Bin Laden film attacked for 'perpetuating torture myth'

cpwill said:

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.

Click to expand...

While I will agree that torture works in some cases, I find it hard to believe that you have been personally afforded the counter-intelligence that is substantiating THREE QUARTERS "of what we know about Al Queda's senior leadership" was obtained through, new name for it, wait for it . . . Enhanced Interrogation Techniques.

I had to rewrite your following sentence without the parenthesis to see exactly what you were claiming here:

cpwill said:

"From perhaps the only person on this forum who is actually an eyewitness to real torture[,] the worst thing about torture is that it works."

Click to expand...

Man, when you were a PFC you were God. Oh yeah, I thought they were Enhanced Interrogation Techniques? If I combine this, with your "3/4ths" claim . . . along with all your other war stories . . . I start to get doubts in my mind about almost everything you say.

If what you say is true . . . then we, as in, The United States, has a major problem. You went to Iraq right after your school for your occupational specialty. You were just a few moments away from Boot. And apparently, by your words, we allow untrained Marines to witness torture. Maybe I shouldn't be surprised after Abu Ghraib . . . or, you are exaggerating. I remember when torture was rare, very secret, conducted by professionals and not witnessed by PFC's in the Marine Corps. Yet you talk about it openly right here on the Internets. So, we must have a problem, or you do.

That is neither here nor there . . . I will just take note of this claim, like I have your past claims. I also take note of something my Dad told me a long time ago . . . once you start lying, it takes a lot of work, time, and energy to keep track of the lies . . . because they eventually multiply until you can't remember the old lies.

Clerk typists who have a sideline as Intelligence Officer . . . Hah! That's OK, I have a nephew who is a Dental Tech, and to hear him, he was Rambo during his teeth cleanings. You probably know him.

Bodhisattva said:

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



Pot meet... umm... meet... ?

Click to expand...

Nope. But torturing is an emotional matter for all involved. That's the point I'm trying to get you to see. People don't take the torturng of their loved ones in any clinical way, which is why act works to encourage people who would not their wise join, join.

Gonzo Rodeo said:

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"?

Click to expand...

It s just because of the process, the egalitarian ethical and moral process. If the process becomes soiled, say by corruption, it becomes unjust ( even in our system). So it cannot be compared to torturing. Ones an apple and the other s a tree frog.

Boo Radley said:

Nope. But torturing is an emotional matter for all involved. That's the point I'm trying to get you to see. People don't take the torturng of their loved ones in any clinical way, which is why act works to encourage people who would not their wise join, join.

Click to expand...

All of this is an emotional matter for all involved and that is why focusing on the emotion is pointless...

The point is that people are trying to make torture out to be a recruiting tool (as a means to be anti USA) to people that are recruited for far less reasons such as just being present where they don't want you to be.

Gonzo Rodeo said:

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.

Click to expand...

there is only one definition of Due Process... if you don't know it you shouldn't be debating.

Bodhisattva said:

All of this is an emotional matter for all involved and that is why focusing on the emotion is pointless...

The point is that people are trying to make torture out to be a recruiting tool (as a means to be anti USA) to people that are recruited for far less reasons such as just being present where they don't want you to be.

Click to expand...

Not if the issue is why people join the cause. Discussing cause and effect must take into account the emotional response. And frankly, I'm not sure we have a full understanding of reasons. Israel's use of excessive force seems to create more than it removes, for example. Again, understanding the consequences of actions is important. We can add to or decrease our woes depending on our actions. Seem a prudent person keeps that in mind.

Certainly the Muslims would never torture anyone. That wouldn't fit in the with the liberal requirement for worship of all enemies of the United States.

Ray410 said:

Certainly the Muslims would never torture anyone. That wouldn't fit in the with the liberal requirement for worship of all enemies of the United States.

Click to expand...

Well, that was a stupid comment. So disappointing. :coffeepap

Boo Radley said:

Not if the issue is why people join the cause. Discussing cause and effect must take into account the emotional response. And frankly, I'm not sure we have a full understanding of reasons. Israel's use of excessive force seems to create more than it removes, for example. Again, understanding the consequences of actions is important. We can add to or decrease our woes depending on our actions. Seem a prudent person keeps that in mind.

Click to expand...

Fair enough...

Bodhisattva said:

Pot meet... umm... meet... ?

Click to expand...

You hit the nail on the head right there boy let me tell you what. I have read it many times . . . Pot complains about being called, "black" . . . while at the same time, the pot is calling the kettle "black" . . . in the very same sentence. Especially a certain pot. Many times I have read words from that very same pot claiming his kettle is using a straw man, whilst the pot is using a straw man himself . . . go figure.

Boo Radley said:

Well, that was a stupid comment. So disappointing. :coffeepap

Click to expand...

Agreed...

DiavoTheMiavo said:

You hit the nail on the head right there boy let me tell you what. I have read it many times . . . Pot complains about being called, "black" . . . while at the same time, the pot is calling the kettle "black" and in the very same sentence. Especially a certain pot. Many times I have read words from that very same pot claiming his kettle is using a straw man, whilst the pot is using a straw man himself . . . go figure.

Click to expand...

What if the pot is black... this is certainly a dynamic issue.

DiavoTheMiavo said:

While I will agree that torture works in some cases, I find it hard to believe that you have been personally afforded the counter-intelligence that is substantiating THREE QUARTERS "of what we know about Al Queda's senior leadership" was obtained through, new name for it, wait for it . . . Enhanced Interrogation Techniques.

Click to expand...

1. I think you need to take some time to go understand the conversation you are having, before you attempt to have it. Counter Intelligence is (broadly speaking) a portion of Intelligence that involves (wait for it) countering other intelligence services (to include now non-state actors). Interrogating someone for information that is then analyzed and fit into a bigger picture is Intelligence. And the EIT program was a SAP at the time, anyway.

2. That's not me saying it, it's the directors of the CIA and the program that have said it. Perhaps you could look in to people what people who ACTUALLY know what they are talking about say.

I had to rewrite your following sentence without the parenthesis to see exactly what you were claiming here:

Man, when you were a PFC you were God.

Click to expand...

No, when I was a PFC I was a boot in SOI, and then as a LCpl I deployed a couple of times. That's all. You got upset because what I was seeing in Iraq (that we were winning) did not match what you wanted reality to be, and then you claimed that my account had been taken over by some officer because 'I wrote too well' for an enlisted man :roll:

Oh yeah, I thought they were Enhanced Interrogation Techniques?

Click to expand...

What the CIA did were Enhanced Interrogation Techniques. Throw a guy lightly against a fake wall designed to make aloud crash in order to convince him he was being thrown much harder than he was. Simulate drowning by pouring water on his face. Etc.

What the Iraqi police did, however, was torture. Tie a guy up, hang him by his wrists, and then use a piece of telephone wire to strip half the daggum skin off of his back type stuff.

Clerk typists who have a sideline as Intelligence Officer . . . Hah!

Click to expand...

No... an infantryman who was part of the Company Level Intelligence Cell program roll-out.

cpwill said:

1. I think you need to take some time to go understand the conversation you are having, before you attempt to have it. Counter Intelligence is (broadly speaking) a portion of Intelligence that involves (wait for it) countering other intelligence services (to include now non-state actors). Interrogating someone for information that is then analyzed and fit into a bigger picture is Intelligence.

2. That's not me saying it, it's the directors of the CIA and the program that have said it. Perhaps you could look in to people what people who ACTUALLY know what they are talking about say.



No, when I was a PFC I was a boot in SOI, and then as a LCpl I deployed a couple of times. That's all. You got upset because what I was seeing in Iraq (that we were winning) did not match what you wanted reality to be, and then you claimed that my account had been taken over by some officer because 'I wrote too well' for an enlisted man :roll:



What the CIA did were Enhanced Interrogation Techniques. Throw a guy lightly against a fake wall designed to make aloud crash in order to convince him he was being thrown much harder than he was. Simulate drowning by pouring water on his face. Etc.

What the Iraqi police did, however, was torture. Tie a guy up, hang him by his wrists, and then use a piece of telephone wire to strip half the daggum skin off of his back type stuff.



No... an infantryman who was part of the Company Level Intelligence Cell program roll-out.

Click to expand...

Yeah . . . you go with that. Three Quarters Huh? That's OK, I am sure I am the only one who noticed you just made that up, but we should allow it, because we were told we got 3/4ths of Alqueda's leadership at least a 100-times by a certain administration. Your memory is failing you as it pertains to our Internet relationship. That's OK . . . you almost got it right. Seems to be a trait with you . . . and I never said anything to the effect that it must be an officer writing because (your quotes not mine, and that is so dishonest) "'I (you) wrote too well' for an enlisted man". First off, I was enlisted, and would never suggest an officer is the only member of the military who has writing ability. You are not an officer, yet you have a certain amount of skill as a wordsmith, and the fact you remember our interpersonal communications that way, seems to indicate a difference between things as they actually occur, and how you remember them. Do you often quote people and attribute words that are not actually their words, to them?

By-the-way, that does not change the fact you have claimed you witnessed torture(does the UCMJ condone that yet? Witnesses at Abu Ghraib got prison time, and the instance(s) you describe must be really secret . . . except for our little forum (good thing we can keep a secret). Perhaps, if you write a book during your next reply I will forget (and anyone paying attention) all your claims (passive aggressive sarcasm). Perhaps if you part my words out sentence by sentence in your reply we can bury the evidence of you just making claims to make claims. You should be happy you fool most folks . . . but you have to understand . . . some of us really pay attention. You can fool some of the people . . . and sometimes not.

Post Script . . . if you did not defend yourself so ardently and make up stories, you wouldn't look so guilty. Let me give you an example of how a passive defense can work (plus it is better than just making crap up and you never have to remember a past lie):
CHARGE: You hate your country.
RESPONSE: You are wrong.
Also, we won in Iraq?

DiavoTheMiavo said:

Yeah . . . you go with that. Three Quarters Huh? That's OK, I am sure I am the only one who noticed you just made that up, but we should allow it, because we were told we got 3/4ths of Alqueda's leadership at least a 100-times by a certain administration.

Click to expand...

I didn't make it up. Again, maybe you should pay attention to the people who actually know. Later as our other capabilities improved, we learned more from a myriad of other sources. But in those first couple of years :shrug: yeah, our targeting of Core AQ Leadership was pretty dependent upon information gleaned through the EIT program.

As for getting the leadership - Al Qaeda is like any other organization; when they lose someone, they have someone else come fill the billet.

and I never said anything to the effect that it must be an officer writing because (your quotes not mine, and that is so dishonest) "'I (you) wrote too well' for an enlisted man".

Click to expand...

Ah how I wish Whistlestopper was still up so I could go link you making precisely that argument. I was foolish enough to get upset with your poo-throwing at the time, and went into the moderator forum to give a long laundry list of proofs of my identity (they said the fact that my IP address was coming out of Iraq was good enough for them). Go ask radcen or boo radley if you like - they were part of the mod staff there at the time and may recall the incident.

By-the-way, that does not change the fact you have claimed you witnessed torture(does the UCMJ condone that yet?

Click to expand...

No it certainly does not. However, the Iraqi's didn't exactly fall under the UCMJ, and as they were a soveriegn nation at the time, we couldn't exactly arrest them for it. :shrug: we took the guys afterwards, gave them medical care, and reported it up the chain like we were supposed to. And we also went out and closed down the bomb factories that the IP's suddenly had brand new reporting on.

Witnesses at Abu Ghraib got prison time, and the instance(s) you describe must be really secret . . . except for our little forum

Click to expand...

Not really. No US Personnel were involved in the torturing of prisoners that I saw. The fact that Iraqi security personnel were willing to torture captured members of AQI isn't exactly a secret. Remember, these guys were fighting a war in which AQI would target their children. You go after my kids, I probably wouldn't really give a rats butt about your special rights as an individual when I had the option, either.

Post Script . . . if you did not defend yourself so ardently and make up stories, you wouldn't look so guilty.

Click to expand...

:roll: said the guy who is apparently obsessed. Go stalk someone else, creeper.

Also, we won in Iraq?

Click to expand...

I would say so. Certainly the surge in Fallujah was a rather solid success.

Yeah . . . well . . . if you say so. Stalk you? Man . . . you really love to make stuff up. I occasionally run into one of your posts that are full of crap . . . I comment on your dishonesty and I move on. Stalk you? Seriously dude . . . you really are a narcissist. Impressed with yourself much? Oh well, I know . . . and you know I know . . . that is reward enough. I will now leave you to selectively address other people with your sentence chopping method of communication.

DiavoTheMiavo said:

Yeah . . . well . . . if you say so. Stalk you? Man . . . you really love to make stuff up. I occasionally run into one of your posts that are full of crap . . . I comment on your dishonesty and I move on. Stalk you? Seriously dude . . . you really are a narcissist. Impressed with yourself much? Oh well, I know . . . and you know I know . . . that is reward enough. I will now leave you to selectively address other people with your sentence chopping method of communication.

Click to expand...

[emphasis added by bubba]

gotta say bull ****
i have been on these boards for a number of years
cross swords with will more often than i agree with him
but in all that time he has always been straight up
one of the few who offers facts to back up his positions

you on the other hand, not so much
if there is any debate about one's credibility, you are certain to lose that argument

Boo Radley said:

It s just because of the process, the egalitarian ethical and moral process. If the process becomes soiled, say by corruption, it becomes unjust ( even in our system). So it cannot be compared to torturing. Ones an apple and the other s a tree frog.

Click to expand...

When the process places a person in confinement as a possible outcome of the process, and this confinement is known for brutal gang warfare, rape, and murder... is not that process condoning torturous outcomes?

Bodhisattva said:

there is only one definition of Due Process... if you don't know it you shouldn't be debating.

Click to expand...

When the law said due process is based on results in inhumane acts against individuals, can that really be considered "right"? That was your contention, that "rightness" can't happen without either permission or due process. But when due process, dutifully carried out to the letter of the law on an egalitarian basis, results in inhumane treatment.... can that still be considered "right"?

Gonzo Rodeo said:

When the process places a person in confinement as a possible outcome of the process, and this confinement is known for brutal gang warfare, rape, and murder... is not that process condoning torturous outcomes?



When the law said due process is based on results in inhumane acts against individuals, can that really be considered "right"? That was your contention, that "rightness" can't happen without either permission or due process. But when due process, dutifully carried out to the letter of the law on an egalitarian basis, results in inhumane treatment.... can that still be considered "right"?

Click to expand...

Then we should be against rape and murder in prison. But, it is still a different animal.

Boo Radley said:

It s just because of the process, the egalitarian ethical and moral process. If the process becomes soiled, say by corruption, it becomes unjust ( even in our system). So it cannot be compared to torturing. Ones an apple and the other s a tree frog.

Click to expand...

Boo Radley said:

Then we should be against rape and murder in prison. But, it is still a different animal.

Click to expand...

In essence it is different, but in practice it is the same. And even in intent it is the same - prison is used as a punitive action, every bit as much as a "corrective" action. We "punish" people by sending them to a place they don't want to go to, where they have no choice or freedom and very few rights.

Yet, you and the rest of polite society condone this.

Gonzo Rodeo said:

In essence it is different, but in practice it is the same. And even in intent it is the same - prison is used as a punitive action, every bit as much as a "corrective" action. We "punish" people by sending them to a place they don't want to go to, where they have no choice or freedom and very few rights.

Yet, you and the rest of polite society condone this.

Click to expand...

Are you dying torture is for punishment? And, yes I condone punishment for wring doing. People actually need this, though method matters.

Boo Radley said:

Are you dying torture is for punishment? And, yes I condone punishment for wring doing. People actually need this, though method matters.

Click to expand...

What about those wrongly convicted?

j-mac said:

What about those wrongly convicted?

Click to expand...

They at least had due process, the right to a defense, appeal, and ever release later if new information is found. Quite different than torture.

Boo Radley said:

Are you dying torture is for punishment? And, yes I condone punishment for wring doing. People actually need this, though method matters.

Click to expand...

I am making no such claim. I was stating that the intent is the same - cause harm to achieve a desired result. You, however, made the claim that our justice system is just based on the following criteria: "It s just because of the process, the egalitarian ethical and moral process. If the process becomes soiled, say by corruption, it becomes unjust ( even in our system). So it cannot be compared to torturing." But I showed that there is very little ethical or moral difference in the outcome of our justice system and torture. The only difference that remains is the egalitarian aspect which, in our particular system, tends to favor the wealthy anyway, so we can probably throw that out as well.

I believe I've made a fair apples-to-apples comparison.

But it is interesting that you condone punishment for wrong-doing. Who decides what is considered "wrong-doing"? And who decides what a "just" punishment is? You? Me? Us, collectively? You condone punishment, which means you condone coercion of force on another person (that is, an act done to them against their will). Can this not leave psychological scars? And if it does... how different is it than torture? Further, if we can justify the means with the ends and decide that sending people to prison (unwilling confinement, reduced liberty, huge potential for rape and other assaults), then why should we draw a seemingly arbitrary line at what you consider "torture"? If the ends justify the means, and it does work to extract information, then why is it considered over the line when something like prison isn't?

The common response to this line of inquiry is to say that torture turns the rest of the world against us. And to a point, you are correct: it makes it easy for propaganda to paint us in a negative light. But it is not a blanket-true statement, for if it were then every time a beheading happens in the middle east, the rest of the world should turn on them, right? Following that logic, we should already have an entire globe full of willing allies ready to jump into battle with us... but this is not the case, and wasn't the case before we got caught using, shall we say, unsavory methods.

Gonzo Rodeo said:

I am making no such claim. You, however, made the claim that our justice system is just based on the following criteria: "It s just because of the process, the egalitarian ethical and moral process. If the process becomes soiled, say by corruption, it becomes unjust ( even in our system). So it cannot be compared to torturing." But I showed that there is very little ethical or moral difference in the outcome of our justice system and torture. The only difference that remains is the egalitarian aspect which, in our particular system, tends to favor the wealthy anyway, so we can probably throw that out as well.

I believe I've made a fair apples-to-apples comparison.

But it is interesting that you condone punishment for wrong-doing. Who decides what is considered "wrong-doing"? And who decides what a "just" punishment is? You? Me? Us, collectively? You condone punishment, which means you condone coercion of force on another person (that is, an act done to them against their will). Can this not leave psychological scars? And if it does... how different is it than torture? Further, if we can justify the means with the ends and decide that sending people to prison (unwilling confinement, reduced liberty, huge potential for rape and other assaults), then why should we draw a seemingly arbitrary line at what you consider "torture"? If the ends justify the means, and it does work to extract information, then why is it considered over the line when something like prison isn't?

The common response to this line of inquiry is to say that torture turns the rest of the world against us. And to a point, you are correct: it makes it easy for propaganda to paint us in a negative light. But it is not a blanket-true statement, for if it were then every time a beheading happens in the middle east, the rest of the world should turn on them, right? Following that logic, we should already have an entire globe full of willing allies ready to jump into battle with us... but this is not the case, and wasn't the case before we got caught using, shall we say, unsavory methods.

Click to expand...

You got my quote mostly right; however, I don't agree that you've shown quite what you think you have. People accused of crimes have due process. The have rights. They can appeal. A wrong can even be righted. When we take someone and motor true them, there is no due process, no trial, no conviction, no appeal, no rights. It isn't punishment nor rehabilitation. It is brutality, and often ineffective brutality. Guards who brutalize convicted prisoners in our system break he law and in turn can be punished. When prisoners do so o other prisoners, they too can and should be held accountable. The behavior is defended by the system or those who govern prisons, not openly. And good people can take legal action. None if that describes what we have done with torture. Even in the face of learning we tortured or allowed others to torture innocent people, we still have people defending the indefensible.

No, I don't buy that there is any comparison to those convicted of crimes.

I'll tell you this as well, something I learned from an old first Sargent that I think has proven true. We do those who torture an injustice. Solders have to home and live with what thy do. I was discussing this recently with a vet who told me he participated in such acts, and felt they were right. We discussed the effect on him. He listen, talked, and eventually admitted he didn't sleep well, and that his wife worried about him. We do them no favors, and there are more effective ways.

Btw, I'd worry more about those who felt nothing while brutalizing another human being.