limit.
Click to expand...

You were in a U.S. facility, trained by U.S. personnel. You knew that. It's not the same as if you were in a dark, wet, cold prison in Iran and it's your sworn enemies controlling your fate.

That is actually a good point. Do you believe, then, that we torture our own military when we put them through Boot Camp or SERE?
Click to expand...

If a soldier breaks down during training, it will stop. There is a fundamental difference between the situations you're determined to ignore because you cannot admit that we tortured detainees.

The waterboarding of non-combatants or uniformed personnel were among the crimes that they were charged with and/or served jail time for.
Click to expand...

What's your point. Either the waterboarding we charged them with was a crime or not. In the 1940s and several other times in our history, we viewed it as obvious torture and therefore an obvious crime. What has changed?

The Justice Department went to pretty strenuous lengths - and were followed pretty strictly - specifically to make sure that we didn't cross that line.
Click to expand...

Except when we did cross that line, such as when we had detainees die from hypothermia, or when we waterboarded detainees many times the stated limits.

No - this is a legal question.
Click to expand...

It's fundamentally a moral and ethical question, not a legal one.
 
cpwill said:
A piece you might like.
Click to expand...

Yes, and especially because the author puts the question honestly and calls what we did torture.

Pretending that what we did was something short of that allows us to avoid the difficult questions raised in that article. It's chicken crap - the coward's way of avoiding the question.
 
cpwill said:
I don't think I said this, however, it's worth pointing out that it doesn't mean what you are extrapolating from it. We also always have medical personnel, for example, for regular training evolutions, long runs, marches, and the like.
Click to expand...

When we waterboard someone, in training or otherwise, there is a real risk of death. If you disagree, then say that and explain why doing something that will prevent him from getting oxygen to his brain, and proceeds to unconsciousness and then potential death, isn't dangerous.
 
cpwill said:
No - the Geneva accords for uniformed military personnel are pretty clear. But our spies can probably expect it.
Click to expand...

The point is we've sanctioned waterboarding as a LEGITIMATE interrogation tool.
 
Fenton said:
" Pints and pints of water ", huh ? Flowing up hill into the lungs without being coughed or spit out ?

I don't care who that guys says he is, he's lying.

Why go through all the trouble of Waterboarding someone when you could just tie them up and lower them into a Pool ?

If Pints and pints of water go into your lungs anyway then why strap them inverted to a backboard ? Just dunk them until they talk.

They go through the trouble because Waterboarding is not drowning, its simulated drowning.

Also if Pints of pints of water flow into your your lungs your'e going to die unless you get immediate life saving medical care

So your telling me these Muslim Terrorist had to be intubated after every session ?
Click to expand...

Just curious what your expertise is, and why you believe it's superior to a guy who literally wrote (with others) the SERE training on this subject?

And what you're doing is focusing on the details to avoid the point. OK, it's not pints into your lungs, but into your lungs and stomach. Does that change anything? Or perhaps it's not pints, but cups, or ounces. Again, what does that change - the person cannot breath and in practice around the world can and did result in the prisoner becoming unconscious. If our prisoners didn't it's only because we stopped just before they did pass out from lack of oxygen, but it's the same procedure, and it's torture.
 
Last edited:
cpwill said:
I know what he did in the Air Force. He's not.
Click to expand...

I could see maybe fighter pilots practicing for capture by the enemy. But not this enemy. There's no one to shoot down a jet.
 
JasperL said:
You were in a U.S. facility, trained by U.S. personnel. You knew that. It's not the same as if you were in a dark, wet, cold prison in Iran and it's your sworn enemies controlling your fate.
Click to expand...

What do you think the people brought to Gitmo were in? A US facility, with trained US personnel.

If a soldier breaks down during training, it will stop.
Click to expand...

:raises eyebrow: who told you that? SERE is a scheduled course - you are on that train until the training evolution ends. I can't think of a single time when I was being put through stress positions where "I'm too exhausted to hold this position any more" was considered an excuse.

However, if a detainee begins to give up valuable information, EIT also stopped.

There is a fundamental difference between the situations you're determined to ignore because you cannot admit that we tortured detainees.
Click to expand...

:shrug: I don't see the difference that you are trying to draw. I wouldn't say I'm determined to ignore it, I think you are attempting to create it.

What's your point. Either the waterboarding we charged them with was a crime or not.
Click to expand...

Yeah - and had we done it to (for example) uniformed Iraqi soldiers during OIF-1, then that would also have been a crime.

Except when we did cross that line, such as when we had detainees die from hypothermia, or when we waterboarded detainees many times the stated limits.
Click to expand...

That's an interesting charge. Can you demonstrate that the CIA violated the limits put on it by the Justice Department? Because that could lead to a legitimate case of torture occurring.

It's fundamentally a moral and ethical question, not a legal one.
Click to expand...

Torture has defined legal meaning, it's not "what we think is mean".

Yes, and especially because the author puts the question honestly and calls what we did torture.

Pretending that what we did was something short of that allows us to avoid the difficult questions raised in that article. It's chicken crap - the coward's way of avoiding the question.
Click to expand...

Not at all - EIT is still abusive, it's still questionable, and it's still the kind of thing you reserve only for the most extreme circumstances. I think where he is spot-on here is on the issues of A) post-9/11 need and B) the risk of bureaucratization and normalization. EIT is still something we would have to morally wrestle with, even without defining torture broadly enough to include it.

When we waterboard someone, in training or otherwise, there is a real risk of death. If you disagree, then say that and explain why doing something that will prevent him from getting oxygen to his brain, and proceeds to unconsciousness and then potential death, isn't dangerous.

:shrug: there is a real risk of death from PT, from going to the rifle range, from lifting in the Gym, from driving automobiles, you name it. There is a presence of risk of death in pretty much most of what we do; mitigation of that threat through ensured access to medical personal is just good ORM.

The point is we've sanctioned waterboarding as a LEGITIMATE interrogation tool.
Click to expand...

For people who can also legitimately be executed out of hand.
Click to expand...
 
j-mac said:
Uh huh...so they were all just innocent men in the wrong place at the wrong time, is that your assertion? Look, am I saying that some things that were wrong didn't happen? No. But am I all torn up that some guys that had intel were not allowed their beauty sleep, or were smacked around? Absolutely not. They and their cohorts do much worse.
Click to expand...
Well, we're getting closer. From "yelled at" to "smacked around" is progress. Now, let's see if we can get to "tortured and killed".

And yes, at least some of them were innocent victims. Daliwal was one of them.

Maybe once the public recognizes what actually took place, we can put the past behind us.
 
cpwill said:
The point is we've sanctioned waterboarding as a LEGITIMATE interrogation tool.
Click to expand...

For people who can also legitimately be executed out of hand.
Click to expand...

Hah, yeah, it's amazing that people don't see the difference.

Their thought process appears to be like an Onion headline: "12 Al Qaeda Leaders spared from being waterboarded through the use of Tomahawk Missile"
 
IMO, this about two things. How far are we willing to go to save lives, particularly our own? And whatever our interrogation techniques are, should we be broadcasting that information to the world?

Seems the democrats in Congress are not willing to go very far at all. In fact, they are much more concerned with getting votes and doing harm to republicans than protecting the people of this country, as evidenced by them releasing this report.

It's a one sided report, guaranteed to give the results they wanted. Completely refuted by the ex CIA heads. Does it help this country in any way? Does it make us safer? No, on both counts. We are less safe.

All it does is take a shot at those that actually do protect us, and deserve medals for such, before the democrats are officially thrown out of leadership, per the will of the people.

On the second question, that's just plain obvious. It's a stupid and politically selfish act by the democrats. I guess they didn't get the message in the last election. Shut up and get out!
 
Dittohead not! said:
Well, we're getting closer. From "yelled at" to "smacked around" is progress. Now, let's see if we can get to "tortured and killed".

And yes, at least some of them were innocent victims. Daliwal was one of them.

Maybe once the public recognizes what actually took place, we can put the past behind us.
Click to expand...

So in your view Obama and Holder are war criminals of a higher order. Obama has called for hundreds of drone strikes that killed many folks much more than the senate report talks about. It also killed at least one American citizen without a trial.

None of this is good. But the political grandstanding by both sides is sickening.
 
washunut said:
So in your view Obama and Holder are war criminals of a higher order. Obama has called for hundreds of drone strikes that killed many folks much more than the senate report talks about. It also killed at least one American citizen without a trial.

None of this is good. But the political grandstanding by both sides is sickening.
Click to expand...

I agree with most of that. If Obama and Holder are "war criminals", then so were most of their predecessors. I'm not so sure we really want to go there.

But, the fact of the matter is both parties are complicit in these violations of human rights, and the only reason they're coming out now is because of political grandstanding. It's the default position when the (bleep!) hits the fan: Point fingers at the other party.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom