Clear Evidence Waterboarding Works (but may still be a bad idea)

[Pangloss]

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=3978231&page=1

 

The above link goes to an ABC News exclusive interview with former CIA analyst John Kiriakou, who led the interrogation of Abu Zubaydah. The intelligence gathered by waterboarding led directly to the disrupting of numerous attacks against civilians.

 

Kiriakou states clearly that Zubaydah was not made cooperative by any traditional imprisonment means, such as seclusion and normal interrogation. He simply was not going to give any information. Under waterboarding he lasted 35 seconds, after which time he had a vision from Allah telling him to cooperate with authorities (no, really), after which time he proceeded to answer every single question presented to him by interrogators, "as you are sitting here talking to me".

 

Mind you, Kiriakou believes it was wrong, and it's worth listening to why he thinks it was a mistake to do it. I think his perspective is fascinating, and I image it won't be long before we'll be able to find out his full perspective for only $14.95 at Amazon.com. (sigh)

 

But in the meantime, the lengthy interview is worth watching.

 

My personal opinion is that waterboarding may need to go back on the list of approved measures.

[Realitycheck]

Why not slice off one appendage at a time. Why not? Because they have not been convicted in a court of law? Of course, if it had not been so successful, then I would think twice. I really like the part where Hussein's head snapped off.

[Pangloss]

Well there's a clear (if unpleasant) answer to that. If you leave them "intact" then they have a greater hope of life after their ordeal is over.

[bascule]

Composition fallacy.

 

Just because torture made someone tell what was apparently the truth in a case instance does not mean that torture coerces truth in the general case. How many people have we tortured in vain?

 

That said, torture is torture. It's inhumane. It's wrong.

 

Why not slice off one appendage at a time. Why not? Because they have not been convicted in a court of law?

 

Possibly because dismemberment is a disgusting, inhumane practice more befitting the work of terrorists than those who claim moral superiority over them.

[iNow]

Shooting religious practitioners in the face has the effect of reducing the number of people who practice religion. Doesn't mean it's worth it.

 

 

To blanketly state that "waterboarding works" is a silly misinterpretation of the complexity of the process and an extreme oversimplification of what it is "to work."

 

 

 

To be frank... We're creating more terrorists than we're thwarting by engaging in such medieval practices.

 

 

 

... And how do we know she's a witch?

[Realitycheck]

This is playtime.

 

Waterboarding is a torture technique that simulates drowning in a controlled environment. It consists of immobilizing an individual on his or her back, with the head inclined downward, and pouring water over the face[1] to force the inhalation of water into the lungs.[2] Waterboarding has been used to obtain information, coerce confessions, punish, and intimidate. In contrast to merely submerging the head, waterboarding elicits the gag reflex,[3] and can make the subject believe death is imminent. Waterboarding's use as a method of torture or means to support interrogation is based on its ability to cause extreme mental distress while possibly creating no lasting physical damage to the subject. The psychological effects on victims of waterboarding can last long after the procedure.[4]

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

[Pangloss]

Composition fallacy.

 

It's not a composition fallacy at all. It's a simple statement of fact. Waterboarding was applied to this individual, who in the assessment of an experienced intelligence analyst was not going to provide that intelligence under normal means of coersion.

 

You can't prove a negative, so I agree that there is a random chance that God might have appeared to him the next day and instructed him to give up the information. You're quite right.

 

 

Just because torture made someone tell what was apparently the truth in a case instance does not mean that torture coerces truth in the general case. How many people have we tortured in vain?

 

Torture, yes, waterboarding, I don't know. We now have direct evidence that it works, and whether it's "torture" is pretty subjective. It clearly falls into a gray area. That's why I'm putting it back on the "maybe" list.

 

 

That said, torture is torture. It's inhumane. It's wrong.

 

I respect your opinion on it (probably more than you think), but let's be honest -- your position on the Bush administration is pretty well known. I need something more objective.

[ecoli]

Torture, yes, waterboarding, I don't know. We now have direct evidence that it works, and whether it's "torture" is pretty subjective. It clearly falls into a gray area. That's why I'm putting it back on the "maybe" list. .

 

What I don't understand is how there is any gray area here. It seems pretty obvious to me.

[Pangloss]

What I don't understand is how there is any gray area here. It seems pretty obvious to me.

 

Ok, you're what I would consider to be a fairly objective person, or at least non-partisan, and as open-minded as anybody on this site. Can you define what constitutes torture for me?

 

The reason it seems gray to me is that it seems to me that there are a whole host of things you can do to people. Blasting music in someone's cell, for example, would be considered torture by some, but not by others. And any scientific means of determining what constitutes torture seem to be overshadowed by lack of any objective measure.

 

Is it torture if, for example (as AgentChange mentioned above) there are lasting psychological effects? If that's the case then isn't imprisonment itself a form of torture?

 

Where, exactly, do we draw the line? How can there NOT be a gray area?

 

(Although I didn't get the impression that you were saying that there IS no gray area, just that waterboarding doesn't go in it.)

[ecoli]

Ok, you're what I would consider to be a fairly objective person, or at least non-partisan, and as open-minded as anybody on this site.

<3 Thanks.

 

I think I see what the real issue is now.

 

Obviously, there's some reality/semantic problems in this debate. Take the blasting music example... while this wouldn't be considered by most to be a cruel and unusual form of torture (well, depends on the genre, I guess ), there is indeed a point where loud music can cause physical damage, and perhaps even psychological damage, if it's recurring form of torture.

 

I would buy the argument that lasting psychological effects is a form of torture. Anyone who sneers at psychological affects, saying they aren't "as bad" as physical injuries is an ignorant fool, IMO.

 

It seems obvious to me, since waterboarding simulates drowning and has been shown to have lasting psychological affects, that this should be a form of torture that is outlawed by the Geneva Convention.

 

What bothers me is that, because there is no objective measure for torture, politicians can use that to avoid revealing their opinion on the matter (ala Mitt Romney) and risk losing votes.

 

In my opinion, waterboarding is torture, though there is absolutely gray area that we don't know how to classify.

 

I am against waterboarding, per se, but if was a consensus that waterboarding was completely necessary for homeland security to function, and congress were to pass a law allowing it (or via some other correct legal channel I don't know about) then I would be ok with it, even if it is torture.

[bascule]

It's not a composition fallacy at all. It's a simple statement of fact. Waterboarding was applied to this individual, who in the assessment of an experienced intelligence analyst was not going to provide that intelligence under normal means of coersion.

 

So when you say "Waterboarding Works", you meant that waterboarding has worked, once, in a case instance, never mind the untold people who we tortured in vain.

 

You're saying that a single case of success outweighs the moral indecency of torturing thousands of people?

 

And why state it in the present tense. Isn't "Waterboarding Worked" more appropriate? If your topic isn't fallacious, it's certainly spun.

 

Torture, yes, waterboarding, I don't know.

 

Waterboarding is torture.

 

How do we know it's torture?

 

Caught in a similar predicament to yourself about whether waterboarding was torture or in some sort of odd gray area, Acting Assistant Attorney General Daniel Levin put his on ass on the line, and had himself waterboarded.

 

Unlike the prisoners we've tortured with waterboarding, Levin had the opportunity to stop his torturers at the instance of the slightest distress.

 

What was his reaction?

 

"Waterboarding is torture."

 

If you think waterboarding isn't torture, maybe you should have yourself waterboarded.

[timo]

Possibly because dismemberment is a disgusting, inhumane practice more befitting the work of terrorists than those who claim moral superiority over them.

Not to mention that getting the blood stains out of your clothes can become really annoying, especially if you have to do it regularly.

 

Torture, yes, waterboarding, I don't know. We now have direct evidence that it works, ...

I would have believed that without experimental results.

 

...and whether it's "torture" is pretty subjective.

Absolutely. That observable is highly dependent on the frame of reference.

 

It clearly falls into a gray area.

Imho it clearly does not. And I find it pretty shocking that you think it did.

[Saryctos]

I see nothing wrong with using certain forms of torture or painful experiences to coerce informaiton out of wartime prisoners. They should be glad they aren't dead.

[Realitycheck]

Since this is delivered in a controlled environment and provides much more scare than harm, I have a hard time seeing how it qualifies as "torture". What doesn't get coughed up gets absorbed into the mucus lining the inside of the lungs which adjusts itself.

[Pangloss]

To blanketly state that "waterboarding works" is a silly misinterpretation of the complexity of the process and an extreme oversimplification of what it is "to work."

 

... And how do we know she's a witch?

 

And anybody who suggests otherwise is a Torture Denier, and will be featured in the next edition of the SFN Politically Correct Talking Points Memo. Oh believe me, I get it.

 

But I think you can do better than that. Take another look at the posts above that share my doubt.

[Mr Skeptic]

Torture, according to international law, is "any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions"

 

Severe physical suffering (gag reflex) or Severe metal suffering (lasting psychological damage). Check and Check

Intentional. Check

To obtain information, and intimidate. Check

Under a public official's authority. Check

 

Not due to lawful sanctions (Not convicted, so check)

 

A mock execution (since the victim believes he is drowning) is also illegal by international law. People being waterboarded will probably be willing to share any information (made up if necessary) to make it stop. Hence, it would be unreliable.

[iNow]

And anybody who suggests otherwise is a Torture Denier, and will be featured in the next edition of the SFN Politically Correct Talking Points Memo. Oh believe me, I get it.

 

But I think you can do better than that. Take another look at the posts above that share my doubt.

 

The important part of that post was that the benefit of our occasional successes does not out weigh the harm caused by regularly engaging in this action (whether you classify it as torture or not).

 

It's a tough issue. There are tough men and women in charge of protecting us and they have to do dirty work which we'd rather not see or hear. I get that. I struggle with the gray area, yet recognize that much of this is just the cost of doing business in a modern world.

 

My point still stands though. We must lead by example. We must take the high road. That's the only thing that will ever minimize the terrorist threat in any real way.

 

Engaging in practices of questionable morality and ethics is not going to bring anyone over to our side. Engaging in such practices is going to drive people away from our side, and we need as many supporters as we can get in today's religio-sociopolitical climate. Contrary to what ultimately needs to be accomplished, engaging in such tactics is going to make the opposing side's stance more fundamental, more tempered, and more difficult to overcome in the long run.

 

All of the above was just opinion, but I feel I could more than adequately defend against challenges to this opinion if so prompted.

[Severian]

Not to mention that getting the blood stains out of your clothes can become really annoying, especially if you have to do it regularly.

 

Germans...

[mooeypoo]

This is playtime.

 

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

 

Don't kill me for this question.. I am against torture, too. But:

 

This technique is scary, most definitely, and it's uncomfortable -- but is it painful? does it result with permanent (or even temporary) bodily harm? I'm not too sure.

 

So by calling this torture, we're saying that.. what? Why is this torture, but psychological pressure (that has the same approximate symptoms, or can have even *worse* symptoms, if the person doing it know what he's doing) is not torture?

 

We're.. uhm.. picking, and I'm not sure what our criteria are.

 

~moo

[bascule]

I see nothing wrong with using certain forms of torture or painful experiences to coerce informaiton out of wartime prisoners. They should be glad they aren't dead.

 

Torture may get people to talk, but it doesn't get them to tell the truth. It gets them to say whatever they think will make the torture stop. They'll say what their interrogators want to hear.

 

http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/Investigation/story?id=1322866

 

The techniques are controversial among experienced intelligence agency and military interrogators. Many feel that a confession obtained this way is an unreliable tool. Two experienced officers have told ABC that there is little to be gained by these techniques that could not be more effectively gained by a methodical, careful, psychologically based interrogation.

 

Since this is delivered in a controlled environment and provides much more scare than harm, I have a hard time seeing how it qualifies as "torture".

 

Thus far I have not seen anyone undergo waterboarding and emerge to claim that it is not torture. But I guess your definition of torture may vary.

 

At the very least the only government official I've seen give a firsthand opinion on the matter claims it's torture.

[Pangloss]

I think the lead-by-example argument is probably the most persuasive one I've read here. That's just my personal opinion, of course, but it seems like the most compelling argument.

 

I agree that this is nasty stuff and being a compromise-oriented person I'm not opposed to banning it and having done. I guess my concern, like many of those opposed to this, is at a higher level -- are we going so far in banning coercive measures that we're making it too difficult to defend ourselves against these kinds of extremists?

 

Germans would sit down with their captives and build a rapport with them over time. How well do you guys think that would work with an Al Qaeda dude? You think he'll have a little tea, play a little chess, and spill the beans? These are not normal people caught up in a war beyond their understanding or control. They're zealots, and they're not going to tell us anything while they are comfortable and safe.

 

As I said, I'm not willing to stoop all the way down to their level just to fight this thing. If this is to be a war of principle, then we should certainly stand by ours, and not exchange them for theirs.

 

But I'm okay with doing something more than simple imprisonment, and I don't think that fact alone distances us from our principles.

 

Torture may get people to talk, but it doesn't get them to tell the truth. It gets them to say whatever they think will make the torture stop. They'll say what their interrogators want to hear.

 

But in this case apparently it worked. Do you have any evidence that this CIA analyst is lying?

[Mr Skeptic]

I think the lead-by-example argument is probably the most persuasive one I've read here. That's just my personal opinion, of course, but it seems like the most compelling argument.

 

I agree. Torturing people would just give them justification that we are evil; though we may get information about our enemies out of them, we may end up with more enemies than we can find. Especially if we are torturing innocents. For this purpose, what matters is whether they percieve it as torture, which for waterboarding they do.

 

I agree that this is nasty stuff and being a compromise-oriented person I'm not opposed to banning it and having done. I guess my concern, like many of those opposed to this, is at a higher level -- are we going so far in banning coercive measures that we're making it too difficult to defend ourselves against these kinds of extremists?

 

That could be a problem.

 

Germans would sit down with their captives and build a rapport with them over time. How well do you guys think that would work with an Al Qaeda dude? You think he'll have a little tea, play a little chess, and spill the beans? These are not normal people caught up in a war beyond their understanding or control. They're zealots, and they're not going to tell us anything while they are comfortable and safe.

 

Odds are, they just misunderstand us. Anyone who thinks we are so evil that they are willing to sacrifice themselves to kill some of use either knows something I don't, or "knows" something I don't. Perhaps they will decide that we are less evil than the people who told them to blow themselves up. I guess it depends on what zealots are made of -- were they brainwashed, or is that what they truely believe?

 

As I said, I'm not willing to stoop all the way down to their level just to fight this thing. If this is to be a war of principle, then we should certainly stand by ours, and not exchange them for theirs.

 

Agreed.

 

But I'm okay with doing something more than simple imprisonment, and I don't think that fact alone distances us from our principles.

 

Agreed. In fact, I think imprisonment has become a one-size-fits-all "solution" that doesn't generally solve the problem but insted delays it.

 

But in this case apparently it worked. Do you have any evidence that this CIA analyst is lying?

 

Is there any evidence he is telling the truth? Maybe they just captured a bunch of people and called it a success. Notoriously lacking is any mention of who exactly was busted and what for... maybe I'm just paranoid.

 

I read the first transcript linked to in the article. Apparently, he was willing to talk, but not to give away "sensitive" information. They may have gotten some useful information about al Quaeda out of him, but if so, it was unintentional.

[bascule]

But in this case apparently it worked.

 

A quick runthrough of the problems in your argument:

 

You claim "waterboarding works" because it obtained a single positive result, but do not give any reasoning as to why that same positive result couldn't be achieved without torture.

 

How many successful confessions do you think have been extracted through traditional approaches? Can I pull a number out of my ass and say hundreds of thousands if not millions?

 

You're holding up a single result as evidence "waterboarding works" but don't give any reasoning as to why you think that because it worked in this single case instance that it will ever work in the future.

 

As far as I can tell you seem to think this single positive result outweighs the thousands of people we've tortured in vain, but that might be a simple moral difference between you and me.

[Saryctos]

I'm aware that it may verywell produce false information. In the same sense I would assume the intelligence agencies know this aswell and would hopefully incorporate false information screening into the process. I'm against using torture as a means to force a confession, but for forcing information flow out of a prisoner it can be effective. If after torturing someone you then do a psychological interrogation you can always intimidate them with so much as hinting of torturing them again.

 

what of tickling people? if you subjected the propper people to it(those who are tickelish) I'm sure that they would see that as a form of torture as well.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Germans would sit down with their captives and build a rapport with them over time. How well do you guys think that would work with an Al Qaeda dude? You think he'll have a little tea, play a little chess, and spill the beans? These are not normal people caught up in a war beyond their understanding or control. They're zealots, and they're not going to tell us anything while they are comfortable and safe.

Has anyone ever tried?