Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

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

Options
2»

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    Be like Nutella
    Registered Users Posts: 1,830 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #33
    CollardGreens
    Registered Users Posts: 453 ✭✭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?


  • Options
    #34
    Be like Nutella
    Registered Users Posts: 1,830 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #35
    Jonny7
    Registered Users Posts: 6,696 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #36
    CollardGreens
    Registered Users Posts: 453 ✭✭CollardGreens


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

    Please be advised that I disagree with the above statement.



    ;)


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    Be like Nutella
    Registered Users Posts: 1,830 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #38
    Jonny7
    Registered Users Posts: 6,696 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #39
    Manic Moran
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 16,256 Mod ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #40
    MadYaker
    Registered Users Posts: 12,166 ✭✭✭✭MadYaker


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


  • Options
    #41
    Be like Nutella
    Registered Users Posts: 1,830 ✭✭✭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.



  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #42
    MadYaker
    Registered Users Posts: 12,166 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #43
    Manic Moran
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 16,256 Mod ✭✭✭✭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


Advertisement