OT: Release of the DOJ torture transcripts.

[blahblahblah]

CONCHO: Are you familiar with the term “carnography”?

Hahaha actually I wasn’t. That’s pretty interesting that they’ve actually coined a word for this stuff. The film westerns are interesting to think about — even though they didn’t have torture scenes, what they almost always had is the good guy that knows right from wrong and does what he has to do, even if it might involve bending a law or two. I guess the whole Jack Bauer “24” thing ties into the same mythology — these darned bureaucrats just don’t understand! A man’s gotta do what a man’s gotta do to keep this town safe!

Maybe this whole torture thing in the media is just a new twist on an old theme. Although Dirty Harry didn’t torture people, he was pretty nasty to the bad guy, and he didn’t bother himself with little details like due process or the courts. Of course in the movies, Eastwood’s judgement is always right, and when Charles Bronson goes off on the bad guys in one of his “Death Wish” movies, he never gets the wrong man. It’s too bad life isn’t always like the movies!

[afx114]

Now that more details are trickling out, it’s all starting to make sense. It appears as if torture was used in an attempt to extract information that would tie Al Qaeda to Iraq in order to justify the invasion.

Of course, there was no link between Al Qaeda and Iraq, which probably explains why people like KSM had to be waterboarded 180+ times. I wonder if these guys figured that if they pushed hard enough that he would say anything, even that he was buddies with Saddam? That break would certainly justify the invasion in the minds of the administration and almost certainly in the majority of the US public. “See, we had to go into Iraq… to get Al Qaeda. Remember 9-11?”

Paul Krugman said it well:

Let’s say this slowly: the Bush administration wanted to use 9/11 as a pretext to invade Iraq, even though Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. So it tortured people to make them confess to the nonexistent link.

There’s a word for this: it’s evil.

Apparently the ‘success’ claimed by torture backers had to do with figuring out the power structure of Al Qaeda rather than any sort of pending attack upon America.

I just wish they’d release all of the info so that we can let the chips fall where they may.

Do any of these new details change anyones positions on torture? I suppose you could have different answers for both this specific case and torture in general.

I also wonder if the ‘do not prosecute’ crowd would have had the same argument in regards to the Japanese we executed following WWII for waterboarding American POWs.

[afx114]

Now that more details are trickling out, it’s all starting to make sense. It appears as if torture was used in an attempt to extract information that would tie Al Qaeda to Iraq in order to justify the invasion.

Of course, there was no link between Al Qaeda and Iraq, which probably explains why people like KSM had to be waterboarded 180+ times. I wonder if these guys figured that if they pushed hard enough that he would say anything, even that he was buddies with Saddam? That break would certainly justify the invasion in the minds of the administration and almost certainly in the majority of the US public. “See, we had to go into Iraq… to get Al Qaeda. Remember 9-11?”

Paul Krugman said it well:

Let’s say this slowly: the Bush administration wanted to use 9/11 as a pretext to invade Iraq, even though Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. So it tortured people to make them confess to the nonexistent link.

There’s a word for this: it’s evil.

Apparently the ‘success’ claimed by torture backers had to do with figuring out the power structure of Al Qaeda rather than any sort of pending attack upon America.

I just wish they’d release all of the info so that we can let the chips fall where they may.

Do any of these new details change anyones positions on torture? I suppose you could have different answers for both this specific case and torture in general.

I also wonder if the ‘do not prosecute’ crowd would have had the same argument in regards to the Japanese we executed following WWII for waterboarding American POWs.

[afx114]

Now that more details are trickling out, it’s all starting to make sense. It appears as if torture was used in an attempt to extract information that would tie Al Qaeda to Iraq in order to justify the invasion.

Of course, there was no link between Al Qaeda and Iraq, which probably explains why people like KSM had to be waterboarded 180+ times. I wonder if these guys figured that if they pushed hard enough that he would say anything, even that he was buddies with Saddam? That break would certainly justify the invasion in the minds of the administration and almost certainly in the majority of the US public. “See, we had to go into Iraq… to get Al Qaeda. Remember 9-11?”

Paul Krugman said it well:

Let’s say this slowly: the Bush administration wanted to use 9/11 as a pretext to invade Iraq, even though Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. So it tortured people to make them confess to the nonexistent link.

There’s a word for this: it’s evil.

Apparently the ‘success’ claimed by torture backers had to do with figuring out the power structure of Al Qaeda rather than any sort of pending attack upon America.

I just wish they’d release all of the info so that we can let the chips fall where they may.

Do any of these new details change anyones positions on torture? I suppose you could have different answers for both this specific case and torture in general.

I also wonder if the ‘do not prosecute’ crowd would have had the same argument in regards to the Japanese we executed following WWII for waterboarding American POWs.

[afx114]

Now that more details are trickling out, it’s all starting to make sense. It appears as if torture was used in an attempt to extract information that would tie Al Qaeda to Iraq in order to justify the invasion.

Of course, there was no link between Al Qaeda and Iraq, which probably explains why people like KSM had to be waterboarded 180+ times. I wonder if these guys figured that if they pushed hard enough that he would say anything, even that he was buddies with Saddam? That break would certainly justify the invasion in the minds of the administration and almost certainly in the majority of the US public. “See, we had to go into Iraq… to get Al Qaeda. Remember 9-11?”

Paul Krugman said it well:

Let’s say this slowly: the Bush administration wanted to use 9/11 as a pretext to invade Iraq, even though Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. So it tortured people to make them confess to the nonexistent link.

There’s a word for this: it’s evil.

Apparently the ‘success’ claimed by torture backers had to do with figuring out the power structure of Al Qaeda rather than any sort of pending attack upon America.

I just wish they’d release all of the info so that we can let the chips fall where they may.

Do any of these new details change anyones positions on torture? I suppose you could have different answers for both this specific case and torture in general.

I also wonder if the ‘do not prosecute’ crowd would have had the same argument in regards to the Japanese we executed following WWII for waterboarding American POWs.

[afx114]

Now that more details are trickling out, it’s all starting to make sense. It appears as if torture was used in an attempt to extract information that would tie Al Qaeda to Iraq in order to justify the invasion.

Of course, there was no link between Al Qaeda and Iraq, which probably explains why people like KSM had to be waterboarded 180+ times. I wonder if these guys figured that if they pushed hard enough that he would say anything, even that he was buddies with Saddam? That break would certainly justify the invasion in the minds of the administration and almost certainly in the majority of the US public. “See, we had to go into Iraq… to get Al Qaeda. Remember 9-11?”

Paul Krugman said it well:

Let’s say this slowly: the Bush administration wanted to use 9/11 as a pretext to invade Iraq, even though Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. So it tortured people to make them confess to the nonexistent link.

There’s a word for this: it’s evil.

Apparently the ‘success’ claimed by torture backers had to do with figuring out the power structure of Al Qaeda rather than any sort of pending attack upon America.

I just wish they’d release all of the info so that we can let the chips fall where they may.

Do any of these new details change anyones positions on torture? I suppose you could have different answers for both this specific case and torture in general.

I also wonder if the ‘do not prosecute’ crowd would have had the same argument in regards to the Japanese we executed following WWII for waterboarding American POWs.

[patb]

[quote=afx114]Well said SanDiegoDave.

I’m no expert on torture, but it seems to me that if I was being tortured I would tell the torturers whatever they wanted to hear in order to get them to stop — whether it is truthful or not. What if I didn’t know the answer? Wouldn’t I tell them anything to get them to stop?

Have there been studies done on the validity of information gained via torture? It seems to me that torture is a low percentage proposition.[/quote]

Torture is a thing that depends upon solid knowledge by the torturers.
You don’t go on a goose chase with torture, you need to know exactly
what it is, and to have a way to verify it, before you engage in torture.

Here are two examples.

1) I have temecula guy being waterboarded, and i want his PIN number
to his ATM Card. I have the ATM Card, I know he has the PIN Number,
and it’s just a matter of some water and time to get it, and i can
check it easily. Trust me, TG will be coughing up that number in
10 minutes.

2) I have TG and his family, and 8 of his close friends and neighbors.
I think one of them has the total value of bin laden’s
savings account in a swiss bank. I start torturing TG for the
value. Then his wife, then his kid, then the friends,
even if i get a number, how do i check it, the swiss won’t
release that number to me. So what do i gain?
I get numbers all over the place, from 15 people, which number
is correct and which one is meaningful?

if you want another example, try the location of a kidnapped american
soldier that is MIA in Afghanistan? It’s hard to verify and the
data may change.

McCain was tortured, when they asked him his target he coughed it up,
because it was pretty obvious where he going at the time. They then
asked who was in his squadron and he named the green bay packers
front line.

what use to the NVA was it to torture McCain? none.
it was brutality for brutality alone.

There is a reason torture is not used in court. If torture was effective,
it would be used all the time.

[patb]

[quote=afx114]Well said SanDiegoDave.

I’m no expert on torture, but it seems to me that if I was being tortured I would tell the torturers whatever they wanted to hear in order to get them to stop — whether it is truthful or not. What if I didn’t know the answer? Wouldn’t I tell them anything to get them to stop?

Have there been studies done on the validity of information gained via torture? It seems to me that torture is a low percentage proposition.[/quote]

Torture is a thing that depends upon solid knowledge by the torturers.
You don’t go on a goose chase with torture, you need to know exactly
what it is, and to have a way to verify it, before you engage in torture.

Here are two examples.

1) I have temecula guy being waterboarded, and i want his PIN number
to his ATM Card. I have the ATM Card, I know he has the PIN Number,
and it’s just a matter of some water and time to get it, and i can
check it easily. Trust me, TG will be coughing up that number in
10 minutes.

2) I have TG and his family, and 8 of his close friends and neighbors.
I think one of them has the total value of bin laden’s
savings account in a swiss bank. I start torturing TG for the
value. Then his wife, then his kid, then the friends,
even if i get a number, how do i check it, the swiss won’t
release that number to me. So what do i gain?
I get numbers all over the place, from 15 people, which number
is correct and which one is meaningful?

if you want another example, try the location of a kidnapped american
soldier that is MIA in Afghanistan? It’s hard to verify and the
data may change.

McCain was tortured, when they asked him his target he coughed it up,
because it was pretty obvious where he going at the time. They then
asked who was in his squadron and he named the green bay packers
front line.

what use to the NVA was it to torture McCain? none.
it was brutality for brutality alone.

There is a reason torture is not used in court. If torture was effective,
it would be used all the time.

[patb]

[quote=afx114]Well said SanDiegoDave.

I’m no expert on torture, but it seems to me that if I was being tortured I would tell the torturers whatever they wanted to hear in order to get them to stop — whether it is truthful or not. What if I didn’t know the answer? Wouldn’t I tell them anything to get them to stop?

Have there been studies done on the validity of information gained via torture? It seems to me that torture is a low percentage proposition.[/quote]

Torture is a thing that depends upon solid knowledge by the torturers.
You don’t go on a goose chase with torture, you need to know exactly
what it is, and to have a way to verify it, before you engage in torture.

Here are two examples.

1) I have temecula guy being waterboarded, and i want his PIN number
to his ATM Card. I have the ATM Card, I know he has the PIN Number,
and it’s just a matter of some water and time to get it, and i can
check it easily. Trust me, TG will be coughing up that number in
10 minutes.

2) I have TG and his family, and 8 of his close friends and neighbors.
I think one of them has the total value of bin laden’s
savings account in a swiss bank. I start torturing TG for the
value. Then his wife, then his kid, then the friends,
even if i get a number, how do i check it, the swiss won’t
release that number to me. So what do i gain?
I get numbers all over the place, from 15 people, which number
is correct and which one is meaningful?

if you want another example, try the location of a kidnapped american
soldier that is MIA in Afghanistan? It’s hard to verify and the
data may change.

McCain was tortured, when they asked him his target he coughed it up,
because it was pretty obvious where he going at the time. They then
asked who was in his squadron and he named the green bay packers
front line.

what use to the NVA was it to torture McCain? none.
it was brutality for brutality alone.

There is a reason torture is not used in court. If torture was effective,
it would be used all the time.

[patb]

[quote=afx114]Well said SanDiegoDave.

I’m no expert on torture, but it seems to me that if I was being tortured I would tell the torturers whatever they wanted to hear in order to get them to stop — whether it is truthful or not. What if I didn’t know the answer? Wouldn’t I tell them anything to get them to stop?

Have there been studies done on the validity of information gained via torture? It seems to me that torture is a low percentage proposition.[/quote]

Torture is a thing that depends upon solid knowledge by the torturers.
You don’t go on a goose chase with torture, you need to know exactly
what it is, and to have a way to verify it, before you engage in torture.

Here are two examples.

1) I have temecula guy being waterboarded, and i want his PIN number
to his ATM Card. I have the ATM Card, I know he has the PIN Number,
and it’s just a matter of some water and time to get it, and i can
check it easily. Trust me, TG will be coughing up that number in
10 minutes.

2) I have TG and his family, and 8 of his close friends and neighbors.
I think one of them has the total value of bin laden’s
savings account in a swiss bank. I start torturing TG for the
value. Then his wife, then his kid, then the friends,
even if i get a number, how do i check it, the swiss won’t
release that number to me. So what do i gain?
I get numbers all over the place, from 15 people, which number
is correct and which one is meaningful?

if you want another example, try the location of a kidnapped american
soldier that is MIA in Afghanistan? It’s hard to verify and the
data may change.

McCain was tortured, when they asked him his target he coughed it up,
because it was pretty obvious where he going at the time. They then
asked who was in his squadron and he named the green bay packers
front line.

what use to the NVA was it to torture McCain? none.
it was brutality for brutality alone.

There is a reason torture is not used in court. If torture was effective,
it would be used all the time.

[patb]

[quote=afx114]Well said SanDiegoDave.

I’m no expert on torture, but it seems to me that if I was being tortured I would tell the torturers whatever they wanted to hear in order to get them to stop — whether it is truthful or not. What if I didn’t know the answer? Wouldn’t I tell them anything to get them to stop?

Have there been studies done on the validity of information gained via torture? It seems to me that torture is a low percentage proposition.[/quote]

Torture is a thing that depends upon solid knowledge by the torturers.
You don’t go on a goose chase with torture, you need to know exactly
what it is, and to have a way to verify it, before you engage in torture.

Here are two examples.

1) I have temecula guy being waterboarded, and i want his PIN number
to his ATM Card. I have the ATM Card, I know he has the PIN Number,
and it’s just a matter of some water and time to get it, and i can
check it easily. Trust me, TG will be coughing up that number in
10 minutes.

2) I have TG and his family, and 8 of his close friends and neighbors.
I think one of them has the total value of bin laden’s
savings account in a swiss bank. I start torturing TG for the
value. Then his wife, then his kid, then the friends,
even if i get a number, how do i check it, the swiss won’t
release that number to me. So what do i gain?
I get numbers all over the place, from 15 people, which number
is correct and which one is meaningful?

if you want another example, try the location of a kidnapped american
soldier that is MIA in Afghanistan? It’s hard to verify and the
data may change.

McCain was tortured, when they asked him his target he coughed it up,
because it was pretty obvious where he going at the time. They then
asked who was in his squadron and he named the green bay packers
front line.

what use to the NVA was it to torture McCain? none.
it was brutality for brutality alone.

There is a reason torture is not used in court. If torture was effective,
it would be used all the time.

[patb]

[quote=afx114][quote=Allan from Fallbrook]You would be amazed what sitting down with someone over a period of hours or days can produce in terms of useful intelligence.[/quote]

Forgive me if I am wrong, but didn’t Saddam reveal some stuff to his guards after months of being buddy-buddy with them? What we should do with suspected terrorists is throw back a few beers with them, play some Lego Star Wars, break the ice, and shoot the shit — who knows what they might reveal.
[/quote]

in WW2, our naval interrogators got more out of German Sub Commanders
over a game of chess, then they would have ever gotten out of
a steam iron

[patb]

[quote=afx114][quote=Allan from Fallbrook]You would be amazed what sitting down with someone over a period of hours or days can produce in terms of useful intelligence.[/quote]

Forgive me if I am wrong, but didn’t Saddam reveal some stuff to his guards after months of being buddy-buddy with them? What we should do with suspected terrorists is throw back a few beers with them, play some Lego Star Wars, break the ice, and shoot the shit — who knows what they might reveal.
[/quote]

in WW2, our naval interrogators got more out of German Sub Commanders
over a game of chess, then they would have ever gotten out of
a steam iron

[patb]

[quote=afx114][quote=Allan from Fallbrook]You would be amazed what sitting down with someone over a period of hours or days can produce in terms of useful intelligence.[/quote]

Forgive me if I am wrong, but didn’t Saddam reveal some stuff to his guards after months of being buddy-buddy with them? What we should do with suspected terrorists is throw back a few beers with them, play some Lego Star Wars, break the ice, and shoot the shit — who knows what they might reveal.
[/quote]

in WW2, our naval interrogators got more out of German Sub Commanders
over a game of chess, then they would have ever gotten out of
a steam iron

[patb]

[quote=afx114][quote=Allan from Fallbrook]You would be amazed what sitting down with someone over a period of hours or days can produce in terms of useful intelligence.[/quote]

Forgive me if I am wrong, but didn’t Saddam reveal some stuff to his guards after months of being buddy-buddy with them? What we should do with suspected terrorists is throw back a few beers with them, play some Lego Star Wars, break the ice, and shoot the shit — who knows what they might reveal.
[/quote]

in WW2, our naval interrogators got more out of German Sub Commanders
over a game of chess, then they would have ever gotten out of
a steam iron

[Author]

Posts