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

[mooeypoo]

I think that we need to take into account that the means to get information out of people depends on the type of person. Some people are highly suseptible to psychological pressure, others to other things. Our examination of what "works" probably needs to focus on the type of people - their psychological "motives" maybe? - along with the mehods used.

 

But I am not sure I understand again -- why are we considering the method of "simulating drowning" (hence, not ACTUALLY hurting someone for the long run) torture, but psychological pressure / solitude-for-long / etc -- not torture? Where's the limit?

[iNow]

One would not struggle to successfully argue that psychological torture is worse than physical. Here's but one example (which I specifically chose from a military report):

 

 

http://stinet.dtic.mil/oai/oai?verb=getRecord&metadataPrefix=html&identifier=ADA006794

Psychoanalytic views that all serious adult maladjustment must have its roots in infantile psychic trauma are undermined by evidence from the study of survivors of prisoner of war and concentration camps. Survivors of the most severe of these experiences have shown a constellation of physical, psychological, and social difficulties which even a quarter century of time and, in some cases, of physical and psychiatric therapy, have not eradicated. It appears that some extreme experiences of adult life can be so painful that they can bring about almost irreversible damage.

 

 

This is why one faces tough opposition when they claim acts such as this are justified. The proverbial line is slipping farther and farther away from the ideals for which we claim we stand... the ideals for which we send our young citizens (as soldiers) to fight and die.

[bascule]

But I am not sure I understand again -- why are we considering the method of "simulating drowning" (hence, not ACTUALLY hurting someone for the long run) torture, but psychological pressure / solitude-for-long / etc -- not torture? Where's the limit?

 

I'm quite happy to have a skeptical high-ranking government official undergo the process and rule one way or another.

 

That's what happened with waterboarding and Acting Assistant Attorney General Daniel Levin. He had himself waterboarded, and decided it was torture.

 

Sadly this thread seems to be devolving into a big semantic argument over what constitutes torture...

 

According to the UN Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, torture is...

 

http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/h_cat39.htm

 

...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.

 

I don't see how you can argue that waterboarding doesn't fall under that definition. Waterboarding causes severe mental suffering, enough that those who voluntarily undergo it can last about half the time of those who are tortured for the purposes of extracting a confession.

[mooeypoo]

I'm quite happy to have a skeptical high-ranking government official undergo the process and rule one way or another.

 

That's what happened with waterboarding and Acting Assistant Attorney General Daniel Levin. He had himself waterboarded, and decided it was torture.

 

Sadly this thread seems to be devolving into a big semantic argument over what constitutes torture...

 

According to the UN Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, torture is...

 

http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/h_cat39.htm

 

 

 

I don't see how you can argue that waterboarding doesn't fall under that definition. Waterboarding causes severe mental suffering, enough that those who voluntarily undergo it can last about half the time of those who are tortured for the purposes of extracting a confession.

I didn't mean it DOESN'T fall under the definition, I meant that we should notice our apparant line we put.. The thread seemed to be talking about "alternatives" and some of them sounded to me as if they may constitute torture by the same concept "waterboarding" is torture.

 

Notice that my question wasn't "is it torture" but it was "why is THIS torture if the others AREN'T".. I was trying to make a point about the "limits" of the definition.

 

~moo

[iNow]

The link Bascule shared is having server issues. Here's another:

 

http://www.hrweb.org/legal/cat.html

 

 

 

 

Notice that my question wasn't "is it torture" but it was "why is THIS torture if the others AREN'T".. I was trying to make a point about the "limits" of the definition.

 

I care not to argue to the tactical details of what is and what is not torture. I care to instead convince others of how this entire approach in itself is entirely flawed.

 

 

 

Like the death penatly. How does one teach people that killing is wrong by killing them?

[bascule]

Here's an interesting story:

 

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/12/11/agent.tapes/index.html

 

A former CIA agent who participated in interrogations of terror suspects said Tuesday that the controversial interrogation technique of "waterboarding" has saved lives, but he considers the method torture and now opposes its use.

[Realitycheck]

I think it is kind of weird to argue for war and denounce torture for information in order to gain advantage in war. War, in itself, demands killing.

[Pangloss]

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.

 

That was BEFORE he was waterboarded. Afterwards, according to this analyst, he gave up key intelligence that directly lead to saving lives.

 

 

Has anyone ever tried?

 

Yes, if you read the article I linked that's exactly what this analyst did.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Yes, if you read the article I linked that's exactly what this analyst did.

 

Which? I didn't see anything about that in the article linked to in the OP.

[Pangloss]

Which? I didn't see anything about that in the article linked to in the OP.

 

Ok, that could be, it's a really long article with an 8-part video series, and I don't know if that information is reflected in the written component. He talks about it in the video portion.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Oh. I'll have to find some time to watch that.

[Pangloss]

The way I see this is that putting ourselves in other people's shoes, trying to step above our various angers and torments, that's a luxury, not a responsibility. Sometimes we can afford it, other times we cannot. But it's never required of us to behave that way. It's not something we owe anyone. It's a privilege and usually the right thing to do. But that's it.

 

Sometimes -- not always -- I'll settle for forcing other people to obey the more basic rules of existence, even if I'm hypocritical in doing so, and that includes stopping them from killing my fellow countrymen and exacting the ultimate price in retribution when they do so. Over time, when the dust has settled, I'll be happy to step back and put more civilized rules back in place.

 

Not only am I okay with that, but I'm not really interested in whether other people see that as hypocritical. They're not perfect either, and if they're incapable of seeing my pluses on balance then that's a failing in THEM, not in me. The wonder of the world right now is not that Americans have made themselves unpopular in the world, but that the world has made America unpopular. They're wrong. Not us. NOT that we haven't made mistakes, I'm talking about on balance here. They're wrong to condemn us on the balance for those mistakes. Hypocrtically and wrong.

 

Look around this thread and tell me who the extremists are. Here's a suggestion for making that call: Which amongst us think this is an easy call? Which think it's a hard one?

 

We talked recently in another thread about how the founding fathers created this country as a nation of argument and debate, not resolution and unity. I think that was never more obvious than it is with this subject right here.

[john5746]

I thought the quotes below were significant.

 

"Like a lot of Americans, I'm involved in this internal, intellectual battle with myself weighing the idea that waterboarding may be torture versus the quality of information that we often get after using the waterboarding technique," Kiriakou told ABC News. "And I struggle with it."

 

"What happens if we don't waterboard a person, and we don't get that nugget of information, and there's an attack," Kiriakou said. "I would have trouble forgiving myself."

 

"A former colleague of mine asked him during the conversation one day, 'What would you do if we decided to let you go one day?' And he said, 'I would kill every American and Jew I could get my hands on...It's nothing personal. You're a nice guy. But this is who I am.'"

 

"At the time, I felt that waterboarding was something that we needed to do. And as time has passed, and as September 11th has, you know, has moved farther and farther back into history, I think I've changed my mind," he told ABC News.

 

Part of his decision appears to be an ethical one; another part, perhaps, simply pragmatic.

 

"I think we're chasing them all over the world. I think we've had a great deal of success chasing them...and, as a result, waterboarding, at least right now, is unnecessary," Kirikou said.

 

 

 

I think that we need to take into account that the means to get information out of people depends on the type of person. Some people are highly suseptible to psychological pressure, others to other things. Our examination of what "works" probably needs to focus on the type of people - their psychological "motives" maybe? - along with the mehods used.

 

I agree, hopefully they do some of that. I remember reading somewhere that some of the Japanese were very surprised when they were treated OK and it broke their brainwashing. He mentioned at one point about the prisoners seeing their 'brothers'. That is key. They care about their brothers more than themselves in many cases.

 

But I am not sure I understand again -- why are we considering the method of "simulating drowning" (hence, not ACTUALLY hurting someone for the long run) torture, but psychological pressure / solitude-for-long / etc -- not torture? Where's the limit?

 

This is important as well. When Pangloss mentioned OBJECTIVE, it jerked my brain into the discussion. I have almost drowned before and if someone hadn't been near to yell help to, I probably would have said a prayer to god. That alone tells me I would say ANYTHING to avoid torture!! That being said, I was none the worse after a half hour or so. I guess it depends on the duration, etc.

 

As far as not wanting our soldiers to face the same treatment, well:

 

1) We bomb civilians and invade homes - I'm pretty sure we don't want them to do the same.

 

2) We don't have an 'agreement' with the enemy. In fact, their procedure is to kill innocents.

 

 

I pretty much rely on the likes of John McCain, who knows what he is talking about regarding torture. But, he may be looking at it from his personal perspective, which would assume all people are like him. That is not always the case.

 

I consider myself a good person and live pretty well by the golden rule. In fact, I am too damned nice sometimes. If someone attacks me, I use whatever force is needed to protect myself. If they attack my family, I would gladly torture their ass before taking them out. This doesn't change me, I am still a good person. In the same way, terrorists(not insurgents) are attacking our innocents, below the belt. They deserve far worse than waterboarding, IMO. We can make the case that we are the 'good' guys why still dropping bombs and torturing terrorists.

[Mr Skeptic]

That was BEFORE he was waterboarded. Afterwards, according to this analyst, he gave up key intelligence that directly lead to saving lives.

 

No, after the waterboarding he got his revelation from Allah that told him to talk to them, but he avoided giving away useful information. The managed to get some trivia out of him about al Quaeda, but he was not cooperating, only talking.

 

Edit: I take back what I said about not cooperating, because later in the transcript they say he was cooperating with several things. It doesn't say anything about stopping specific attacks though.

[Realitycheck]

So this is the way I see it. We try to do everything as a model for the world. The world tries to impose this on us, out of spite, because it is the press who enforces it, making sensationalism out of anything. Without the press, the entire world would be gestapo. However, war is war and desperate measures warrant alike. They go for the chinks in the armor, we adjust. They do the unthinkable, we react and prepare. Who makes our leaders into puppets, bending at every turn? The press. Why? Fear. Out of fear of being labelled a monster.

 

However, we now have the most homogenized war methodology the world has ever known, but also the most technologically superior. How far does technology get us? How much do we want to win? We have been at war before. How often has torture methodology made the news in the past? It's like the most secretive things keep getting openned up more and more. Black ops is now evening news. So now that the pressure is on, what you gonna do?

[john5746]

Which? I didn't see anything about that in the article linked to in the OP.

 

He doesn't specifically say they tried it, but he mentions in the video that the 'German chess playing' method would not work with these guys. "They hate us more than they love life" He also mentions that as time went on and they saw their 'brothers' in jail, they began to break more easily, without waterboarding. It was the urgency that made them feel the need. Only in retrospect, with '911 fading in memory' does he think it was wrong. Not very convincing.

 

 

No, after the waterboarding he got his revelation from Allah that told him to talk to them, but he avoided giving away useful information. The managed to get some trivia out of him about al Quaeda, but he was not cooperating, only talking.

 

 

He specifically mentions after the waterboarding, he was much more cooperative and that it broke him. He talked with them in English from the start, but after waterboarding he gave them very good information.

 

If you ask me, the 48 hour sleep deprivation sounds worse than the water boarding.

[Pangloss]

No, after the waterboarding he got his revelation from Allah that told him to talk to them, but he avoided giving away useful information. The managed to get some trivia out of him about al Quaeda, but he was not cooperating, only talking.

 

From Page 1 of the written version of the ABC News story:

 

"From that day on, he answered every question," Kiriakou said. "The threat information he provided disrupted a number of attacks, maybe dozens of attacks."

 

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

 

If you ask me, the 48 hour sleep deprivation sounds worse than the water boarding.

 

On a primal level I don't really "get" it either, and that may be part of the problem here. I suspect that once you actually went through it you would find out very quickly how awful it is. I could just see myself sitting there, picturing everything from electricity to steak knives, and finding out that I'm only going to be "waterboarded", and there's just no way I think I would have the same kind of fear going into that event.

 

But there's a quote in that story where the CIA man says that the terrorist in question lasted about 36 seconds, and the ABC reporter said something like "that's a long time" -- I was surprised by this. If it induces that much torture in only 36 seconds it must be one hell of an awful experience.

 

Kinda like tasering -- just looking at it, it just doesn't seem like it could possibly be that big of a deal. But of course it is, otherwise they wouldn't do it.

[Mr Skeptic]

JOHN:

He resisted. He was able to withstand the water

boarding for quite some time. And by that I mean

probably 30' date=' 35 seconds--

BRIAN ROSS:

That's quite some time.

JOHN:

--which was quite some time. And a short time

afterwards, in the next day or so, he told his

interrogator that Allah had visit him in his cell

during the night and told him to cooperate

because his cooperation would make it easier on

the other brothers who had been captured. And

from that day on he answered every question just

like I'm sitting here speaking to you.

BRIAN ROSS:

And a willing way?

JOHN:

In a willing way.

BRIAN ROSS:

So in your view the water boarding broke him.

JOHN:

I think it did, yes.

BRIAN ROSS:

And did it make a difference in terms of--

JOHN:

It did. The threat information that he provided

disrupted a number of attacks, maybe dozens of

attacks.

BRIAN ROSS:

No doubt about that? That's not some--

JOHN:

No doubt.

BRIAN ROSS:

--hype?

JOHN:

No, no question. No question. The reporting-- I

remember reading the reporting, and it was

dramatic when it first started coming in. Now,

of course, a lot of that was time-sensitive. So

after a period of time he wasn't to-- to provide

any real actionable information, any information

that you could use to disrupt an attack.

But what he was able to provide was information

on the al Qaeda leadership. For example-- if bin

Laden were to do X-- who would be the person to

undertake such a-- such an operation? "Oh,

logically that would be Mr. Y." And we were able

to use that information to kind of get an idea of

how al Qaeda operated, how it came about

conceptualizing its operations, and-- and how it

went about tasking different cells with carrying

out operations.

BRIAN ROSS:

And in terms of the actual planned future

attacks?

JOHN:

Yeah, we disrupted a lot of them.

BRIAN ROSS:

And he knew about them?

JOHN:

He knew about some. But like I say, it was time-

sensitive information. So that-- that wound down

over time.

BRIAN ROSS:

And the ones that he knew about, were they on US

soil? Were they in Pakistan?

JOHN:

You know, I was out of it by then. I had moved

onto a new job. And I-- I don't recall. To the

best of my recollection, no, they weren't on US

soil. They were overseas.[/quote']

 

It's not too clear that he specifically gave information about planned attacks. He certainly did seem willing to help with some things, but I am surprised that there are no details about specific attacks he prevented.

 

Elsewhere in the transcript I got myself a new view of the war in Iraq. The palestines hate us because we help Israel. They want some control in the region, and getting the US out of the area so they can better deal with Israel seems to be their goal. To attack that area instead seems to have been a shock and dismay for them, and this was likely considered during the planning for the war. The whole doing the opposite of what they want.

[Pangloss]

Oh I see, you read the same stuff I did, you just think he's lying. Fair enough.

[Mr Skeptic]

Oh I see, you read the same stuff I did, you just think he's lying. Fair enough.

 

Potentially exaggerating or lying. I don't want to go so far as to say that he is lying or exaggerating, just that he might be. Or misinformed, since he seems to have been out of the loop by then. That may also explain why he didn't give details about the prevented attacks. Some things just didn't seem to fit together -- he had his revelation a day or so after the waterboarding (day or so later -- is that how torture normally works), and not having the details about the prevented attacks -- which I would have expected to be paraded around. I'm paranoid when it comes to stuff the government has a vested interest in.

[iNow]

How far can you go without destroying from within what you are trying to defend from without?

~ Dwight D. Eisenhower

 

 

The means of defense against foreign danger historically have become the instruments of tyranny at home.

~ James Madison

 

 

Our government has kept us in a perpetual state of fear - kept us in a continuous stampede of patriotic fervor - with the cry of grave national emergency.

~ General Douglas MacArthur

 

 

It is the job of thinking people not to be on the side of the executioners.

~ Albert Camus

 

 

If humanity does not opt for integrity we are through completely. It is absolutely touch and go. Each one of us could make the difference.

~ R. Buckminster Fuller

 

 

Whoever wishes peace among peoples must fight statism.

~ Ludwig von Mises

 

 

We are not going to be able to operate our Spaceship Earth successfully nor for much longer unless we see it as a whole spaceship and our fate as common. It has to be everybody or nobody.

~ R. Buckminster Fuller

[bascule]

Look around this thread and tell me who the extremists are. Here's a suggestion for making that call: Which amongst us think this is an easy call? Which think it's a hard one?

 

In the case of torture, I'm apt to rule on the side of caution. I guess that makes me an "extremist" in regard to not torturing people.

 

I don't much care for the opinions of those who think torture is some kind of gray area.

[ParanoiA]

So, how is killing the enemy rationalized in your morality code and torturing the enemy is not? You don't think a field of slaughtered enemy soldiers, slow deaths, cauterized amputations, and etc are torture?

 

The implied thick line between murder and torture is fallacious. Tell me how murdering people who haven't had due process is so obviously morally superior to torturing people who haven't had due process?

 

If you're willing to murder humans to your ends - what you're implicitly stating when you wage war - why would you draw some weird, arbitrary line at torture? You're already violating human decency and basic human rights by showering them with bombs and bullets, causing death, misery, pain - torture.

 

To rule out torture is as silly as ruling out killing. We should only war when we HAVE to - and then it should be all out, get it over with, no apologies. If we always did that, I don't think we'd fight nearly as many wars and they wouldn't last nearly as long, or kill as many people - nor spurn further conflicts with drawn out, continual conflict.

 

My two cents anyway.

[Mr Skeptic]

So, how is killing the enemy rationalized in your morality code and torturing the enemy is not? You don't think a field of slaughtered enemy soldiers, slow deaths, cauterized amputations, and etc are torture?

 

The implied thick line between murder and torture is fallacious. Tell me how murdering people who haven't had due process is so obviously morally superior to torturing people who haven't had due process?

 

For one thing, enemy soldiers have demonstrated that they oppose us. So their "due process" would be "caught in the act". But a soldier is just following orders; he's not intrinsically our enemy, more like an opponent. And once captured, he won't be getting in our way anymore. Putting a captured soldier to death would be considered far worse morally than torturing him. Combat and prison are different situations.

 

If you're willing to murder humans to your ends - what you're implicitly stating when you wage war - why would you draw some weird, arbitrary line at torture? You're already violating human decency and basic human rights by showering them with bombs and bullets, causing death, misery, pain - torture.

 

Yet even in the old times when a fight to the death was considered some kind of honorable thing, there were things that were allowed and things that weren't. Using archery or poison were considered less honorable than matching swords with him. Killing someone who was defenseless was considered wrong.

 

To rule out torture is as silly as ruling out killing. We should only war when we HAVE to - and then it should be all out, get it over with, no apologies. If we always did that, I don't think we'd fight nearly as many wars and they wouldn't last nearly as long, or kill as many people - nor spurn further conflicts with drawn out, continual conflict.

 

An all or nothing response would probably not be a good idea. We'd either have to not respond to a little thing, hence not penalizing little things, or go to an all out war due to a little thing. That would look immature, and would make us far more disliked than we are now.

[john5746]

In the case of torture, I'm apt to rule on the side of caution. I guess that makes me an "extremist" in regard to not torturing people.

 

I don't much care for the opinions of those who think torture is some kind of gray area.

 

 

We are so close to the "white" side of POW treatment, IMO. These guys are not even soldiers.

 

If people are willing to undergo the torture as part of thier training, I say it isn't that severe. It all depends on how much in the case of waterboarding, IMO. If it is done a couple of times, that is far different than 10 times everyday for a week.

 

Getting your teeth drilled, bamboo stuck under your nails, raped, etc. I wouldn't take that for any job.

 

How do you feel about sleep deprivation, isolation, starvation? How about burning the Koran?