Torture Report

[phgreek]

It doesn't matter if they care about human rights. We should.

Also, torture doesn't work.

for all the reasons everyone states...it (enhanced interrogation) may produce bad data...but there is more to it in this case...enjoy the novel that follows...

. . . In particular, the CIA believes that it would have been unable to obtain critical information from numerous detainees, including [Khalid Sheik Mohammed] and Abu Zubaydah, without these enhanced techniques." The memo continues: "Before the CIA used enhanced techniques . . . KSM resisted giving any answers to questions about future attacks, simply noting, 'Soon you will find out.' " Once the techniques were applied, "interrogations have led to specific, actionable intelligence, as well as a general increase in the amount of intelligence regarding al Qaeda and its affiliates."

Specifically, interrogation with enhanced techniques "led to the discovery of a KSM plot, the 'Second Wave,' 'to use East Asian operatives to crash a hijacked airliner into' a building in Los Angeles." KSM later acknowledged before a military commission at Guantanamo Bay that the target was the Library Tower, the tallest building on the West Coast. The memo explains that "information obtained from KSM also led to the capture of Riduan bin Isomuddin, better known as Hambali, and the discovery of the Guraba Cell, a 17-member Jemmah Islamiyah cell tasked with executing the 'Second Wave.' " In other words, without enhanced interrogations, there could be a hole in the ground in Los Angeles to match the one in New York.

The memo notes that "nterrogations of [Abu] Zubaydah -- again, once enhanced techniques were employed -- furnished detailed information regarding al Qaeda's 'organizational structure, key operatives, and modus operandi' and identified KSM as the mastermind of the September 11 attacks." This information helped the intelligence community plan the operation that captured KSM. It went on: "Zubaydah and KSM also supplied important information about al-Zarqawi and his network" in Iraq, which helped our operations against al-Qaeda in that country.


Yet there is more information confirming the program's effectiveness. The Office of Legal Counsel memo states "we discuss only a small fraction of the important intelligence CIA interrogators have obtained from KSM" and notes that "intelligence derived from CIA detainees has resulted in more than 6,000 intelligence reports and, in 2004, accounted for approximately half of the [Counterterrorism Center's] reporting on al Qaeda." The memos refer to other classified documents -- including an "Effectiveness Memo" and an "IG Report," which explain how "the use of enhanced techniques in the interrogations of KSM, Zubaydah and others . . . has yielded critical information."

Critics claim that enhanced techniques do not produce good intelligence because people will say anything to get the techniques to stop. But the memos note that, "as Abu Zubaydah himself explained with respect to enhanced techniques, 'brothers who are captured and interrogated are permitted by Allah to provide information when they believe they have reached the limit of their ability to withhold it in the face of psychological and physical hardship." In other words, the terrorists are called by their faith to resist as far as they can -- and once they have done so, they are free to tell everything they know. This is because of their belief that "Islam will ultimately dominate the world and that this victory is inevitable." The job of the interrogator is to safely help the terrorist do his duty to Allah, so he then feels liberated to speak freely.

This is the secret to the program's success. And the Obama administration's decision to share this secret with the terrorists threatens our national security. Al-Qaeda will use this information and other details in the memos to train its operatives to resist questioning and withhold information on planned attacks. CIA Director Leon Panetta said during his confirmation hearings that even the Obama administration might use some of the enhanced techniques in a "ticking time bomb" scenario. What will the administration do now that it has shared the limits of our interrogation techniques with the enemy? President Obama's decision to release these documents is one of the most dangerous and irresponsible acts ever by an American president during a time of war -- and Americans may die as a result.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

From a recent TAC article by Noah Millman titled "Why Did We Torture?":

I don’t have much to say about the torture report released by the Senate. While many of the details were unknown to me – or to any ordinary civilian – prior to the release, nothing that has come out strikes me as a particular surprise. We already knew that we committed brutal, systematic torture; we already knew that many credible analysts concluded that it was useless; we already knew that what was done was done in knowing violation of American law; and we already knew that the Executive branch as a whole and the CIA in particular labored mightily to cover it up.

The United States is obligated by treaty to punish those responsible, both those who committed the acts and those who ordered them. Orders to commit torture are illegal and must be affirmatively disobeyed; American law is crystal clear about that, so the only real defense is to claim that illegal actions did not occur, which is no longer a plausible claim. I assume that we will refuse to comply with this obligation.

None of this is a surprise. All of this could have been known in advance. So why did we do it?

Most commonly, torture’s purpose is not to extract intelligence, but to extract confessions. Whether you’re talking about the Inquisition or the NKVD, there is value to a given regime in “proving” that the accused is guilty. It vindicates the justice of the regime’s actions generally; it demonstrates the power of the regime over truth itself. It may well be of distinctly secondary importance whether or not the confession is actually true, whether the accused is actually guilty. So long as he confesses, the regime’s power is confirmed.

Relatedly, torture is a valuable tool to instill fear in the general population. Incarceration is fearful, but if incarceration brings with it terrible physical and psychological pain, including the possibility of permanent injury or death, then the possibility of being apprehended by the authorities is much more fearful, and ordinary civilians will be much more cautious about risking that possibility. If instilling fear is more important to a regime than inspiring confidence, cooperation and loyalty, then torture serves these purposes well.

These are the primary reasons why regimes like the Nazis or Soviets used torture extensively. Yes, they also used torture to try to extract intelligence, but that was never the primary purpose of such techniques. There were other, fully rational reasons to torture.

I believe that our reasons were far less rational.

I’ve written before about the overwhelming fear that afflicted the country in the wake of 9-11, and how, perversely, exaggerating the severity of the threat from al Qaeda helped address that fear, because it made it acceptable to contemplate more extreme actions in response. If al Qaeda was really just a band of lunatics who got lucky, then 3,000 died because, well, because that’s the kind of thing that can happen. If al Qaeda was the leading edge of a worldwide Islamo-fascist movement with the real potential to destroy the West, then we would be justified in nuking Mecca in response. Next to that kind of response, torture seems moderate.

Willingness to torture became, first within elite government and opinion-making circles, then in the culture generally, and finally as a partisan GOP talking point, a litmus test of seriousness with respect to the fight against terrorism. That – proving one’s seriousness in the fight – was its primary purpose from the beginning, in my view. It was only secondarily about extracting intelligence. It certainly wasn’t about instilling fear or extracting false confessions – these would not have served American purposes. It was never about “them” at all. It was about us. It was our psychological security blanket, our best evidence that we were “all-in” in this war, the thing that proved to us that we were fierce enough to win.

I’ve used “we” all through this piece, and the reason is not just because America is a democracy. Our government tortured for us, not just in the sense that it is our representative nor in the sense that its motive was our protection, but in the sense that we, as a country in aggregate, really wanted the proof of seriousness that torture provided.

That’s something we’ll have to grapple with, as a country, if we’re ever to have the strength to follow our own laws and bring the guilty to justice.

And Daniel Larison (also writing for TAC) responds here:

That makes a great deal of sense, and it is related to the broader problem in foreign policy and national security debates of frequently treating the most hard-line and indefensible positions as the most “serious” ones. That is, one isn’t perceived as taking a threat “seriously” unless one is prepared to support any and all measures to counter it. We see this in the debate over Iran and the nuclear issue, where support for prevention and “keeping all options on the table” is mandatory for anyone that doesn’t want to be labeled as “weak.” We saw it during the Iraq war debate, where indulging the most paranoid fantasies about future Iraqi attacks on the U.S. was considered the “serious” and “responsible” position and doubting them was viewed as naivete. According to this warped definition of being “serious,” it is necessary to countenance vicious behavior to prove the extent of one’s dedication to a particular policy goal.

Because of the bias in our debates in favor of hard-line policies, preventive war and torture not only become acceptable “options” worth considering, but they have often been treated as possessing the quality–seriousness–that they most lack. The belief that a government is entitled to invade a foreign country and destroy its government on the off chance that the latter might one day pose a threat is an outstanding example of something that is morally unserious. That is, it reveals the absence or the rejection of careful moral reasoning. Likewise, believing that a government should ever be allowed to torture people is the opposite of what comes from serious moral reflection. These so-called “serious” policies are driven by passions and knee-jerk responses and lead to horrible crimes and abuses of power, and that is why they should be condemned and rejected from the start.

And here's TAC's Jim Antle on the Torture Report v. Obamacare:

Defending this kind of government behavior may be a habit many conservatives have fallen into, but it does not reflect an authentically conservative habit of mind. Imagine a liberal defense of Gruber on the grounds that health care is, like fighting terrorism, a life-and-death matter. Indeed, if history is any guide, cancer and heart disease are far likelier killers than even the most ruthless terrorist cells.

You don’t have to imagine such defenses, in fact. They’re made routinely. Republican opposition to Obamacare’s Medicaid expansion has been equated to killing, since health coverage saves lives.

The conservative response would be that the morality, legality, and efficacy of policies aimed at increasing health coverage matter, and the benefits must be weighed against the costs, even if all our allies have single payer.

That same reasoning should apply to dealing with terrorism, even if all our enemies torture.

Foreign and defense policy is replete with Grubers (see Robert McNamara) who hatch ill-conceived schemes and think they are much smarter than the taxpayers footing the bill. And it is not as if Republican administrations never employ such people in domestic policy. After all, before Jonathan Gruber himself was called the architect of President Obama’s healthcare law, he was known as the architect of Mitt Romney’s in Massachusetts.

Yes, a limited government’s paramount function is protecting the country from enemies who would harm the citizens it serves. In the United States, national defense has a far clearer constitutional sanction than much of the federal social welfare state.

But the case for limited government is weakened when those making it ignore or defend torture, testicle-crushing, and waterboarding, complaining only about big government when someone proposes spending taxpayer dollars to help people. And I say that as someone who has written a book arguing that seemingly benign and compassionate government spending can curtail individual freedom.

It is difficult to take someone seriously who thinks the imprisonment of human beings in cages and the behavior of government agents with guns have less impact on personal freedom than the capital-gains tax rate. That is one reason it is so easy for many to dismiss arguments against programs like Obamacare as being motivated purely by economic self-interest.

I don't see how any self-professing Christian can defend these practices.

 

[no.1IrishFan]

From a recent TAC article by Noah Millman titled "Why Did We Torture?":



And Daniel Larison (also writing for TAC) responds here:



And here's TAC's Jim Antle on the Torture Report v. Obamacare:



I don't see how any self-professing Christian can defend these practices.

I feel the same way every time I read the bible.
Sorry, couldn't help myself.

 

[ickythump1225]

You don't care about innocent people being tortured because they 'may' have information?

"Innocent" is a strange word to use given the circumstances.

All these liberals are not behind Obama's latest bombing campaign.

This isn't a democrat and republican argument. It is about who we are as a society.

I'd rather avoid another strike even if it means using "enhanced interrogation" methods. It's probably not pretty work but the groups we're at war with have no restraint and don't fight fair. Occasionally we have to fight dirty as well. It's the way of the world and how it is. They don't say "war is hell" for no reason.

 

[GoIrish41]

"Innocent" is a strange word to use given the circumstances.


I'd rather avoid another strike even if it means using "enhanced interrogation" methods. It's probably not pretty work but the groups we're at war with have no restraint and don't fight fair. Occasionally we have to fight dirty as well. It's the way of the world and how it is. They don't say "war is hell" for no reason.

Even if it just generates more enemie to increase the chances that even more people want to do another strike? If war is indeed hell, why would we want to expand the scope of it? Why ensure there will always be an enemy to fight against. If we are willing to fundamentally change this nation's ideals, we have to decide if that is the type of the nation that is worth fighting for. If we going to accept the idea of torture, I'd say we are fundamentally a differnt nation that we have always been.

 

[Circa]

If We can all do only 1 thing, and it be to look at everyone as they try to look at us, it seems we may get further than the last generation.
<div style="max-width: 500px;" id="_giphy_7LVVHgAj8WtOw"></div><script>var _giphy = _giphy || []; _giphy.push({id: "7LVVHgAj8WtOw",w: 500, h: 200});var g = document.createElement("script"); g.type = "text/javascript"; g.async = true;g.src = ("https:" == document.location.protocol ? "https://" : "http://") + "giphy.com/static/js/widgets/embed.js";var s = document.getElementsByTagName("script")[0]; s.parentNode.insertBefore(g, s);</script>

 

[Cackalacky]

"Innocent" is a strange word to use given the circumstances.


I'd rather avoid another strike even if it means using "enhanced interrogation" methods. It's probably not pretty work but the groups we're at war with have no restraint and don't fight fair. Occasionally we have to fight dirty as well. It's the way of the world and how it is. They don't say "war is hell" for no reason.

Who is determining "guilt" then? Guilty by association? Guilty because you were in the vicinty of drone strike? Guilty because some American field officer says so?

One can't logically claim the Constitution as a beacon of light to the rest of humanity and then choose to ignore it in order to violate other human rights. That is inconsistent with the foundation of that document and if we are trying to instill democratic values across the globe as the narrative is with our world police activities, then what are these countries going to end up learning from us that will be beneficial to them and us. Nothing. It just promotes more anti-american sentiment and more radicals from a region that is historically easily swayed into radicalism regularly. That is all that is gained by torture. Death or the living and breathing animosity that gets passed on.

As far as terrorists go, and particularly radical islamic groups like ISIS (the people we want to interrogate), I posted a post a while back talking about how common it is for radical islam to have ebbs and flows and that historically, the way to combat it was to let the local and adjoining countries fix it with limited Western involvement. The radical groups would gain territory and have some power which would be quickly lost because such radical and authoritarian societies tend not to be stable and implode from the inside relatively quickly through economics (lack of) and social freedoms enjoyed by others.

Whatever the end game of extraction methodology is not worth it in the long term.

 

[bkess8]

Let's me be very clear here, you do not provide me with freedoms. The Constitution provides me with freedoms, many of which your bosses don't think Americans should have and actively work to limit.

How do I not provide you with the freedoms that you enjoy everyday? The Constitution that you are referencing is defended my myself and many other american soliders, sailors, airmen and marines. So maybe you could be a little more clear on how I am not a part of the freedoms you enjoy.

Two oceans, the navy, and ICBMs provide me with the security you are falsely insinuating you provide me. Large elements of the War on Terror, and specifically torture, are making us all a bigger target.

Maybe you didn't see my signature below but its not there for the hell of it. I am on active duty and I am very proud of what I do!

Have a lovely evening Buster!

 

[ickythump1225]

One can't logically claim the Constitution as a beacon of light to the rest of humanity and then choose to ignore it in order to violate other human rights. That is inconsistent with the foundation of that document and if we are trying to instill democratic values across the globe as the narrative is with our world police activities, then what are these countries going to end up learning from us that will be beneficial to them and us. Nothing. It just promotes more anti-american sentiment and more radicals from a region that is historically easily swayed into radicalism regularly. That is all that is gained by torture. Death or the living and breathing animosity that gets passed on.

I don't believe in instilling "democratic values" across the globe. I believe in protecting and defending the United States of America. Spreading democracy is a pipe dream that can never happen. I also don't believe it is our job or right to make a country adapt to our way of life or our governing principles. Nation building is a long, arduous, and extremely expensive process that will bankrupt our nation long before we ever make any real progress.

Not to mention the perceived arrogance that comes with our nation building efforts wins us far more enemies than friends. Why do Al-Qaeda and other middle eastern extremist groups hate us? Because we're over there in their business. Infidels on holy ground. We're seen as an occupying force which serves as a natural rallying point for extremist groups.

I also want to say that I'm explicitly "pro-torture" but I think it would be foolish to leave a tool out of the toolbox to defend our nation. If we insist upon fighting a war on terror we shouldn't do it blindfolded with 1 hand tied behind our back. I for one believe we should follow President Adams advice to not seek out monsters to destroy but sometimes we don't have a choice. When we find a serious threat to the United States we need locate, identify, and eliminate that threat in the most efficient way possible without mercy.

 

[Cackalacky]

Good post here.

I don't believe in instilling "democratic values" across the globe. I believe in protecting and defending the United States of America. Spreading democracy is a pipe dream that can never happen. I also don't believe it is our job or right to make a country adapt to our way of life or our governing principles. Nation building is a long, arduous, and extremely expensive process that will bankrupt our nation long before we ever make any real progress.

Right on. 1000% with you.

Not to mention the perceived arrogance that comes with our nation building efforts wins us far more enemies than friends. Why do Al-Qaeda and other middle eastern extremist groups hate us? Because we're over there in their business. Infidels on holy ground. We're seen as an occupying force which serves as a natural rallying point for extremist groups.

1000% with you.

I also want to say that I'm explicitly "pro-torture" but I think it would be foolish to leave a tool out of the toolbox to defend our nation. If we insist upon fighting a war on terror we shouldn't do it blindfolded with 1 hand tied behind our back. I for one believe we should follow President Adams advice to not seek out monsters to destroy but sometimes we don't have a choice. When we find a serious threat to the United States we need locate, identify, and eliminate that threat in the most efficient way possible without mercy.

You lose me here. There are precieved threats, there are propogandized threats, there are legitimate threats, then there is general fear mongering. Toture is not a tool. Its a mean to an end whose costs far outweight benefits. There are plenty of other tools at our disposal.

 

[philipm31]

As a trained interrogator that spent most of 2006 deployed, I firmly believe that torture doesn't work.

Thank you.

'Criminal Minds' Wins Human Rights Award for Portrayal of Interrogation | Human Rights First

 

[philipm31]

Criminal Minds’ winning episode, “Lessons Learned,” which was written by active duty FBI agent Jim Clemente, demonstrates that the sophisticated use of non-violent interrogation techniques are more likely to yield credible information than abusive ones. The episode presents a twist on the “ticking time bomb scenario” seen on so many TV shows. Instead of torturing a detainee who has information that could stop the detonation of a biological bomb, Special Agent Jason Gideon (Mandy Patinkin) talks to him. In the process, he learns more from the suspect in less than 48 hours than CIA interrogators did over weeks, using rougher tactics. Episode was from 2006.

All about communication skills, yo.

 

[philipm31]

Interrogation Experts From Every Branch of the Military and Intelligence Agree: Torture DOESN’T Produce Useful Information | The Big Picture

The C.I.A.’s 1963 interrogation manual stated:

Intense pain is quite likely to produce false confessions, concocted as a means of escaping from distress. A time-consuming delay results, while investigation is conducted and the admissions are proven untrue. During this respite the interrogatee can pull himself together. He may even use the time to think up new, more complex ‘admissions’ that take still longer to disprove.

Also:

A 30-year veteran of CIA’s operations directorate who rose to the most senior managerial ranks (Milton Bearden) says (as quoted by senior CIA agent and Presidential briefer Ray McGovern):

It is irresponsible for any administration not to tell a credible story that would convince critics at home and abroad that this torture has served some useful purpose.
This is not just because the old hands overwhelmingly believe that torture doesn’t work — it doesn’t — but also because they know that torture creates more terrorists and fosters more acts of terror than it could possibly neutralize.

 

[philipm31]

So, going back over fifty years or more, we see that torture has never been seen as acceptable by CIA standards.

This is not just a political thing. It is a humanitarian thing, as well as intelligence, and not a CIA-type.

 

[philipm31]

As early as the third century A.D., the great Roman Jurist Ulpian noted that information obtained through torture was not to be trusted because some people are “so susceptible to pain that they will tell any lie rather than suffer it” (Peters, 1996).

This warning about the unreliability of information extracted through the use of torture has echoed across the centuries. As one CIA operative who participated in torture during the Vietnam War put it, “We had people who were willing to confess to anything if we would just stop torturing them” (Andersen, 2004, p. 3).

Indeed, the Army Field Manual explains that strategically useful information is best obtained from prisoners who are treated humanely, and that information obtained through torture has produced faulty intelligence (Leahy, 2005).

https://www.cgu.edu/pdffiles/sbos/costanzo_effects_of_interrogation.pdf


When Romans tell you that torture is ineffective, that is saying something.

 

[Cackalacky]

National Media Tactics
How the media forms a narrative.

 

[Cackalacky]

John McCain on the Floor. FTW

 

[Irish#1]

If We can all do only 1 thing, and it be to look at everyone as they try to look at us, it seems we may get further than the last generation.
<div style="max-width: 500px;" id="_giphy_7LVVHgAj8WtOw"></div><script>var _giphy = _giphy || []; _giphy.push({id: "7LVVHgAj8WtOw",w: 500, h: 200});var g = document.createElement("script"); g.type = "text/javascript"; g.async = true;g.src = ("https:" == document.location.protocol ? "https://" : "http://") + "giphy.com/static/js/widgets/embed.js";var s = document.getElementsByTagName("script")[0]; s.parentNode.insertBefore(g, s);</script>

Here's the problem. All of this has been started by the extremist Muslim terrorist. They do not believe there is any wiggle room in this world outside of their values. They consider anyone who doesn't believe or follow their practices as the enemy. They've killed women for not wearing scarves on their faces or for simply speaking out.

One thing many have seemed to have forgotten, is the lack of attacks on US soil and the number of planned attacks that were uncovered and prevented since 911. A lot of that info came from detainees/prisoners.

 

[philipm31]

for all the reasons everyone states...it (enhanced interrogation) may produce bad data...but there is more to it in this case...enjoy the novel that follows...

. . . In particular, the CIA believes that it would have been unable to obtain critical information from numerous detainees, including [Khalid Sheik Mohammed] and Abu Zubaydah, without these enhanced techniques." The memo continues: "Before the CIA used enhanced techniques . . . KSM resisted giving any answers to questions about future attacks, simply noting, 'Soon you will find out.' " Once the techniques were applied, "interrogations have led to specific, actionable intelligence, as well as a general increase in the amount of intelligence regarding al Qaeda and its affiliates."

Specifically, interrogation with enhanced techniques "led to the discovery of a KSM plot, the 'Second Wave,' 'to use East Asian operatives to crash a hijacked airliner into' a building in Los Angeles." KSM later acknowledged before a military commission at Guantanamo Bay that the target was the Library Tower, the tallest building on the West Coast. The memo explains that "information obtained from KSM also led to the capture of Riduan bin Isomuddin, better known as Hambali, and the discovery of the Guraba Cell, a 17-member Jemmah Islamiyah cell tasked with executing the 'Second Wave.' " In other words, without enhanced interrogations, there could be a hole in the ground in Los Angeles to match the one in New York.

The memo notes that "nterrogations of [Abu] Zubaydah -- again, once enhanced techniques were employed -- furnished detailed information regarding al Qaeda's 'organizational structure, key operatives, and modus operandi' and identified KSM as the mastermind of the September 11 attacks." This information helped the intelligence community plan the operation that captured KSM. It went on: "Zubaydah and KSM also supplied important information about al-Zarqawi and his network" in Iraq, which helped our operations against al-Qaeda in that country.


Yet there is more information confirming the program's effectiveness. The Office of Legal Counsel memo states "we discuss only a small fraction of the important intelligence CIA interrogators have obtained from KSM" and notes that "intelligence derived from CIA detainees has resulted in more than 6,000 intelligence reports and, in 2004, accounted for approximately half of the [Counterterrorism Center's] reporting on al Qaeda." The memos refer to other classified documents -- including an "Effectiveness Memo" and an "IG Report," which explain how "the use of enhanced techniques in the interrogations of KSM, Zubaydah and others . . . has yielded critical information."

Critics claim that enhanced techniques do not produce good intelligence because people will say anything to get the techniques to stop. But the memos note that, "as Abu Zubaydah himself explained with respect to enhanced techniques, 'brothers who are captured and interrogated are permitted by Allah to provide information when they believe they have reached the limit of their ability to withhold it in the face of psychological and physical hardship." In other words, the terrorists are called by their faith to resist as far as they can -- and once they have done so, they are free to tell everything they know. This is because of their belief that "Islam will ultimately dominate the world and that this victory is inevitable." The job of the interrogator is to safely help the terrorist do his duty to Allah, so he then feels liberated to speak freely.

This is the secret to the program's success. And the Obama administration's decision to share this secret with the terrorists threatens our national security. Al-Qaeda will use this information and other details in the memos to train its operatives to resist questioning and withhold information on planned attacks. CIA Director Leon Panetta said during his confirmation hearings that even the Obama administration might use some of the enhanced techniques in a "ticking time bomb" scenario. What will the administration do now that it has shared the limits of our interrogation techniques with the enemy? President Obama's decision to release these documents is one of the most dangerous and irresponsible acts ever by an American president during a time of war -- and Americans may die as a result.

So you want to spend days, months even years torturing someone and getting bad intel until they reach their breaking point, during which time more people will die, just to "break them"...or do you want to actually use tactics that work?

Soufan: CIA torture actually hindered our intelligence gathering - Salon.com

Soufan, who testified at the hearing from behind a partition to hide his identity, worked on a small team of interrogators utilizing tried-and-true techniques that emphasize knowing the detainee’s language, understanding his culture, leveraging known information about a detainee, and sometimes using a bit of trickery. The method is based on rapport and is believed by experienced interrogators to result in the most reliable actionable intelligence. “It is about outwitting the detainee by using a combination of interpersonal, cognitive and emotional strategies to get the information needed,” Soufan said in written testimony, which he paraphrased on Wednesday.

“For example,” Soufan told the committee, “in my first interrogation of the terrorist Abu Zubaydah … I asked him his name. He replied with his alias. I then asked him, ‘How ’bout if I call you Hani?’”

“[Hani] was the name his mother nicknamed him as a child,” recalled Soufan. “He looked at me in shock, said, OK,’ and we started talking.”

“Within the first hour of interrogation,” Soufan said, “we gained actionable intelligence.” Soufan could not say what that information was because it remains classified. Zubaydah had been injured during his capture, and Soufan’s team arranged for medical care and continued talking to the prisoner. Within the next few days, Soufan made one of the most significant intelligence breakthroughs of the so-called war on terror. He learned from Zubaydah that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was the mastermind behind the attacks on 9/11.

No, the CIA "enhanced interrogation" did not get that information. Actual interrogation did.

 

[philipm31]

Here's the problem. All of this has been started by the extremist Muslim terrorist. They do not believe there is any wiggle room in this world outside of their values. They consider anyone who doesn't believe or follow their practices as the enemy. They've killed women for not wearing scarves on their faces or for simply speaking out.

One thing many have seemed to have forgotten, is the lack of attacks on US soil and the number of planned attacks that were uncovered and prevented since 911. A lot of that info came from detainees/prisoners.

I think that is debatable, considering we killed OBL just 4 years ago and he had been successfully hiding for a decade. How many years and hours were WASTED because of "enhanced interrogation" methods? Almost an entire decade and two presidential terms.

It probably took two years to sift through the BS intel we had for the previous interrogations before we were able to get "actionable intelligence" that led to OBL's death. "Enhanced interrogation" had little to do with it, at all.

 

[phork]

Here's the problem. All of this has been started by the extremist Muslim terrorist. They do not believe there is any wiggle room in this world outside of their values. They consider anyone who doesn't believe or follow their practices as the enemy. They've killed women for not wearing scarves on their faces or for simply speaking out.

One thing many have seemed to have forgotten, is the lack of attacks on US soil and the number of planned attacks that were uncovered and prevented since 911. A lot of that info came from detainees/prisoners.

Well technically the Muslim extremist didn't start it. The world powers policies of removing governments that aren't friendly to world power interests initiated a lot of it.

 

[GoIrish41]

Here's the problem. All of this has been started by the extremist Muslim terrorist. They do not believe there is any wiggle room in this world outside of their values. They consider anyone who doesn't believe or follow their practices as the enemy. They've killed women for not wearing scarves on their faces or for simply speaking out.

One thing many have seemed to have forgotten, is the lack of attacks on US soil and the number of planned attacks that were uncovered and prevented since 911. A lot of that info came from detainees/prisoners.

How many foreign attacks happened on US soil between Pearl Harbor and 9/11? This argument has always struck me as somewhat absurd. How do we know that the Department of Homeland Security and these rules that change us as a people have done any more than the systems and organizations that we had in place prior to 9/11 would have done? What evidence to we really have that planned attacks were uncovered or prevented and that the detainees provided the information? All we have is the word of the intelligence community, whose members took it upon themselves to violate our national morality and lie to Congress about it. Right now, I'm not feeling their credibility.

 

[tussin]

How many foreign attacks happened on US soil between Pearl Harbor and 9/11? This argument has always struck me as somewhat absurd. How do we know that the Department of Homeland Security and these rules that change us as a people have done any more than they systems and organizations that we had in place prior to 9/11 would have done? What evidence to we really have that planned attacks were uncovered or prevented and that the detainees provided the information? All we have is the word of the intelligence community, whose members took it upon themselves to violate our national morality and lie to Congress about it. Right now, I'm not feeling their credibility.

The facts are the facts, and some of them are despicable. But the conclusions drawn are where I'm not totally sold on the report. It's easy to cast doubt on the CIA, but it's also pretty damn easy to question the conclusions (and the motives behind said conclusions) made by the Senate Committee. I read through the Senate minority response and there appears to be a lot of he said/she said regarding how the interrogation program was portrayed to Congress and the DOJ. As always, the answer is probably somewhere in the middle.

Based on all the questions you pose above, it seems like you desire a level of transparency from the intelligence community that I personally feel is neither realistic nor appropriate.

 

[GoIrish41]

The facts are the facts, and some of them are despicable. But the conclusions drawn are where I'm not totally sold on the report. It's easy to cast doubt on the CIA, but it's also pretty damn easy to question the conclusions (and the motives behind said conclusions) made by the Senate Committee. I read through the Senate minority response and there appears to be a lot of he said/she said regarding how the interrogation program was portrayed to Congress and the DOJ. As always, the answer is probably somewhere in the middle.

Based on all the questions you pose above, it seems like you desire a level of transparency from the intelligence community that I personally feel is neither realistic nor appropriate.

My feeling is that it isn't enough that the Bush administration changed this nation with these policiies. They had to be dishonest to accomplish that task -- to the citizens of the country, to Congress, and to the Department of Justice. A key feature of that dishonesty was a hyperbolic campaign of fearmongering that would allow them to justify their actions and these policies. They suggested that these policiies would save lives -- they were absolutely convinced of that and publically said so many, many times. Does, say, Dick Cheney strike anyone as a person who would admit that he was wrong about anything? How about W. or Rumsfeld? They were all in with these policies and they will go to their graves without ever even questioning the possibility that they might have been wrong. Same with the CIA. They are the organization that carried these policies out. They are never going to say they didn't work, because if they admit that they have to admit they continued these policies for years knowing it was doing no good. It is not transparency that I'm looking for, it is accountability. The people who foisted these lies and practices on the American people must be, as international law demands, prosecuted for their crimes. There needs to be an official record that these were crimes to build a precident for those tempted to use them in the future.

On the other hand, I would be dishonest if the thought of the Dems on a witch hunt did not cross my mind. I'm not sure if I really believe that is the case, but I think a credible argument can be made for that position. It seems that they not only wanted to expose the acts themselves, but they wanted to demonstrate that they did not work. And, not just that they were not effective methods, but they had zero value whatsoever. I'm not sure where I am at on that point. I've seen arguments that they work and just as many as they don't, but I think it is all beside the point. We should not be talking about how effective the tactics were. We should not be talking about the precise legal arguments about what was legal and who said what when. We should be talking about how these actions change who we are as a nation. It is the only point that really matters to me in this issue. Are we or are we not a nation that tortures people to get what we want from them? Prosecuting the people who did this will demonstrate to the world, to our citizens, and to future administrations that we are not.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

The facts are the facts, and some of them are despicable. But the conclusions drawn are where I'm not totally sold on the report. It's easy to cast doubt on the CIA, but it's also pretty damn easy to question the conclusions (and the motives behind said conclusions) made by the Senate Committee. I read through the Senate minority response and there appears to be a lot of he said/she said regarding how the interrogation program was portrayed to Congress and the DOJ. As always, the answer is probably somewhere in the middle.

The bureaucratic finger-pointing definitely merits some healthy skepticism, but that seems completely tangential to the point of this thread. What do you think of the SSCI's conclusion that these "enhanced interrogation methods" didn't provide a single shred of unique actionable intelligence? Because all arguments in favor of torture--moral, practical, etc.--are completely dependent on the assumption that it works. And if it did nothing else, the SSCI report effectively demolished that assumption.

 

[GoIrish41]

One more point: I hate the term "enhanced interrogation methods." Why did that term have to be coined when there is a perfectly good word in the English language that means the exact same thing ... "torture."

 

[tussin]

The bureaucratic finger-pointing definitely merits some healthy skepticism, but that seems completely tangential to the point of this thread. What do you think of the SSCI's conclusion that these "enhanced interrogation methods" didn't provide a single shred of unique actionable intelligence? Because all arguments in favor of torture--moral, practical, etc.--are completely dependent on the assumption that it works. And if it did nothing else, the SSCI report effectively demolished that assumption.

A few things:
1. I don't think the bureaucratic finger-pointing is completely peripheral to the discussion. A lot of the posts in this thread are about the CIA independently misleading Congress, the DOJ, and the American public. I don't totally buy that and there is likely a lot of political CYA going on.

2. Regarding the SSCI conclusion of the effectiveness of the report, I don't know. The CIA has disputed that claim. The report may be accurate, but really only the CIA knows how effective these techniques are. I'd like to think they wouldn't have done them if they weren't somewhat effective.

3. I think there needs to be some discussion as to what constitutes "torture." Waterboarding and the dietary manipulation? Definitely. But I do think there should be room for some more aggressive tactics that weren't described in Ozzman's list of approved techniques (particularly on the psychological side).

 

[Whiskeyjack]

One more point: I hate the term "enhanced interrogation methods." Why did that term have to be coined when there is a perfectly good word in the English language that means the exact same thing ... "torture."

Orwellian "newspeak" is very useful for framing the bounds of public discourse:

According to Orwell, "the purpose of Newspeak was not only to provide a medium of expression for the world-view and mental habits proper to the devotees of IngSoc, but to make all other modes of thought impossible. Its vocabulary was so constructed as to give exact and often very subtle expression to every meaning that a Party member could properly wish to express, while excluding all other meaning and also the possibility of arriving at them by indirect methods. This was done partly by the invention of new words, but chiefly by eliminating undesirable words and stripping such words as remained of unorthodox meanings, and so far as possible of all secondary meaning whatever." The idea that language influences worldview is linguistic relativity.

 

[wizards8507]

One more point: I hate the term "enhanced interrogation methods." Why did that term have to be coined when there is a perfectly good word in the English language that means the exact same thing ... "torture."

A few differences in connotation of not denotation. First, "torture" generally involves pain, while these tactics are more along the lines of "discomfort." Sleep deprivation, diet manipulation, and waterboarding are uncomfortable, but they're not even in the same ballpark as shoving bamboo shards under your fingernails, breaking your bones, burning, etc. The other difference is that "torture" strikes me more as pain for pain's sake, either for punishment or some kind of sick pleasure of the torturer. Using the word "interrogation" reminds the listener that we're not just doing this for funsies, but to gain information that will hopefully save lives.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

A few things:
1. I don't think the bureaucratic finger-pointing is completely peripheral to the discussion. A lot of the posts in this thread are about the CIA independently misleading Congress, the DOJ, and the American public. I don't totally buy that and there is likely a lot of political CYA going on.

Agreed completely. It strains credulity to argue that the Intelligence Committee was truly in the dark, or that higher-ups simply weren't briefed on this. Giving them every benefit of the doubt, they're at least guilty of willful blindness. But the CIA has a lot to answer for.

And it's important to keep in mind that the SSCI report was based entirely on internal CIA documents. So, taken in conjunction with the CIA's rebuttal, the report is likely as pro-torture as possible without indulging in outright fabrication.

2. Regarding the SSCI conclusion of the effectiveness of the report, I don't know. The CIA has disputed that claim. The report may be accurate, but really only the CIA knows how effective these techniques are. I'd like to think they wouldn't have done them if they weren't somewhat effective.

No one disputes that these "enhanced interrogation methods" took place. And they're objectively illegal under both American and international law, as well as being repugnant to anyone with a moral imagination. So I'd say the burden of proof rests firmly on the side advocating for torture, and the CIA hasn't even come close to meeting it. They have frequently trotted out Abu Zabaydah as the shining example of how torture produced actionable intelligence, but Soufan--an FBI interrogation consultant--testified that it was completely redundant with the intelligence that he had personally elicited from Zabaydah via humane (and legal) techniques immediately after his capture.

That's it. CIA's offered nothing else. Their best case for torture producing unique and actionable intelligence was completely destroyed by Soufan's testimony.

3. I think there needs to be some discussion as to what constitutes "torture." Waterboarding and the dietary manipulation? Definitely. But I do think there should be room for some more aggressive tactics that weren't described in Ozzman's list of approved techniques (particularly on the psychological side).

I would welcome having a public debate on the subject, since it would be help push a lot of evil and ineffective practices beyond the pale of acceptability. But I get the impression that ozzman, like Soufan and other experienced interrogators, are mostly concerned with what works; whereas most people who want to "keep all options on the table" seem more concerned with proving how serious they are about fighting terrorism. I don't think the latter attitude is very helpful in forming effective policy.