USe of Torture/Zero Dark Thirty/Michael Haden on GPS Today

Be like Nutella

Most people know there is a controversy surrounding the movie Zero Dark Thirty and it's depiction of Water-Boarding and other Torture techniques apparently having been used during the investigation over many years to find Bin Laden.
After watching the movie I found myself disgusted that there was even a chance that the leading democratic light of the world would carry out the grossly immoral acts depicted in the movie as part of its investigation.
Today on CNN on the program GPS presented by Fareed Zakaria (a generally well regarded left-of-center intellect on such a terrible channel there was a debate between a few people, a think tank guy (Haas), an Ex-Congresswoman with massive experience on Intelligence Committees and such, an ex-CIA Director of Ops guy (with real hands on experience) and of course Michael Haden who himself ran both the CIA and the NSA at different times. Fareed asked Haden - was ZD30 accurate in it's story telling concerning the torture? (I refuse to use the term Enhanced Interrogation if possible or any other Newspeak)... and Haden basically said the the truth was somewhere between yes and no.... specifically (and in reference to the movie's story of so called 'Dark Sites'...google it) he said the US had captured about 100 guys (i.e. brought them to Dark Sites outside of the US for interrogation) and then he said that in total the US had used Torture on about 1/3 of that number i.e. let's say 35 guys. He then also said that the US had only ever used Water-Boarding, which is definitely torture 'in most peoples view', on a total of 3 individuals, ever.

This was quite a shock to me to hear Haden list these very specific and rehearsed figures because I have been very close to this issue for years and have never seen AS exact figures as these... especially being publicly released in such a hugely public forum as GPS on CNN which gains huge audience. He came to the show armed with these stats he didn't just blurt them out.

So Haden (who ran the CIA AND NSA) says,

Total number of foreign individuals captured by the CIA (illegally) in foreign territories and brought to Black Sites for 'Interrogation' is approx 100.

Total number of those individuals on which 'Enhanced Interrogation' or TORTURE was used - approx 1/3... or 35

Total number of individuals on which specifically Water-Boarding Torture was also used upon, ever: 3


My questions for debate are:

Do you believe these numbers?

Do you regard Water-Boarding as Torture? (FYI academics generally agree it is...if you google it)

Do you consider the phrase 'Enhanced Interrogation' as Newspeak for the word 'Torture'?

and MOST IMPORTANTLY:

Do you think that the US SHOULD Torture individuals IF doing so MAY produce valuable information which may help stop a future terrorist event happening? In other words when is Torture acceptable or not?

This a very politically sensitive issue in Washington recently.

G Power

Be like Nutella wrote: »

My questions for debate are:

Do you believe these numbers? Not for a nano second!!

Do you regard Water-Boarding as Torture? (FYI academics generally agree it is...if you google it) of course it is and is probably nothing compared to what the black ops guys or private security firms get up to when sub contracted out to do the yanky bidding

Do you consider the phrase 'Enhanced Interrogation' as Newspeak for the word 'Torture'? it's propaganda at it worst!!

and MOST IMPORTANTLY:

Do you think that the US SHOULD Torture individuals IF doing so MAY produce valuable information which may help stop a future terrorist event happening? In other words when is Torture acceptable or not? I think the US needs to allow the world to breath again on it's own and without yanky interference or we are all screwed. they are on such a self destructive path it's just bonkers, to look at al that is known about yanky foreign policy and the erosion of trust and the extreme levels of paranoia they bring to the world will be the finishing of us all. they play everyone of each other and the puppet-masters win no matter the outcome cos the whole game is rigged in their favour through intimidation, corruption and the rest!!

This a very politically sensitive issue in Washington recently.

this needs to be a sensitive issue worldwide cos they're the root of 3/4's of the misery we are all experiencing, knowing what they are up to but we're expected to just get on with our consuming to keep the dollars flowing to fund this **** for an economy that feeds on the weak, people might be able to hide behind their denial but we've all admitted at least once that what they're at on the world stage is just wrong!!

clairefontaine

Nutella,

Ah you have come around to my way of thinking! Yes the US should stay out of it!

I wouldn't necessarily believe anything I see on the news. How are we ever really going to know what goes on?

It has been my impression that torture generally is frowned upon because it doesn't work. You can torture someone till you get information, but it could be the wrong information.

However, if you think the US is the only country to use torture, you are very much mistaken.

Everyone likes to give out about Guantanemo but at least they get to use toilets. Do you know in Mountjoy they have to slop out? Do you know how much abuse cops in Italy, France and Spain are allowed to inflict in a questioning room?

You think Isreal, France, Britain, Russia or any other military power doesn't use it? Are you kidding?

You want them to catch ME monsters like Assad but don't want them to use torture. What the **** do you want them to do? Give them pedicures and hope for the best?

Be like Nutella

ok... first off I don't go for any of that 'rest of the world does this why are you giving out about America' stuff. I'm talking very specifically about the so called 'War on Terror' that the US government embarked upon after 9/11. I'm not talking about England or France because the US began the so called 'War on Terror'.... all of this Jihadist terrorism is essentially about the US.... any other targets are secondary.
I'm referring specifically to the movie Zero Dark Thirty and Michael Haden's comments about that movie and his figures of how many people were captured, brought to Black Sites, and tortured, so far, since 9/11.
I want to know what people think about Torture and Enhanced Interrogation Techniques and whether using Torture is sacrificing your moral high ground making you as bad as those you're trying to stop.

I personally think that anything beyond capture and imprisonment, after due process, which causes harm, is Torture and that Torture is an immoral act which sacrifices your position of righteousness. If you cross that line, in my view, you no longer have any 'right' to your actions. You can threaten long years in detainment or even threaten a terrorist with lack of protection from those who would kill them out in the world but to intentionally hurt them physically or psychologically with a system of Torture by definition extinguishes that which you say you are fighting to protect i.e. Freedom and rights and humane treatment of people.

Jonny7

Be like Nutella wrote: »

Do you believe these numbers?

No, a lot more people would most likely have been tortured "off the record" to differing degrees. We're listening to the politicians spin, it's damage limitation for a public who are basically not prepared for the reality of warfare, information gathering, interrogations, etc.

Do you regard Water-Boarding as Torture? (FYI academics generally agree it is...if you google it)

Water-boarding is torture. Simulated drowning. It has the effect of appearing more harmless than it is.

Do you consider the phrase 'Enhanced Interrogation' as Newspeak for the word 'Torture'?

Just euphemisms.

Do you think that the US SHOULD Torture individuals IF doing so MAY produce valuable information which may help stop a future terrorist event happening? In other words when is Torture acceptable or not?

Nope, torture should be strictly forbidden but on the flipside it's virtually impossible to enforce. You can just as easily break a man with psychological pressure, sleep deprivation and skilled interrogators - without laying a finger on him.

My friend was beaten by the Gardai just for being drunk. It's not politically or legally correct, but it's the reality of their job.

This a very politically sensitive issue in Washington recently.

From a moral and principled viewpoint politicians have to be seen condemning any form of torture and that's understandable.

In reality, it's unfortunately bound to happen.

I saw an interesting sign on the walls of Abu Ghraib after the whole torture incident - printed on it were the words "no torturing prisoners", but above it, in much bigger letters were the words "No Photography". Pretty much sums it up for me.

Be like Nutella

Jonny7 wrote: »

In reality, it's unfortunately bound to happen

Do you mean we should just accept it and get over it OR that it's something that can't really be avoided or prevented during this so called War on Terror?

I think you have to catch them, enforce oversight, investigate as much as humanly possible, punish those responsible, fire people, make new laws, bring it to the public attention and agree publicly to never do it again and write that in stone so that it's understood that if it ever happens again that people are going to jail for it from the top to the bottom.

The CIA publicly admitted to destroying evidence of torture including video tapes.

Jonny7

Be like Nutella wrote: »

Do you mean we should just accept it and get over it OR that it's something that can't really be avoided or prevented during this so called War on Terror?

I think you have to catch them, enforce oversight, investigate as much as humanly possible, punish those responsible, fire people, make new laws, bring it to the public attention and agree publicly to never do it again and write that in stone so that it's understood that if it ever happens again that people are going to jail for it from the top to the bottom.

The CIA publicly admitted to destroying evidence of torture including video tapes.

I think you are referring more to the Bush era where it was given a more 'tacit' approval. That has changed since.

G Power

Be like Nutella wrote: »

I think you have to catch them, enforce oversight, investigate as much as humanly possible, punish those responsible, fire people, make new laws, bring it to the public attention and agree publicly to never do it again and write that in stone so that it's understood that if it ever happens again that people are going to jail for it from the top to the bottom.

how do you catch them when it happens in black sites??

Be like Nutella

hey man I don't know... this originally came out due to the KSM interrogation as far as I remember and once it was out of the bag it caused a ****storm.

I'm just askin what people think about the Waterboarding that went on and was it justified in anybodies mind? Is it ever?

As for referring only to 'Bush Era'... Like I say it only caused a ****storm because it 'happened' to come out. But you're right the Bush Era in particular oversaw many violations such as Abu Ghraib, contractors killing civilians in Iraq, Torture, Black sites etc.. That it was Tacit approval specific to Bush Era leadership i.e. with the heavy Neocon influence at the top, doesn't mean it wouldn't have continued into Obama's period were it not 'OUTED'. I don't think you can blame Torture on Bush for any logical reasons - it's all part of the same fog of morals which 9/11 kickstarted.

As for ZD30... the movie clearly points to torture having produced info which led to killing UBL. Haden did not reject it outright - in fact he basically said that Torture has helped keep the US safe at various junctures due to data produced, and he supports any actions which did that.

Enhanced Interrogation is sanitized language for torture in many cases and certainly when it comes to waterboarding.

Tying their hands not allowing them to torture data from people in black sites means they are more likely to pull the drone trigger IMO, rather than go other routes. But I still think Torture is wrong and should never be allowed.

Jonny7

What is the definition of torture?

Like I said, most people could be utterly broken and very psychologically damaged in a week without anyone laying a finger on them.

Be like Nutella

so true and I believe the E.I. techniques were all developed by reverse engineering the air force 'when you get captured behind enemy lines' manual... it was contracted to two scientists/psychology experts with no military experience who were paid cash 1000 dollars a day to come up with a list of E.I. Techniques and produce a manual. They had no 'real' data to work off so basically just applied their opinions to the air force manual (from the Korean War) to reverse engineer interrogation techniques which included torture in the form of Water-Boarding and other physical techniques including the infliction of Hypothermia, prolonged forced standing - i.e. 20 hours, damaging decibel level sound torture, cramping the person into a small box, slapping the person in the stomach and face, 'Fear-upping' using snarling dogs in their faces a la Abu Ghraib pics and sensory deprivation in the form of goggles/hoods and head phones... all of which is now considered illegal and unacceptable. Basically it is thought that these two guys were paid a fortune to come up with ideas and so they did, whether the ideas were known to be productive in producing information from an unwilling detainee or not.

This 'torture manual' was then used to a 'certain extent' post-9/11. They applied the same techniques but slightly altered the application in specific ways as to be deniable as the same techniques or same level of 'accused abuse'. For instance the hoods and sensory deprivation techniques could not be used as the manual had originally prescribed so they changed the rules to allow them to hood etc.. when 'in transit' or 'between facilities' or 'outside'... hence the pics of the GITMO hooded guys. The rules were bent as much as possible and the techniques were applied by unqualified individuals, especially in the case of Abu Ghraib which was symptomatic of a system of E.I. gone mental within a group of insane soldiers. Talk about counter productive. That Abu Ghraib thing really damaged all fronts of the so called GWOT as well as even further souring the hopeless image of the US in the eyes of the world. As bad if not worse than marines raping women in Japanese bases did. The vengeful hatred Abu Ghraib caused among the vulnerable would-be jihadist young men of the Arab World can't be over estimated, as bad as the hatred which daily drone strikes caused/cause. You can't help but begin to think the US military/Intel leadership is psychotic at this stage with all the shooting-themselves in the foot things they've done and continue to do.

It's as if they haven't a bleeding clue what to do about anything and they just try and apply some bureaucratic manual to 'terrorism' as if that'll work.
Step1: Capture people who 'seem' like terrorists or who may in the future become a 'terrorist'.
Step2: Hood them gag them earplug them and ship them to Poland to some Black Site.
Step3: Apply Enhanced Interrogation techniques 1 through 7 OR anything you bloody like coz nobody's watching.
Step4: Ship them off to GITMO and eventually set them free without charges to some country who'll take them, I dunno how's Jordan this time of year?

How many of you are actually aware of what happened in GITMO:

Here's one account ... you can Google it for verification.

Water is poured over the detainee.
Interrogations start at Midnight, and last 12 hours.
When he falls asleep, he is woken up by American pop music and water.
Female personnel tries to humiliate and upset him, which is successful.
A military dog is used to intimidate him.
The soldiers play the American anthem and force him to salute.
They stick pictures of 9/11 victims to him.
He is forced to bark like a dog and his beard and hair are shaved.
He is stripped nude.
Fake menstrual blood is smeared at him and
he is forced to wear a women's bra.
Some of the abuses were documented in 2005, when the Interrogation Log of al-Qathani "Detainee 063" was partially published.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guantanamo_Bay_detention_camp

Here's PBS FRONTLINE Documentary called: The Torture Question
which deals with the whole subject in depth. I strongly recommend it. Most peoples concept of Abu Ghraib and GITMO is from the odd article or news bits here and there. This is the real deal.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/torture/view/

clairefontaine

It's called looking into the monster and becoming one.

Be like Nutella

but Claire, some of these dudes did nothing and were innocent - more than 600 guys were released form GITMO without charge, some were 17 years old - about 20 of them and others were the wrong guy in the wrong place at the wrong time and hundreds were delivered to the US wrapped up in a bow in return for thousands of dollars ($5000 on average) and could've come from anywhere or been anyone at all... the US didn't know - The US army dropped millions of leaflets offering thousands of dollars for prisoners - the Afghans just rounded up dudes and delivered them and disappeared with the cash - enough to support their tribe for months or years. Out of over 700+ prisoners at GITMO you're talking less than 100 guys of any significance at alllll....and maybe as little as 20 who were really worth taking off the 'Global Battlefield'. The whole thing was and is a complete utter fuking mess, beyond retarded, beyond inhuman, utterly counter productive and has brought shame and danger to the entire US population with story after story of abuse and torture. GITMO and the program which fed it with people is a complete travesty from start to finish and Obama should've closed it like he promised he would form his first day in office.

GITMO has endangered the American people by amplifying the hatred which is preyed upon by Terrorist plotters to convince angry vulnerable young men to give their lives in suicide attacks against the US. It's like meeting a guy to make peace and then poking him in the eye while saying 'I don't want to fight lets be friends'. poke....POKE...POKE. Torturing people, the horror and injustice of GITMO and Black sites and Abu Ghraib and the unaccountable indiscriminate use of 440 cowardly, murderous drone attacks is all just a bunch of stupid mistakes. Like using a sledge hammer in heart surgery. It's like the US has been at war with itself... constantly creating more hatred towards it over and over again making the same stupid mistakes and miscalculations in an effort to be seen to be doing something rather than nothing. Nucklehead war mongering killers from the military combined with hyper-realist Intel chiefs who have turned the CIA into an illegal global kill squad combined with petty hyper-polarized ridiculously retarded shortsighted partisan 'pride and hate' based politics. It's self destruction and I wish Obama had been the guy to straighten it out but instead he chose to be the SIN-EATER and do the drone thing and not close GITMO and to treat Terrorists as threats to structural national security rather than a relatively small and relatively rare threat which should be treated as crime and not as War which it IS CLEARLY NOT.

clairefontaine

I agree with you about the self destructive path.

Sometimes I fear that I see sense in the conspiracy theorists around the 911 attacks. To bring the US down from the inside. It really does look that way sometimes.

In the end it's all about money, if you can find the money trail, you can find out why this is all happening.

Overall I agree with you, but it's like the sorcerer's apprentice at this stage.

InTheTrees

clairefontaine wrote: »

I agree with you about the self destructive path.

Sometimes I fear that I see sense in the conspiracy theorists around the 911 attacks. To bring the US down from the inside. It really does look that way sometimes.

There's also the fact that in any other country you just wouldnt hear about this stuff. Whats the UK doing with its clandestine prisoners? God knows. And so there's no public debate about it there. Or if there is its probably on the fringe.

I dont imagine there's much debate in Russia about what to do with their grey prisons.

And if you end up on the hands of the Chinese Secret service, best of luck to you. I dont think the Chinese censors allow much public debate about the pros and cons of their various torture methods.

This is why it must seem the US is fighting itself from inside. In a way it is. Because these issues are debated. Reasonably publicly anyway.

InTheTrees

Be like Nutella wrote: »

I want to know what people think about Torture and Enhanced Interrogation Techniques and whether using Torture is sacrificing your moral high ground making you as bad as those you're trying to stop.

If torturing someone (not killing them) would save one life is it morally acceptable?

Thats the basic question isnt it?

Whats your answer?

CollardGreens

Today on CNN....

(per Nutella)

Well the above is your firsts problem! CNN is a left owned company and you will only get one view from them, you need to broaden your tv viewing and watch other stations along with CNN to have an objectionable opinion. You are not being fair to yourself by just filling your mind with what they say and nothing else.

I believe in waterboarding, heck I'd water board them myself it they would let me and I would enjoy it if it would save some lives.

Be like Nutella

CollardGreens wrote: »

(per Nutella)

Well the above is your firsts problem! CNN is a left owned company and you will only get one view from them, you need to broaden your tv viewing and watch other stations along with CNN to have an objectionable opinion. You are not being fair to yourself by just filling your mind with what they say and nothing else.

I believe in waterboarding, heck I'd water board them myself it they would let me and I would enjoy it if it would save some lives.

WARNING: RANT: IGNORE IF YOU LIKE

Ah now cmon there I never said anything like CNN was a) good or b) the only channel I watch or that I even watch anything else on it bar GPS. I watch and read and listen to all kinds of media from crazy Alex Jones to bullsh1t CNN and BBC and the Huff Post and a lot from CFR (even though I disagree with a lot of what they write but not all. So don't pigeon hole me there just to suit your rant : ) I understand extremely well how a wide net of media intake is preferable. I also don't go for the extreme 'generalizations' about particular channels and papers and so forth... there's a always a mix of good and bad on all these channels including the crazy Alex Jones... even he has unearthed a lot of factual and shocking information.. but then again his crazy disjointed overly extreme ultra paranoid rants undo a lot of that good work. So it's all about taking it in with a critical mind and knowing when to get multiple sources on something before making a comment or posting on a forum such as this. I referred to GPS because GPS is widely considered to be a good program... genuinely is. If you want to argue the merits of Fareed Zakaria and his program I'm all up for arguing that. There has been some crap on GPS over the years I've watched it but I have seen more 'serious heads' have more meaningful debates/all-out arguments around Fareed's roundtable than on any other program I've seen or heard of over the years. He regularly ruffles feathers and makes comments against the administration and so forth. He comes down in the middle as a centrist (prob left of center as the right has become so extremely 'right' as of recent times).

I am NOT a fan of CNN... they annoy the crap outa me. But I don't make sweeping generalizations and tunnel vision myself the way Alex Jones and his kin would prefer us to be. I have a free and balanced mind and I don't subscribe to any party, religion or blind patriotism. I treat everyone the same and have sympathy for the hardened marine sniper dug into an Afghan hill as much as I have for the father of a young AQ member who's family just got shredded in the hills of Waziristan by some Drone Operator in a container in Creech Air Force Base. There are no sides to this ****. Thee are horrific American administration actions over the decades and also truly heroic humanitarian actions as well. There is no great conspiracy or any single minded corporation led pro-capitalist agenda as some vulnerable people subscribe to. The world is far more compartmentalized and complex and chaotic in it's endless facets than most people think. The US has No Single Character to refer to or to hate or to insult - every administration has its issues and has to deal with the legacies of previous admins and plays a political game of lies and truths and half truths and secrets and is so focuses on the next election and congressional power-balance it truly takes a lot of learning about, reading, balanced media intake and debating to get a grip on half the stuff that is going on. You simply cannot hold on to a position stubbornly and ignore the facts.

Drones and Torture and terrorism raises complex difficult questions which challenge your morals from an arm-chair perspective especially outside of the US where most here comment from like myself. Kill a guy with a drone to save 100 US lives, Torture a guy for a name to catch a terrorist leader to prevent future bloodshed - that is all fantasy and much too binary. The reality is a grey cloud of right and wrong choices... of bending rules and a constant power play between democracy and executive action from sniper to congressman to CIA director to President. I'm open to facts and figures and the reality of a situation and to changing my mind.

My position at the moment and thus far is: Torture is wrong firstly on a human level and secondly on a counter-productive level as I see Torture as sacrificing your position of righteousness or being right - of being the good guy who is trying to defend your country which represents for its people - freedom and democracy and tries to send that message to the rest of the world - and most are behind that message, that ideal and most troops and pilots and presidents and congressmen believe in that position. Torture is wrong - it's the line you don't cross if you believe in progress and morals and how you want the world around you to look like. If it's ok to cut a mans face with a knife to get an answer than why not douse a Pakistani village with Mustard gas? That's why they call it the slippery slope - you don't get on the slope you retain your moral position and defend that position of strength with the backing of your population.

CollardGreens

My position at the moment and thus far is: Torture is wrong, never make a post that long ~ I'm ADD and can't pay attention to that many words because it hurts!

InTheTrees

Be like Nutella wrote: »

fair enough haha I probably wouldn't read it either...

You still havent answered my question...

Chuck Stone

CollardGreens wrote: »

Well the above is your firsts problem! CNN is a left owned company and you will only get one view from them, you need to broaden your tv viewing

If you're calling CNN 'left' then it's you who needs to broaden your spectrum.

Starting the day after the bombing of Iraq began on March 19, the three-week study (3/20/03-4/9/03) looked at 1,617 on-camera sources appearing in stories about Iraq on the evening newscasts of six television networks and news channels. The news programs studied were ABC World News Tonight, CBS Evening News, NBC Nightly News, CNN’s Wolf Blitzer Reports, Fox’s Special Report with Brit Hume, and PBS’s NewsHour With Jim Lehrer.

Nearly two thirds of all sources, 64 percent, were pro-war, while 71 percent of U.S. guests favored the war. Anti-war voices were 10 percent of all sources, but just 6 percent of non-Iraqi sources and 3 percent of U.S. sources. Thus viewers were more than six times as likely to see a pro-war source as one who was anti-war; with U.S. guests alone, the ratio increases to 25 to 1.

Former military personnel, who often appeared in longer-format, in-studio interviews, rather than in soundbites, characteristically offered technical commentary supportive of U.S. military efforts. In a typical comment, retired general (and CNN consultant) Wesley Clark told Wolf Blitzer on April 6: “Well, the United States has very, very important technological advantages. Unlike previous efforts in urban combat, we control the skies.” Analysis by these paid military commentators often blended into cheerleading, as with Clark’s comment from the same interview: “First of all, I think the troops and all the people over there, the commanders, have done an absolutely superb job, a sensational job. And I think the results speak for themselves.”

The above is on a war that was pursued on the threat of Iraqi WMD.

Be like Nutella

InTheTrees wrote: »

If torturing someone (not killing them) would save one life is it morally acceptable?

Thats the basic question isnt it?

Whats your answer?

IF.... and this needs to be exhaustively specific ok..

IF I had a guy in a cell who I knew for certain had info which he could tell me which would 100% save the life of a person I knew to exist in a specific location at that time and the equation was as clear cut as -

if I get that person to tell me the info? - I 100% save the life of the other person

- then if it was me in that room and I absolutely 100% knew for sure and certain as the sky is up that this person was

a) not going to tell me that info willingly and
b) would ONLY tell me that info IF I inflicted torture upon that person lets say in the form of Water-Boarding, for instance, or cutting off their finger, for instance... then 'I' would do that, because in that particular set of circumstances I would treat the action as intervening physically to directly save a persons life from a 'murderer' with direct control over the life of a person I know 100% I can save in that instance... Do you get me? Do you understand that?

However..

The above is not a realistic reflection on anything that has gone on during the so called War on Terror. The situations that occurred were much more complicated, chaotic and indiscrete. So I don't consider the above analogous to the realities we are discussing. In many accounts the 'interrogations' served NOT to produce NEW information but to simply CONFIRM previously known information.

In my opinion, IF you begin down the road of 'well if I do this I 'may' prevent X or Y i.e. the doctrine of pre-emptive action aka The Bush Doctrine. Then how do you delineate that equation? If I bomb 80 people in a Madras I may kill Ayman al-Zawahiri who may plan another 9/11 or something in the future? Well they did that, they missed him, and they killed 30 kids in Chenagai in Oct 2006... and turned 5000 members of a tribe into jihadists for 5 generations. Terrorism is bad. Terrorists brains are wired wrongly. Usually because of the teachings of somebody else. You can't kill that away with a drone or with 50 drones. There is no ongoing global war. There is just one angry group throwing bombs around the place at another angry group because they're afraid of the terrorists everywhere everyday trying to kill you. Drones have killed 4700 people so far which is more than the sum total of every American killed in every terrorist event since 1920! Is that a draw then? or a win? I'm being purposefully glib but the facts are correct.

In The Trees.. to answer your question... as I state it then yes I'd cut their arm off myself to save somebody but that is not the reality we're dealing with... unfortunately.

CollardGreens

Terrorists brains are wired wrongly

You think?

Be like Nutella

haha I just mean it's not useful or accurate or good enough to simply write all terrorists off as 'evil'. A suicide bomber is not out to harm the world because they hate the world ..or necessarily hate the humans they blow up. He or she is possibly doing it so AQ will pay their family money, or because they are deluded into believing there is a load of virgin women ready to serve their needs in the afterlife, or because some group like the US population for instance is the cause in their deluded mind of something personal which they believe they deserve specific vengeance for such as a drone strike and that killing 20 people in a cinema will rectify that in any way. Vulnerable men are convinced to use their bodies as a weapon by other men who sit back and plan the attacks... any reasons will do as long as they do it for them.

Consider the correlation between drone attacks and suicide bombings within Pakistan from 2008 onwards (at end)

http://pakistanbodycount.org/analytics

MadYaker

So I watched this film last night and I'm wondering if the men involved in the strike on the compound have been allowed access to the media? Are their identities know? Have they done interviews?

Be like Nutella

Watched a doc on the manhunt for KSM today. It said that KSM (the man who engineered the 9/11 attacks) was Waterboarded 183 times !!!

1 8 3 TIMES !!! Holy Crap.

Be like Nutella

Waterboarding - This guy bet he could last just 15 seconds and he KNEW he could stop it himself instantly at any second which makes it entirely easier.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=od0Zo9h4mVo

CollardGreens

He said "my heart is beating a thousand miles a minute". I wonder it the people in 9/11 hearts were beating that fast when the buildings they went to work in got hit?

I don't give a rats ash how bad they were tortured, if it saves lives then go for it because it isn't killing them. They (terrorist) need to man up and handle it if they choose a life of crime.

Be like Nutella

9/11 was horrific and evil believe me I get that.... on the day itself I was on a call to my uncle who was a big wig in a bank at the time and his conversation with somebody in one of the towers was cut short literally by one of the planes, that's why he rang me to turn on the TV which I did and saw the second plane come in moments later... you can believe that or not I don't mind. There was an Irish bank here which had many business colleagues in associated firms in the towers in NY that day. So the attacks reached many nations and nationalities that day and I do not side with terrorists. I side with standing by your values.

But you might not know this one fact when it comes to torture which Waterboarding is, in fact I would say most people wouldn't know this fact... so I'll tell you. You can try and prove me wrong if you like.

Since 9/11, Torture has NEVER produced information which has stopped a terrorist attack.

That is a fact. The consensus is that - torture produces unreliable information because the tortured person will give you what they think you want.

KSM's torture did not produce one single piece of information which stopped a specific attack.

He was tortured til he was virtually brain dead - 183 times. His information is said to have tied up the FBI and CIA for millions of wasted man-hours and NEVER stopped an attack.

Complex terrorist attacks on the scale of 9/11 are not coordinated in a way which would allow one individual to be blackmailed into giving up enough data to allow the attack to be stopped. It's simply not how they are planned. KSM was a 1 in a million terrorist genius (not my words) and catching him literally stopped any further 9/11 scale events from happening... not drones.... not waterboarding or Black sites - literally just simply catching the most extreme and successful terrorist event planner in history.

He single-handedly concocted 9/11 on his own and sold the idea to UBL. Originally he intended to kill 250,000 during the attacks but had to scale it back to have it accepted. He is the sole reason so much fear was created from 9/11... not AQ.... not IED attacks on roads in Afghanistan or Iraq - K S M. Nobody before or since has had the fuked up imagination and intelligence to back it up to plan and importantly CONVINCE the leaders of AQ to accept his plan. He was out on his own and they took him in because they were impressed by his drive and intelligence which convinced UBL to accept his plan and give him the go ahead to do it with their 20 trained men.

There is NEVER a situation where you catch a guy and he knows the piece of info which will allow you to stop a major attack and so you torture him to get that info and you stop the attack. This is simply not reality. This is just another convenient FALSE BINARY which the media wrongly focuses on. Torture does not save lives. Torture is a FISHING EXPEDITION - a vague attempt as in Abu Ghraib to torture a load of guys you caught or were handed to you for money and so you torture thew sh1t out of them to see can you gain any useful intel - which again I repeat - HAS NEVER EVER PRODUCED SPECIFIC INTEL TO STOP AN ATTACK

which has been admitted.

Be like Nutella

Waterboarding was prosecuted by the United States during War Crime trials after World War 2. How much more hypocritical can it possibly get.

Be like Nutella

"We must adhere to our values as diligently as we protect our safety with no exceptions,"

Obama

Jan 9 2009

Be like Nutella

Waterboarding was used by the CIA as a result of a study which showed how China waterboarded POWs during the Korean war in order to get FALSE CONFESSIONS out of them. I'm not even making that up. It was literally used to get FALSE CONFESSIONS so you could charge prisoners. The USAF then used this study to create a training program to get them ready for such torture should they get downed over China during the Korean War. This training manual was then reverse engineered by a couple of contracted psychologists who were paid 1000 dollars per day tax free to create a new Enhanced Interrogation Manual to be used by CIA Interrogators so they could use these torture techniques upon caught terrorists. NOT ONLY did they not know anything at all about torture or have any experience in the military or with war but they were working on data that THEY KNEW FULL WELL was from a study which SHOWED CLEARLY THAT CHINA WAS USING REPLICATED DROWNING as a technique to torture FALSE CONFESSIONS from POWs. Which part of that does the media or anyone here find too difficult to understand - The Waterboarding of terrorist suspects including of KSM (by far the most important terrorist ever captured) is complete 100% total boll0x and only serves to internationally shame, embarrass and contradict central American values which have for over a century been represented to mean - Life and Liberty and the Moral Rule of Law- ALL OF WHICH TORTURE IN THE TWENTY FIRST CENTURY GOES AGAINST. There is no grey area - Waterboarding somebody 183 times is torture on a sub-human level.

To react to this debate with hatred for terrorists and sensitivity about 9/11 is very understandable but you should try and view it from as neutral a perspective as possible so that you don't miss the woods for the trees and I do NOT mean to sound condescending saying that.

CollardGreens

That was a different link. So...

...and so you torture thew sh1t out of them to see can you gain any useful intel - which again I repeat - HAS NEVER EVER PRODUCED SPECIFIC INTEL TO STOP AN ATTACK

which has been admitted.

hmmmm...by some left winged white house lap dog.


The real question Nutella, why do you care?

Be like Nutella

actually I meant that - there has never been an attack stopped or averted by torture.

Why do I care? I don't know what you mean... do you mean in the broader sense of why I care about the foreign policies of the USA? and that what the US gov does has a massive effect on the world we live in.... I've just always been interested in the most powerful forces in the world. It's a scale thing. Germany can engineer a space suit... but the USA can get a man on the moon in that space suit you get me?
So with all that power and politics comes choices at every step... beginning with saving the world from Hitler while incinerating 150,000 Japanese in the same breath? It's a complicated subject but believe me it's an alternative perspective looking from the outside in... then from your perspective from the inside out.... which is why we discuss and debate. I think the US can be a global force for good. I think there are great people in the US and some really ****ed up politicians too. I think because the US has physically gone out and influenced the world with its forces for a mixed bag of reasons I remain optimistic that most of those reasons are positive and about order... or will be at some point more than others and because it has all that observable power I think it has the responsibility to use it for good when it can especially in obvious circumstances such as in Rwanda, Kosovo etc..

Relative to torture I'm not stupid I know full well that many government agencies of various countries have tortured thousands upon thousands of dissidents and criminals and protesters and terrorists over the decades, the US, UK, Russia, China etc... but... there is an observable trend towards the unacceptability of subhuman or immoral action over the last 100 years. During that period humans made global agreements about things like chemical weapons and torture and the treatment of prisoners based on moral normatives... i.e. the common perception that people should try and be decent to each other or at the very least respect each others right to life and a minimal level of treatment while in custody. You judge somebody on how they treat you when they DON'T have to treat you well. Capturing wanted terrorist to bring him to justice - good. pseudo drowning that person to within an inch of their life repetitively 183 times over months and months to fish for info on AQ which will by its nature be unreliable is not acting on the level we as humans have supposedly evolved and developed to through the cathartic flames of massive Genocidal wars like the World Wars and Vietnam - i.e. BAD. That's why I'm interested that's why I care. What the USA does from torture to trade agreements with China effects whole generations of people in this world.

Jonny7

Be like Nutella wrote: »

actually I meant that - there has never been an attack stopped or averted by torture.

You have no idea whether or not the above is true or not.

I would say it's sadly true.

CollardGreens

there has never been an attack stopped or averted by torture.

Please be advised that I disagree with the above statement.

Be like Nutella

Ok for an absolute fact no I do not - correct. Point taken but it is important to qualify that 'over-step'.

What I DO KNOW is that there has never been an attack thwarted by the CIA/FBI etc where information garnered by the use of torture/Waterboarding has been cited. This is an important fact because the US admin have been very quick to point out operations which thwarted attacks on the US. Likewise Brennan and Rumsfeld and many others dept representatives have defended the use of Waterboarding on many many occasions, in public, in hearings etc

There is no way that Waterbaording resulted in information which stopped an attack so far without us knowing about it, not just in my opinion. Here's Ex CIA Veteran of 21 years Bob Baer.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rr8AVpSMH9Q

I would gladly argue it is extremely unlikely that WB stopped an attack without us knowing about it but I do not know it for an absolute fact, correct. But It would make no sense at all. You COULD argue that there would possibly be some specific operational reason which precluded such information release but again that is extremely unlikely. If anything the only way I see WB having produced information which actually stopped an attack on the US so far without them shouting if from the roof tops is IF they did the torturing AFTER Obama banned it which would make it even more illegal than it already was anyway and would result in people losing their jobs or worse. Again - extremely unlikely.

Do you agree? I don't know it for a fact I just know that every major attack attempt which HAS been thwarted has been made known right up to the point of literally offering channels documentaries on these defensive operations on the pure basis that it would heighten respect for the FBI and CIA and that the current head of the CIA supported WBing and direct assassinations and the use of Black Sites and handing over terrorist SUSPECTS to third parties who definitely did torture them... and a lot worse than WBing torture so he would be more than likely to put it on a pedestal as a successful use of WBing. It's illegal now of ocurse we know that but the US tortured officially until it was made illegal.

Dennis C. Blair says it best
Former United States Director of National Intelligence

"..the bottom line is these techniques have hurt our image around the world, the damage they have done to our interests far outweighed whatever benefit they gave us and they are not essential to our national security..."

He said that while he was acting director.

Jonny7

Be like Nutella wrote: »

O
What I DO KNOW is that there has never been an attack thwarted by the CIA/FBI etc where information garnered by the use of torture/Waterboarding has been cited.

They would be very unlikely to cite it.

Manic Moran

The case of Alan West is interesting. He was forced out of the Army for (mildly) torturing a prisoner. Investigation of the leads from this interrogation led to no discovery of weapons or evidence of a plot (The prisoner later claimed to have been making things up), but attacks against his unit abruptly stopped for the remainder of its tour. Maybe coincidence, maybe not. In any case, the public perception of it was such that he was subsequently was elected as a Congresscritter in 2010. It very much is not viewed as a black and white issue in the US.

MadYaker

Be Like Nutella, do you think Bin Laden would have been found without the use of torture?

Be like Nutella

MadYaker wrote: »

Be Like Nutella, do you think Bin Laden would have been found without the use of torture?

personally from what Haden said on GPS and from what I've heard decent pundits and journalists say I don't think so, at least not in the time frame we witnessed. But there's a complex combination of luck and chaos involved in intelligence and knock on effects of things you can never plan for. The courier dude makin the calls from the various locations and subsequently allowing the NSA/CIA to narrow down UBLs location in the end was extremely lucky. The particular CIA unit which wouldn't drop the lead on the path to this couriers identity obviously played the most important role and I do believe that the long term torture of a couple of guys they had, helped them in an unquantifiable way, follow particular paths.
That torture helped... in the end... doesn't make it worthwhile because one thing didn't lead directly to another. The connection between the actual illegal torture of their prisoners and the finding of Bin Laden was nothing you could use in an argument FOR torture because the link was so weak between one action and another affect. Nobody has argued that the US or anyone should be allowed torture anyone for anything under any circumstances - the brackets set have been extremely narrow i.e. in extraordinary circumstances where an attack is imminent and you can stop it by torturing the sh1t out of somebody like an animal... nobody has said that you just pick up some guys and torture them to see if they know some sh1t coz ya know they might... you would be verging on insanity to argue that type of loose application of torture. The US has officially tortured about 35 guys in history and in one case 183 times over months. There has never been a wish to torture people willy nilly by anyone in the circle here. Bin Laden's hunt involved torture - that's an admitted fact. Was he found directly from that torture - no he wasn't - also admitted - but did torture play a roll within the fabric of the overall investigation - yes definitely and did it help? yes in a small way the importance of which has not been admitted to or revealed. This would again point logically given the whole picture here that torture did not play a major roll in his hunt - it played a minor roll and nobody would argue for the freedom to torture based on that particular minor success and nobody has.

The military's position is that WB is NOT torture, Haden, Brennan and Rumsfeld's position is that we're all pussies and we need to realize that they are trying to save everyone's lives from the overblown constant massive threat of terrorism - statistically less than an American getting hit by lightening! Obama banned it, the official admin position is that WB is tantamount to torture, amnesty intl, the UN and the rest of the civilized world agree. Abu Ghraib opened the can of worms and showed how fuked up various individuals such as Rumsfeld are within Washington who pushed for torturing people from a hard right defense based position but they were all shortsighted as is those on the 'drone team', blind to how counter productive the entire venture is and how badly it really hurts US interests in the long run.

Ultra neocon, hard man, psycho patriotic, fear mongering, institutionalized defense budget nuthugging, myopic idealist dictatorial Wolfowitz-esque loon bags is what these people are! That is the story of US foreign policy in the last decade - a small band of cross-isle guys with ideals about how the US should act out in the world, bull****tin everybody into actions which only hurt the US while being raised up by an amoral brain dead disfuntional commercial media platform and supported by hundreds of companies within the M.I.C..... all while congress slept ignorantly. That's the story of what happened. That's why Iraq happened, that's why the 'easy' options of assassination drones was grabbed with both hands and that's why things like torturing a prisoner 183 times for bullsh1t information was allowed happen within the decision structure of Washington and 2 administrations. Literally a relatively small group of guys have inflicted mass murder and fuked up US foreign policy, defense and financial interests for a generation.They bankrupted the US nation financially while making billions for defense contractors shareholders. They bankrupted the US morally by inflicting things upon foreign peoples which go against every ideal the founding fathers built the US upon. 20 to 30 guys is all it took and everything after that was just a vicious circle - trying to get out of Iraq, leaving it in a fukin heap, trying to run from Afghanistan, leaving it in a murderous hopeless rubble, blindly cowardly blowing the sh1t out of thousands and thousands of Pakistani tribesmen with flying robots creating decades of Anti-US rage and generations of Jihadists. US congress allowed this to happen because they're mostly fat ignorant tunnel visioned career politicians without a fukin clue about the world who serve lobbying interests more than the interests of the people of the USA. Bush came in with these 20-30 guys and made a laughing stock out of every value the US stood for and Obama has made just about every mistake he could in trying to make amends for Bush's retarded administration. From Bad to Worse all because some guys like Paul Woflowitz and the list below convinced enough of the rest of Washington within a post 9/11 atmos-fear to do things which we now know are bleeding mental. The fog of fear blinded everyone and those which stood up and offered ideas were ignorantly listened to. Just like within the chaos of an accident or fire etc.. the guy who stands up and takes the lead can get people to do just about anything because they're confused and scared and they long for direction!

These men and men like them poisoned Washington from the inside out. Some of them followed the crowd, some of them were ambitious careerists, some had strong beliefs and suddenly a platform to push these beliefs from.. the phrase neocon is used too widely and is a bit outdated and misunderstood... the thing is to forget the word neocon and its conspiratorial connotations and simply look at the influence these guys and some like them have had on Washington and US foreign/military policy from before Bush right up to now. Some of them have since distanced themselves from the neocon movement but that doesn't change what they did to Washington from the inside.

• Elliott Abrams
• Ken Adelman
• Richard Armitage
• John David Ashcroft
• Fred Barnes
• Gary Bauer
• William J. Bennett
• Jeffrey Bergner
• John Bolton
• Max Boot
• Ellen Bork
• Paul Bremer Lewis Paul "Jerry" Bremer III
• David Brooks
• Shoshana Bryen
• Stephen D. Bryen
• Zbigniew Brzezinski
• Stephen A. Cambone
• Eliot A. Cohen
• Midge Decter
• Paula J. Dobriansky (PNAC)
• Thomas Donnelly
• John Doolittle
• Douglas Jay Feith
• David Frum
• Francis Fukuyama
• Frank J. Gaffney, Jr.
• Reuel Marc Gerecht
• Newt Gingrich
• Joshua Goldberg
• Owen Harries
• Bruce P. Jackson
• Michael Johns
• Robert Kagan
• Zalmay Khalilzad
• Jeane Kirkpatrick
• Henry Kissinger
• Neal Kozodoy
• Charles Krauthammer
• Irving Kristol
• William Kristol
• Michael Arthur Ledeen
• Jay Lefkowitz
• I. Lewis Libby a.k.a. "Scooter"
• Michael H. Mobbs
• Joshua Muravchik
• Rupert Murdoch
• Richard J. Neuhaus
• Michael Novak
• Martin Peretz
• Richard N. Perle
• Daniel Pipes
• Norman Podhoretz
• Howard Raines
• Peter W. Rodman
• Karl Rove
• Donald H. Rumsfeld
• Richard Mellon Scaife
• Gary J. Schmitt
• William Schneider, Jr.
• Abram N. Shulsky
• Robert W. Tucker
• Harlan Ullman
• Vin Weber
• Paul Dundes Wolfowitz
• R. James Woolsey, Jr.
• David Wurmser
• Meyrav Wurmser
• Dov Zakheim
• Karl Zinsmeister
• Robert B. Zoellick

MadYaker

Good post. I agree with everything you've said, especially the part about the drone strikes fueling anti US sentiment. I often wonder was the capturing of Osama largely symbolic or did it actually do huge damage to Al Queda.

Manic Moran

MadYaker wrote: »

Good post. I agree with everything you've said, especially the part about the drone strikes fueling anti US sentiment. I often wonder was the capturing of Osama largely symbolic or did it actually do huge damage to Al Queda.

It's a bit like the Patriots/Scuds.

The Patriot missile system in 1991 was not very effective. But the psychological effect was huge. The reason it was effective in effect (if you'll excuse the redundancy) is that it was going up against Scud missiles which were also ineffective, except psychologically.

Similar for AQ. AQ's primary threat is psychological. The removal of OBL is a psychological counter.

NTM