waterboarding folly

[raycarey]

When CIA officials subjected their first high-value captive, Abu Zubaida, to waterboarding and other harsh interrogation methods, they were convinced that they had in their custody an al-Qaeda leader who knew details of operations yet to be unleashed, and they were facing increasing pressure from the White House to get those secrets out of him.

The methods succeeded in breaking him, and the stories he told of al-Qaeda terrorism plots sent CIA officers around the globe chasing leads.

In the end, though, not a single significant plot was foiled as a result of Abu Zubaida's tortured confessions, according to former senior government officials who closely followed the interrogations. Nearly all of the leads attained through the harsh measures quickly evaporated, while most of the useful information from Abu Zubaida -- chiefly names of al-Qaeda members and associates -- was obtained before waterboarding was introduced, they said.

Moreover, within weeks of his capture, U.S. officials had gained evidence that made clear they had misjudged Abu Zubaida. President George W. Bush had publicly described him as "al-Qaeda's chief of operations," and other top officials called him a "trusted associate" of al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden and a major figure in the planning of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. None of that was accurate, the new evidence showed.

so the GWB administration:

* violated US and international laws/treaties
* sacrificed the moral high ground to terrorists....no small feat
* put US military personnel at greater risk for being tortured

and for what?

nothing.

washingtonpost.com - nation, world, technology and Washington area news and headlines

[Texpat]

Agreed. Should a put a hunk of lead through his head when they had the chance.

Waterboarding -- what a waste of good water.

[ChiangMai noon]

^
why tex.

because he's got a funny terrorist sounding name?

[Texpat]

Actually, his name is Zayn al-Abidin Muhammad Husayn.

And he should have been killed for terrorism.

Yes, he's a terrorist. Nothing to do with his name.

For what it's worth, he has thirty-five aliases -- wonder why.

[Panda]

Its well known that confessions obtained under torture are notoriously unreliable.
The simple reason being that the victim will say what ever he/she thinks the torturer wants to hear in order to stop the torture.

Now that some form of decency and justice is starting to prevail over those people illegally imprisoned without trial for several years at Guantanamo Bay, the confessions the military are relying on for convictions may well be inadmissible in a proper court of law.

[larvidchr]

When CIA officials subjected their first high-value captive, Abu Zubaida, to waterboarding and other harsh interrogation methods, they were convinced that they had in their custody an al-Qaeda leader who knew details of operations yet to be unleashed, and they were facing increasing pressure from the White House to get those secrets out of him.

The methods succeeded in breaking him, and the stories he told of al-Qaeda terrorism plots sent CIA officers around the globe chasing leads.

In the end, though, not a single significant plot was foiled as a result of Abu Zubaida's tortured confessions, according to former senior government officials who closely followed the interrogations.Nearly all of the leads attained through the harsh measures quickly evaporated, while most of the useful information from Abu Zubaida -- chiefly names of al-Qaeda members and associates -- was obtained before waterboarding was introduced, they said.

Moreover, within weeks of his capture, U.S. officials had gained evidence that made clear they had misjudged Abu Zubaida. President George W. Bush had publicly described him as "al-Qaeda's chief of operations," and other top officials called him a "trusted associate" of al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden and a major figure in the planning of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. None of that was accurate, the new evidence showed.

so the GWB administration:

* violated US and international laws/treaties
* sacrificed the moral high ground to terrorists....no small feat
* put US military personnel at greater risk for being tortured

and for what?

nothing.

washingtonpost.com - nation, world, technology and Washington area news and headlines

The Washington post is a liberal biased news paper, who do all they can to discredit the former Government.

What is the purpose of pressing people for information, 2 things, one- get the information they have, two- establish if they have no valuable information to give, if any of these two goals is reached the interrogation will have been successful.

Now lets look at some of the the text.

They knew all about this man within weeks of his capture the text states. that would be deemed a success in anybody's book, they found out he wasn't as important as they first had believed, brilliant.

Or, the CIA was running on wild goose chases all over the world based on the information gained from the dangerous terrorist ?

Which one is it ?? apparently the newspaper is not quite sure since they write both conflicting stories in the same piece.

What new evidence, the highly suspect and undoubtedly flawed information from a disgruntled former Government official, what is his name ?, what security clearance did he have ?, has he signed the official secrets act ?, is he a democrat ?, is he looking for a new job ?, is he going to prison for revealing highly sensitive top secrets ? if not why ? if he is not on the run from the law how much of the very secret valuable information has he really been privy to ? Probably not a lot.

If he is on the run from the law for revealing top secrets, was he then the one handing over the water buckets and is he now trying to cut a deal with the new administration in return for smearing the former administration ?

It goes without saying that secret services keep their secrets and only give an absolute minimum to the notorious open mouthed Politicians and their staff, the same goes for Government officials outside the secret services.

Newspaper stories are just that, especially strongly biased newspaper stories. You have to ask critical questions to everything you read no matter from which side of the fence they come, because there is always an agenda behind.

Finally-
In order to find out if somebody have information, you have to ask them first, right !!. and not everybody gives you a useful answer unless they have to.


This answer is of cause subject to the problem that we can not see the whole piece from the WP. so it is just a response to the bit RC have chosen to show us.

[larvidchr]

Its well known that confessions obtained under torture are notoriously unreliable.
The simple reason being that the victim will say what ever he/she thinks the torturer wants to hear in order to stop the torture.

Now that some form of decency and justice is starting to prevail over those people illegally imprisoned without trial for several years at Guantanamo Bay, the confessions the military are relying on for convictions may well be inadmissible in a proper court of law.

Panda, why do you think that resistance people during the 2. world war had a rule saying they had to try to keep quiet the first 24 hours so their friends could get out of harms way, because they knew that everybody eventually breaks under torture, the British SAS soldiers in the ill fated bravo patrol also in the end told their Iraki tortures of their mission. In Chile prisoners gave up all their contacts in droves.

If the interrogators are good they know how not to press for false information and they know how to cross check the answers given while extreme duress is applied, it is next to impossible to stick with complicated lies under torture or just very good interrogation.

I am afraid that the thing about info given under torture is unreliable, mostly comes from people that rightly so are fighting to stop that wholly wrong practice, and they refer to uneducated thug tortureres from 3 world countries like the ones in Idi Amins Ugandan prisons.

[blackgang]

Tried Larvi, but am outta bullets so I will owe ya.

Bout time somebody with some experience joined these discussions as Pandy and Ray baby are subversive coonts and have no experience outside of a whore house or a school yard.

[ItsRobsLife]

I think the real value of waterboarding is not to extract information, but as psychological warfare, torture for the sake of it, you could call that terrorism.

[blackgang]

think the real value of waterboarding is not to extract information, but as psychological warfare, torture for the sake of it, you could call that terrorism

You should not try to do your own thinking, you are not qualified for it.

[larvidchr]

I think the real value of waterboarding is not to extract information, but as psychological warfare, torture for the sake of it, you could call that terrorism.

I hope you are wrong, but in any case it is a really difficult moral dilemma, it is just to easy to do the right thing and dismissing methods like water boarding while sitting in the safety of ones sofa, but what if you where told that if you did that you could save the life's of your Children and Wife and if you did not they would die a horrible death in 1 hour ?

You will then say but it is not their own Children and Wife's this is just some thing I just make up for the sake of the argument, true but it is still some body's else's Children and Wife's and they have entrusted you to keep them safe believing that you will do a better job that they can do them self ? and they are paying you to do just that ? is it ok to let them down as long as it is not your family ? would you still stick to the moral high ground if it was your family and watch the 60 min tick away ? What if it was 1000 families you could save ?

I don't know what I would do myself and I hope I never have to find out, but I think that I probably in the end would put most emphasis on saving innocent lives against the discomfort of 1 terrorist.

[Butterfly]

Torture could have merit if there were real threats,

but Bush and friends were chasing ghosts and windmills, the fools, so it was a bit pointless at the end

[ItsRobsLife]

think the real value of waterboarding is not to extract information, but as psychological warfare, torture for the sake of it, you could call that terrorism

You should not try to do your own thinking, you are not qualified for it.

Actually one of your better comebacks and quite amusing, but the way in which you avoid debate and trivialise the subject of torture speaks volumes about your own lack of intelligence rather than my own.

[raycarey]

but what if you where told that if you did that you could save the life's of your Children and Wife and if you did not they would die a horrible death in 1 hour ?

ahh....another TD issues poster who's watched too many episodes of the fox tv program '24'

hey, do you watch 'lost' too? i really hope they get off the island, because they've been there for a long time.
btw, if the people on the island can broadcast the TV show, why can't they send out a distress signal so they can get rescued?

[Texpat]

24?
Again?

It's one of your favorites, isn't it?

I still haven't heard of it.

Don't you have any new material RA?

[larvidchr]

but what if you where told that if you did that you could save the life's of your Children and Wife and if you did not they would die a horrible death in 1 hour ?

ahh....another TD issues poster who's watched too many episodes of the fox tv program '24'

hey, do you watch 'lost' too? i really hope they get off the island, because they've been there for a long time.
btw, if the people on the island can broadcast the TV show, why can't they send out a distress signal so they can get rescued?

I started working with this problem in 1983, as for the 24 you mention, I'm sorry I don't even know what it is ?

[blackgang]

Actually one of your better comebacks and quite amusing, but the way in which you avoid debate and trivialise the subject of torture speaks volumes about your own lack of intelligence rather than my own.

I see no reason for debate, it is history, you can't change it and is not happening now and if it saved even one life then it was a useful tool.
And I do think it was better than the ROKs did to the POWs or Cong that they interrogated during Nam, altho I can see nothing wrong with that way either, but that again is history so why worry about it.
Do you worry about the way the frontiersman hid among the trees and shot the Brit Red Coats from hiding instead of standing out in the open and shooting at each other.?
I think it was pretty chicken shit, even tho it did save some lives on our side and thats what war is about, save as many of ours and kill as many of them as you can.
so whats to debate, do you think you can debate it and make it where it didn't happen, and if I was in it and thats what it took I would damn sure do it, I don't know you, but has your life ever been on the line and you had to shoot someone to save your own life or do you have the wherewithal to do such a uncivilized thing?

[Boon Mee]

Tried Larvi, but am outta bullets so I will owe ya.

Bout time somebody with some experience joined these discussions as Pandy and Ray baby are subversive coonts and have no experience outside of a whore house or a school yard.

'Ol Reach did walk up Kilimanjaro once so he's kinda experienced...

[helge]

in any case it is a really difficult moral dilemma,

No it is not, Larvid

[helge]

Originally Posted by larvidchr but what if you where told that if you did that you could save the life's of your Children and Wife and if you did not they would die a horrible death in 1 hour ?

This is sadly not some acedemic discussion.
It happens every day, that men, woman, and sometimes children are tortured, and it even happens to people you sympatices with, Larvid

Just say no

[larvidchr]

^^
^
Ahh come on Helge , this has been an ongoing subject for debate in parliaments, at law and psychology studies in university's, it is part of the curriculum at law enforcement academies and army training centres and has been for decades.

But I understand that you think that from your point of view there is nothing to argue about, it is just that many many more think there is a dilemma and that it needs to be debated.

I wont bore you with the stories of infamous experiments at a university where people quite easy was made to give others what they believed was very powerful electric chocks as punishment for a triviality, and how shockingly few said outright no, like you insist you would do !! but it does prove that your stand is rather unique in real life.

I accept your point of view, but believe that most of the people with that categorical dismissal and view that you put forward, have lived a sheltered life and never really been put under real life-threatening pressure far beyond their comfort zone, once you have been there, you realise that most people including yourself given the right circumstances are capable of much more fear, desperation, anger, cruelty and hard decision making than you can possibly imagine. not that it is right, it just a fact.

I have not in my posts been condoning torture under normal circumstances, but merely been pointing out that there can be situations where the choice would be a difficult dilemma for most of us.

You say you just would say NO to save your Children and your Wife's life by giving a terrorist water boarding, good for you, a thing you can be proud of while you plant flowers on their graves.

I on the other hand must concede that I'm probably not such a righteous and good person, I am seriously afraid that I after having drowned the bastard, and you went to the cemetery, would sit home hugging my Wife while we together enjoyed watching the Children play on the carpet in front of the fireplace.

[Jet Gorgon]

'Ol Reach did walk up Kilimanjaro once so he's kinda experienced...

But rc had his teddybear dog with him.


Waterboarding terrorists? Too good for them. Just shoot 'em.

[helge]

Larvid, try write it in German and date it 1940.
My guess is, that the Gestapo would agree wholeheartedly with your post. The Danish resistance were terrorists too, you know.

And could I ask you too define your view of "normal circumstances" where you could condone torture ?

You are on a slide, my friend

[Butterfly]

You are on a slide,

more like in a hole. If I were you, I would avoid such characters in RL, nothing good can come out of them, I mean do you want to be friend with a Nazi apologist ? I know I don't

[blackgang]

Well maturely you would Butter Butt when the krauts marched into Paris was it an immediate relative that welcomed them and offered his wifes head and mouth to the commanding General?
As Patton said, "I would rather have a German Division in front of me than the French Army behind me"