U.S. Interrogator: Torture doesn't work

[Yonivore]

If you're trying to get me to suggest that the ends justify the means, I'm not going to. I don't think torture serves any worthwhile purpose.

Then we'll just have to disagree. Saving the lives of innocent people by waterboarding a terrorist is a worthwhile purpose, in my mind.

I'm cool with that.

[FromWayDowntown]

Then we'll just have to disagree. Saving the lives of innocent people by waterboarding a terrorist is a worthwhile purpose, in my mind.

I'm cool with that.

Well, not stooping to the sorts of abusive, normally-criminalized conduct that terrorists engage in is a worthwhile effort in my mind.

And I'm cool with that.

[Yonivore]

Well, not stooping to the sorts of abusive, normally-criminalized conduct that terrorists engage in is a worthwhile effort in my mind.

And I'm cool with that.

Waterboarding doesn't even approach the depths to which our enemies have stooped. And, we've only engaged in that technique three times in this conflict.

Your an idiot you actually believe our conduct has even approached that of al Qaeda's...which could only be characterized as savage on a grand scale. A bigger idiot than I ever imagined you to be.

[Oh, Gee!!]

Saving the lives of innocent people by waterboarding a terrorist is a worthwhile purpose, in my mind.

But you cannot point to an instance when us-sanctioned waterboarding saved lives of people in imminent danger. The three known instances of such waterboarding led to information about hideouts and prior acts, but no future plans.

we'll never know whether alternative techniques would have been just as effective in gathering that same info.

[Oh, Gee!!]

and didn't one instance of torture lead to a bogus claim that right-wingers used to verify the mythical link between al-queda and saddam?

[FromWayDowntown]

Waterboarding doesn't even approach the depths to which our enemies have stooped. And, we've only engaged in that technique three times in this conflict.

Is there some quantative point at which torture becomes unacceptable? If so, the number for me is zero.

Your an idiot you actually believe our conduct has even approached that of al Qaeda's...which could only be characterized as savage on a grand scale. A bigger idiot than I ever imagined you to be.

You can call me names all you want -- it doesn't particularly advance your argument.

My simple point has been that being less bad than the enemy doesn't make misconduct acceptable. I think torture is misconduct. I think it defies basic moral principles that I believe my nation should adhere to. With that said, I don't think there's some moral relativism that makes conduct that isn't as bad as al Queda's somehow acceptable. You clearly do, and that's your prerogative. I just think my nation is better than that -- and that it should always strive to be better than that.

[Yonivore]

But you cannot point to an instance when us-sanctioned waterboarding saved lives of people in imminent danger. The three known instances of such waterboarding led to information about hideouts and prior acts, but no future plans.

we'll never know whether alternative techniques would have been just as effective in gathering that same info.

Now you're re-writing history.

How CIA Water-boarding Saved Lives

Eventually, he [Zubaydah] was flown to another country where he was water-boarded for 35 seconds. John Kiriakou, a CIA interrogator who had failed to get valuable information out of Zubaydah by softer means [read: FWD's preferred technique. -Y] and who did not participate in the water-boarding, told the Washington Post that the water-boarding "was like flipping a switch."

Afterward, according to Kiriakou, Abu Zubaydah surrendered information that "probably saved lives."

I believe General Hayden put it in more direct terms during his Congressional testimony...detailing the acts that were prevented by 35 seconds of waterboarding.

[RandomGuy]

Your statement directly contradicts the interrogator's.

Do you know more about how they recruit people and what motivates people to join Al Qaeda than the interrogator?

Well, the interrogator is mixing apples and oranges...

You say that but I hear:

"Yes, Randomguy, I know more about why people join Al Qaeda than a guy who has spent hundreds of hours actually talking to people who join Al Qaeda"

That may be a bit unfair, but I find the gentleman in the OP to be pretty credible when he talked about the effacacy of his non-torture methods, and if you start implying that he is just a little mixed up, I find that a bit hard to believe that your understanding of the issue is great enough that you can credibly say that.

[Oh, Gee!!]

Now you're re-writing history.

there's no history to be re-written. a person who didn't perform the waterboarding commenting about how the waterboarding may have saved lives is not a historical event. nice try, db.

[Yonivore]

Is there some quantative point at which torture becomes unacceptable? If so, the number for me is zero.

Okay, then you can thank those who don't share your opinion on the matter when you happy ass is possibly saved by someone who sets the bar a little higher.

I'm okay with that.

You can call me names all you want -- it doesn't particularly advance your argument.

My simple point has been that being less bad than the enemy doesn't make misconduct acceptable. I think torture is misconduct. I think it defies basic moral principles that I believe my nation should adhere to. With that said, I don't think there's some moral relativism that makes conduct that isn't as bad as al Queda's somehow acceptable. You clearly do, and that's your prerogative. I just think my nation is better than that -- and that it should always strive to be better than that.

I think torture and abuse with no discernible purpose is unacceptable. I also think this administration has gone to great lengths to make sure waterboarding has been the technique of last resort.

By comparing our conduct to that of al Qaeda's, you're making the relativistic comparison not me. I don't see any comparison at all between the conduct of our military or intelligence officers (beyond that which has already been prosecuted in the courts vis a vis Abu Ghraib) and that of al Qaeda. None at all.

Waterboarding is an intelligence gathering technique. I've yet to hear you justify anything al Qaeda's done in a similar light.

[FromWayDowntown]

Eventually, he [Zubaydah] was flown to another country where he was water-boarded for 35 seconds. John Kiriakou, a CIA interrogator who had failed to get valuable information out of Zubaydah by softer means [read: the techniques permissible under agreed upon principles of law -FWD] and who did not participate in the water-boarding, told the Washington Post that the water-boarding "was like flipping a switch."

FIFY.

[Oh, Gee!!]

Yoni is full of possibly's and maybe's but cannot point to a specific instance when us-sanctioned waterboarding did what its proponents claim it can do: save lives in imminent danger.

and probably's. he's full of those too.

[RandomGuy]

Waterboarding doesn't even approach the depths to which our enemies have stooped.

Ethics 101:

If Johnny sticks a knife into a store clerk to rob a convenience store, it is ok for me to simply grab a six pack and start running, because my act is less evil.

Epic Fail.

And, we've only engaged in that technique three times in this conflict.

To be able to say that definitively, you would have to be privy to 100% of the interrogation transcripts, public and secret. Your "three times" figure is probably culled from the public testimony of intelligence officials with every motivation to lie, and whose own knowledge of everything might very well have been comprimised by people not being honest to them.

It would be more accurate, and honest to say:

"We've only admitted to waterboarding three times since 9-11."

There is a fair possibility that the actual number is higher.

[Yonivore]

there's no history to be re-written. a person who didn't perform the waterboarding commenting about how the waterboarding may have saved lives is not a historical event. nice try, db.

Exclusive: Only Three Have Been Waterboarded by CIA

The most effective use of waterboarding, according to current and former CIA officials, was in breaking Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, known as KSM, who subsequently confessed to a number of ongoing plots against the United States.

A senior CIA official said KSM later admitted it was only because of the waterboarding that he talked.

[Oh, Gee!!]

I wasn't there but torturing that guy probably yielded trustworthy information that probably saved some lives.

[RandomGuy]

Which is the most plausible statement, based on what any reasonable person would say:

a) Torture makes the idea that we are evil more credible.

or

b) Torture makes the idea that we are evil less credible.

or

c) It makes no difference at all.

Yoni, I have not gotten a straight answer from you on this. I even added the extra possibility you suggested.

A, B, or C. I kept it nice and simple, so as to be as clear as possible.

[Yonivore]

Ethics 101:

If Johnny sticks a knife into a store clerk to rob a convenience store, it is ok for me to simply grab a six pack and start running, because my act is less evil.

Epic Fail.

No, but it is okay for you to stick a knife in Johnny before he sticks his knife in another store clerk.

To be able to say that definitively, you would have to be privy to 100% of the interrogation transcripts, public and secret. Your "three times" figure is probably culled from the public testimony of intelligence officials with every motivation to lie, and whose own knowledge of everything might very well have been comprimised by people not being honest to them.

You have no evidence it occurred more than those three times.

It would be more accurate, and honest to say:

"We've only admitted to waterboarding three times since 9-11."

There is a fair possibility that the actual number is higher.

Why is that a fair possibility?

[Oh, Gee!!]

Exclusive: Only Three Have Been Waterboarded by CIA

and KSM never gave up info on any future attacks, only stuff he himself did and stuff other people did. the info didn't prevent anything. again, nice try.

From the same blogger:
But in many cases, the harsh intelligence techniques led to questionable confessions and downright lies, say officers with firsthand knowledge of the program. That included statements that al Qaeda was building dirty bombs.

and this:
"If in fact it's true that they water-boarded him once and then he (KSM) started talking and provided reliable information, then he falls under the category of the small minority of people on whom it works. But torture seldom works. Most people start talking...to get the pain to stop," Garrett said.

[Yonivore]

and KSM never gave up info on any future attacks, only stuff he himself did and stuff other people did. the info didn't prevent anything. again, nice try.

From the same blogger:
But in many cases, the harsh intelligence techniques led to questionable confessions and downright lies, say officers with firsthand knowledge of the program. That included statements that al Qaeda was building dirty bombs.

...confessed to a number of ongoing plots ...

[Yonivore]

Yoni, I have not gotten a straight answer from you on this. I even added the extra possibility you suggested.

A, B, or C. I kept it nice and simple, so as to be as clear as possible.

C. It makes no difference. Those who believe we are evil will believe so no matter what.

[clambake]

That included statements that al Qaeda was building dirty bombs.

have to disagree with this.

i would suspect they were in filthy working conditions.

[Yonivore]

and KSM never gave up info on any future attacks, only stuff he himself did and stuff other people did. the info didn't prevent anything. again, nice try.

From the same blogger:
But in many cases, the harsh intelligence techniques led to questionable confessions and downright lies, say officers with firsthand knowledge of the program. That included statements that al Qaeda was building dirty bombs.

and this:
"If in fact it's true that they water-boarded him once and then he (KSM) started talking and provided reliable information, then he falls under the category of the small minority of people on whom it works. But torture seldom works. Most people start talking...to get the pain to stop," Garrett said.

From their own admission, it garnered actionable intelligence from 2 of the 3 it was used on.

[clambake]

C. It makes no difference. Those who believe we are evil will believe so no matter what.

there it is, in a nuts . this is what yoni considers to be the "green light".

[Oh, Gee!!]

funny that there's no details whatsoever about those "ongoing attacks." the only detailed info we have is about prior acts. and it's funny that KSM also confessed to almost every al queda attack. that sounds like reliable information.

[RandomGuy]

No, but it is okay for you to stick a knife in Johnny before he sticks his knife in another store clerk.

You are mixing apples and oranges.

A more apt analogy would be:

Since Johnny stabbed a convenience store clerk, it is acceptable to pull out a few of his fingernails to get him to confess.

You have no evidence it occurred more than those three times.

Indeed not. That is my point. You have some corroberrating evidence that provides a figure for waterboarding, from people who may not be in a position to 100% know everything, and who would have every motivation to downplay the figure.

If you want to assign that enough credibility to be able to state with 100% certainty that it only happened 3 times, that is your business, but do not expect me to suspend my skepticism based on your judgement of credulity.

Why is that a fair possibility?

1) Waterboarding might not be in every transcripted session. It is fully conceivable that it might have taken place without full authorization and without formally being recorded.

2) Intelligence is compartmentalized. Not all officials know evergything there is to know about what goes on and where.

3) There were and, I am sure, are numerous secret detention centers for the US intelligence community worldwide. This indicates to me that we are not being told 100% of what is going on. I would hope that is the case, but it is just as easy to hide illegal interrogations as it would be to hide simply secret ones.

Again, it is reasonable to assume there is at least a possibility that it is greater than three.