Torture: Still doesn't work

[Yonivore]

I think the whole idea that we can reliably and consistently extract information like this is flawed. It fails more often than it succeeds,...

It succeeded when it needed to.

...and the ideal approach is to build up our image and relationships in these regions so we are able to get intel from the willing.

What has done more harm than good (with respect to your ideal approach) is that we tend to leave those that cooperate exposed...

Obama administration to blame for jailing of hero Bin Laden doctor, says Pakistani report

There may not have been anything we could do about the tragedy at that school, but it's an opportunity for us to magnify who the real bad guys are, as long as we don't it up and make ourselves look worse.

I'm not talking about having been able to do anything about the terror attack described in the article. I'm asking you what you would have done with the terrorists (if you had been able to capture them before they self-detonated) or with the person they called and asked for further instructions? Chances are this group has plans to execute further atrocities. What would you do with anyone you were able to capture who you believed might have information about those future attacks?

[Spurminator]

It succeeded when it needed to.

So has my approach.

What has done more harm than good (with respect to your ideal approach) is that we tend to leave those that cooperate exposed...

Obama administration to blame for jailing of hero Bin Laden doctor, says Pakistani report

"Tend" would imply this is common. It's not, and you don't abandon the whole approach because of mistakes in execution, you improve the execution.

I'm not talking about having been able to do anything about the terror attack described in the article. I'm asking you what you would have done with the terrorists (if you had been able to capture them before they self-detonated) or with the person they called and asked for further instructions? Chances are this group has plans to execute further atrocities. What would you do with anyone you were able to capture who you believed might have information about those future attacks?

I don't know that we should be getting involved beyond basic assistance and supporting their intelligence efforts to prevent another attack. They need to secure their schools better.

[CosmicCowboy]

I don't know that we should be getting involved beyond basic assistance and supporting their intelligence efforts to prevent another attack. They need to secure their schools better.

We need to tell the good guys to identify the Fazlulla and Khurrasi villages where these animals came from, give us GPS coordinates and send in the B52's from Diego Garcia. Rolling Thunder. Blow the out of everything big enough to die.

THAT will win some hearts and minds.

[Yonivore]

So has my approach.

Actually, it didn't. That's why the CIA asked for and received permission to use the Enhanced Interrogation Techniques. Your techniques weren't working fast enough.

[/U][/B]"Tend" would imply this is common. It's not, and you don't abandon the whole approach because of mistakes in execution, you improve the execution.

I could say the same about EITs

I don't know that we should be getting involved beyond basic assistance and supporting their intelligence efforts to prevent another attack. They need to secure their schools better.

It was an analogy to try an elicit a response from you on what you would do if you had KSM or Abu Zehbaydah in custody and believed them to have information that could lead to the discovery of further plots to kill thousands of Americans.

[ChumpDumper]

Of course we will lose this war.

No, the US will never be a caliphate.

We aren't ever gonna win against these evil bas s playing nice.

It has been shown torturing didn't work either.

[ChumpDumper]

It succeeded when it needed to.

Except it didn't.

[Yonivore]

Except it didn't.

Except it did. President Obama said so.

[Th'Pusher]

Except it did. President Obama said so.

Democrats are liars yoni. You know that

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Couple of things are being ignored here.

First as to the issue as to why the CIA was not 'consulted' in the manner they claim to have wanted: they were obstructing the discovery of evidence for years. There is a bumped WH thread from a couple of months ago outlining that and is reason why it took so long to compile.

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=229975

Second, the CIA has been very careful to avoid ever saying that the torture was the cause of the intelligence but rather claim that the entire investigation process did. It sidesteps the issue of what actually got the info and gives Yoni and other minions something to wave their hands at. When you actually look at what part of the interrogation worked and didn't the picture becomes clear that torture was unnecessary and in instances counterproductive.

[Yonivore]

Couple of things are being ignored here.

First as to the issue as to why the CIA was not 'consulted' in the manner they claim to have wanted: they were obstructing the discovery of evidence for years. There is a bumped WH thread from a couple of months ago outlining that and is reason why it took so long to compile.

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=229975

Well, that's not a reason. Just subpoena the staff if they won't comply with requests for records. There's not an agency in the Obama administration that isn't stonewalling requests for do ents; from Fast and Furious to the IRS scandal.

Second, the CIA has been very careful to avoid ever saying that the torture was the cause of the intelligence but rather claim that the entire investigation process did. It sidesteps the issue of what actually got the info and gives Yoni and other minions something to wave their hands at. When you actually look at what part of the interrogation worked and didn't the picture becomes clear that torture was unnecessary and in instances counterproductive.

That's not true either. From the current CIA Director to the former Chief of Clandestine Services, they all declare EITs resulted in actionable intelligence that thwarted terrorist attacks and ultimately led to the location of Osama bin Laden.

Again, I think you ignore context. At the time the EITs were employed, it was believed follow on attacks were imminent. The usual methods of interrogation which take time to develop were seen as ineffective in such a cir stance. The decision was made to design and seek approval for harsher techniques that, ultimately, led to the actionable intelligence that was used to stop terrorist attacks. No one's claimed the other methods aren't effective, just that they would not have worked in the compressed time frame under which the CIA was operating.

[velik_m]

Personally, i think if you are going to fight then fight to win using every means available to you. Losing "honorably" is for losers.

Given the economic and military power of USA, winning the wars should be, and is, easy for America using only "clean" methods, winning the peace however is far more tricky and using stuff like torture just makes it harder for your country.

[ElNono]

Personally, i think if you are going to fight then fight to win using every means available to you. Losing "honorably" is for losers.

Define 'win'?

[CosmicCowboy]

Define 'win'?

With ISIS, for example "win" = exterminate because that is the only way you stop them.

I'm not stupid enough to think we are going to win anything in that hole part of the world.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Well, that's not a reason. Just subpoena the staff if they won't comply with requests for records. There's not an agency in the Obama administration that isn't stonewalling requests for do ents; from Fast and Furious to the IRS scandal.


That's not true either. From the current CIA Director to the former Chief of Clandestine Services, they all declare EITs resulted in actionable intelligence that thwarted terrorist attacks and ultimately led to the location of Osama bin Laden.

Again, I think you ignore context. At the time the EITs were employed, it was believed follow on attacks were imminent. The usual methods of interrogation which take time to develop were seen as ineffective in such a cir stance. The decision was made to design and seek approval for harsher techniques that, ultimately, led to the actionable intelligence that was used to stop terrorist attacks. No one's claimed the other methods aren't effective, just that they would not have worked in the compressed time frame under which the CIA was operating.

They are one of the top counter intelligence organizations in the world and were not complying with the investigation. Quit being obtuse. The liaison they put in charge of 'cooperating' was outright hostile and obstructive. Cops are much the same way when investigated and say the same after the fact.

There is always a new attack so that excuse is . Read the exact quotes in their interviews and their counter reports. They never say the techniques worked. They say interrogations using them were successful. They don't say that the techniques themselves do. It is an important distinction and one that does not dispute the senate report which outlines the use and result of each technique. Also, you ignore the false leads and other counter productive outcomes.

And yeah the CIA certainly is trying to pass the buck to the AG and POTUS office. You really are naive.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

With ISIS, for example "win" = exterminate because that is the only way you stop them.

I'm not stupid enough to think we are going to win anything in that hole part of the world.

When bluster meets stupidity: the CC way.

[CosmicCowboy]

When bluster meets stupidity: the CC way.

With fuzzy it's just stupid meeting stupid.

Anyone that believes they can convert and rehabilitate vicious, violent, religious fanatics is living in an alternate universe.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

With fuzzy it's just stupid meeting stupid.

Anyone that believes they can convert and rehabilitate vicious, violent, religious fanatics is living in an alternate universe.

Anyone that believes that all people within an organization are the same and are nonredeemable are naive and self righteous. Are you familiar with the economics and living conditions in the middle east?

[CosmicCowboy]

@ Fuzzbrains naive and self righteous bull .

[Winehole23]

Merry Christmas from the NSA:

The reports show violations including communications from people in the U.S. being “inadvertently targeted or collected” by the agency. Some of the violations resemble the disclosures of NSA programs by Edward Snowden.

The report cites incidents of “poorly constructed data queries” that targeted Americans, improper handling of data and information used improperly.

Some incidents showed how a U.S. Army sergeant used an NSA system to “target his wife,” which led to a reduction in rank and further punishment.

But while those incidents may be the most disconcerting, actually looking through a report will show dozens upon dozens of less sexy, but nevertheless important bureaucratic and technical issues with the operations of the tools the NSA uses for surveillance. The most recent report (pdf) is for the fourth quarter of 2012. By this time, the NSA has had years to hammer out all sorts of problems with its system. Yet, the quarterly report contains 20 pages of brief descriptions of mistakes. Most are not of sinister intent, like the sergeant who targeted his wife, but many of them are from database queries that have not been properly handled or a due to a failure of oversight over who is supposed to have access to what, where. And several of the entries in just this one report are completely redacted. How much worse do those entries have to be that we’re not allowed to see a single word about what happened?


Should we care about this? Recall the case of Khalid El-Masri, the German-Lebanese man mistakenly arrested and tortured by the CIA in a black site in Afghanistan. This cascade of bureaucratic mistakes doesn’t have to be of ill intent to cause some serious harm to somebody. When the NSA extends its data gathering to people two or three steps away from its target, the next El-Masri could be any of us, entirely because of some analyst’s error.

https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2...christmas-eve/

[TeyshaBlue]

With fuzzy it's just stupid meeting stupid.

Anyone that believes they can convert and rehabilitate vicious, violent, religious fanatics is living in an alternate universe.

We can engage an enemy without nuclear weapons....we can engage an enemy without toture.

[boutons_deux]

We can engage an enemy without nuclear weapons....we can engage an enemy without toture.

... yeah, the US FAILED wonderfully in Afghanistan, Iraq, and has totally destabilized the Middle East, gave the planet ISIS. Thanks, Repugs!

As I said years ago, it's THEIR countries, they will, they have out-waited the US (while wasting 1000s of US military lives and US $Ts).

eg, The Taliban are now taking over regions in Afghanistan the the US had "secured".

The Unspeakable in Afghanistan

2014 marks the deadliest year in Afghanistan for civilians, fighters, and foreigners. The situation has reached a new low as the myth of the Afghan state continues. Thirteen years into America’s longest war, the international community argues that Afghanistan is growing stronger, despite nearly all indicators suggesting otherwise.

The Taliban and other insurgent groups continue to gain traction and have pulled increasing parts of the country under their control.

Throughout the provinces, and even in some of the major cities, the Taliban have begun collecting taxes and are working to secure key roadways.

Kabul—a city that has been called the most fortified city on earth—has been on edge due to multiple suicide bombings.

The attacks on various targets, ranging from high schools to houses for foreign workers, the military, and even the office of Kabul’s police chief have clearly communicated the ability of anti-government forces to strike at will.

http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/28132-the-unspeakable-in-afghanistan

"can engage" ! yes, ENGAGE WITHOUT VICTORY (to enrich 99%'s wealth transfer to the MIC)

Meanwhile, our, oops, BigOil's friend Saudi Arabia:
Saudi Women To Be Tried In Terrorism Court After Defying Driving Ban

Two Saudi women jailed for defying the nation’s ban on women driving were sent to an errorism court Thursday.

Loujain al-Hathloul, 25, was arrested along with a journalist, 33-year-old Maysa al-Amoudi, when she tried to drive into Saudi Arabia from the United Arab Emirates earlier in
December.

But the two will not be tried for driving, which is not officially banned by law (though the state does not issue licenses to women and Saudi clerics have explicitly forbidden it).

Instead, the Specialized Criminal Court will scrutinize their social media posts under a law ostensibly intended to fight cybercrime. The court has been used not only to try terrorism cases but also to dole out lengthy sentences to political dissidents and human rights workers

http://thinkprogress.org/world/2014/...g-driving-ban/

And of course OBL said he hit WTC as pushback for US boots occupying, defiling sacred Saudi sands (to protect BigOil).

[TeyshaBlue]

Take your bull spit takes and moon bat blogs somewhere else.

[Winehole23]

blast from the past:

Yoni says anal rape is not torture if he uses his small .

[RandomGuy]

No, what is sufficient, is that the techniques have yet to be taken to court. Why is that?


Would they care if I did? The people subjected to the techniques weren't tourists randomly pulled out of a line and "tortured."


I didn't dodge it, I ignored it. Is this talking about SERE training and our use of waterboarding on trainees? Or, is it now being alleged we waterboarded our soldiers to extract information or punish them, somehow? Because, that would be a bigger deal than waterboarding KSM. I ignored it because, whatever you were posing about didn't seem to be new and, therefore, since it wasn't new, I assumed it was some rehashing of previously known information (such as that waterboarding is part of SERE training).

"I didn't dodge it, I ignored it."

uuuuh, whut? LOL

So you require a court to hear something before you are capable of making an ethical determination. Pretty ing weak sauce, IMO, but I suppose that is an answer of sorts. As for why, I am not sure what you are getting at. You will need to elaborate a bit to get a fair answer.

Q (Randomguy) I guess if a foreign government detained you, and showed you a letter saying some procedure was not torture, you wouldn't complain?
A: (Yonivore) Would they care if I did? The people subjected to the techniques weren't tourists randomly pulled out of a line and "tortured."

Not really a fair honest answer, to ask a question in response. Either we can use reason and empathy to make ethical determinations, or we have no moral compass at all. The question remains, since you advocate this here, is "If a foreign government did this repeatedly to you, and showed you a memo one of their lawyers wrote saying its legal, would you find that acceptable justification?"

I could also ask, if you were forcibly subjected to this a few dozen times by someone CONVINCED you knew something they wanted to know, would you find it to reasoanably fit a definition of torture?

Lastly, you still aren't honestly answering the last question either. If your previous "answers" have included dishonest or logically flawed red herrings, such as "its used on trainees", then you have not really answered it.

Perhaps I should be more specific.

Would you find the repeated involuntary use of this tactic, to purposefully force one or more of our servicemembers to reveal militarily valuable information acceptable or morally justified? If not, why?

[Yonivore]

"I didn't dodge it, I ignored it."

uuuuh, whut? LOL

So you require a court to hear something before you are capable of making an ethical determination. Pretty ing weak sauce, IMO, but I suppose that is an answer of sorts. As for why, I am not sure what you are getting at. You will need to elaborate a bit to get a fair answer.

I've made my ethical determination the techniques do not cons ute torture, were warranted, legitimate, and effective. Your bias is not allowing you to understand my position, vis-a-vis a legal determination. While I believe the Bush administration did due diligence in developing a regimen of harsh interrogation techniques that were not torture, you claim the opposite. The way to settle the argument is not by shouting each other down on the internet or fostering a narrative in the media. It is by dragging the techniques into a court of law and having them examined and found to be either torture or not torture. That hasn't happened. And, until it does, you have nothing more than the blathering of a bunch of Bush haters that have dragged this out for over a decade without being willing to actually have the argument settled in court. I believe that's because they know it'll be discovered the techniques were, in fact, not torture.

Q (Randomguy) I guess if a foreign government detained you, and showed you a letter saying some procedure was not torture, you wouldn't complain?
A: (Yonivore) Would they care if I did? The people subjected to the techniques weren't tourists randomly pulled out of a line and "tortured."

Not really a fair honest answer, to ask a question in response. Either we can use reason and empathy to make ethical determinations, or we have no moral compass at all. The question remains, since you advocate this here, is "If a foreign government did this repeatedly to you, and showed you a memo one of their lawyers wrote saying its legal, would you find that acceptable justification?"

I think the more appropriate question is, where is your proof the techniques cons uted torture?

I could also ask, if you were forcibly subjected to this a few dozen times by someone CONVINCED you knew something they wanted to know, would you find it to reasoanably fit a definition of torture?

Again, are the techniques torture? And, it would also depend on what they were CONVINCED I knew. Was I in the leadership of an organization that had just murdered 3,000 people and, for all we knew, were in the process of executing a follow on attack?

Lastly, you still aren't honestly answering the last question either. If your previous "answers" have included dishonest or logically flawed red herrings, such as "its used on trainees", then you have not really answered it.

Perhaps I should be more specific.

Would you find the repeated involuntary use of this tactic, to purposefully force one or more of our servicemembers to reveal militarily valuable information acceptable or morally justified? If not, why?

Again, if only our enemies would engage in such due diligence when deciding on how to interrogate our servicemen.