OT: Release of the DOJ torture transcripts.

[Arraya]

HOME

In the overblown, self-regarding prose that has become his trademark, Obama lauds himself and his administration for their fealty to the “rule of law” in releasing the memos. But of course, the “rule of law” also dictates that those who have planned, ordered and committed torture be prosecuted. The law has no special dispensation for crimes that might be “too disturbing” to prosecute. And so his ringing conclusion — “we have taken steps to ensure that the actions described within them never take place again” — rings completely hollow. How will failing to prosecute the perpetrators of these crimes deter any future perpetrator in high office? The latter will know that their crimes will be “too disturbing” to prosecute — in much that same way that the biggest fraudsters on Wall Street today are “too big to fail,” and must be allowed to escape the consequences of their actions.

In the end, of course, it doesn’t matter. This story will be buried in a day, or less, just as all the other many, many stories about the American torture program have been buried, year after year after year. And even this story — as morally repulsive as it is — deals only with the tip of the iceberg of America’s global gulag. It refers only the CIA’s treatment of a very limited number of high-profile prisoners. Yet tens of thousands of people have passed through the belly of the gulag beast, where many have been tortured, held captive for years, even murdered. And not only is this still going on, but the Obama Administration is moving strenuously in court to drive these captives even deeper into limbo, asserting that no one who is plunged into the netherworld of America’s little Gitmos in Afghanistan has the slightest right to any tincture of legal redress — even if they had been kidnapped from the streets of some foreign city and “renditioned” to Afghanistan.

The old crimes are being written off; the new crimes keep going on.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

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

This torture has never been about gaining intelligence. It is about setting the precedent that the government can do whatever it wants, whenever it wants, to whomever it wants. It is meant to give any political opposition pause before opening their mouth. It is about display of ultimate power, nothing more.

CIA officers, military and law enforcement officials and even the Army’s own manuals state that torturing doesn’t produce good intelligence. So anyone who tells you otherwise is just covering up the horrible truth. It’s about power, that’s it.[/quote]

CONCHO: I had this very argument with Casca on another thread. You’re absolutely correct. I spent three years in Central America during the 1980s with an Army advisory team and saw both torture and interrogations (there is a clear difference between the two).

Torture was used to send a psychological message (Psyops) and was NOT used to gather or glean intelligence. That was what interrogations were for. You would be amazed what sitting down with someone over a period of hours or days can produce in terms of useful intelligence.

You subject someone to excruciating pain and they will tell you anything to get the pain to stop. The US Army and CIA did extensive research following the Vietnam War on the various “tells” or “leads” a questioner would provide a torture victim and how the torture victim would then answer questions trying to satisfy the questioner.

All that being said, you also have to create a dividing line between what constitutes an interrogation and what is genuinely torture. Sleep deprivation, threat of punishment/pain, etc are all valid interrogation methods. Take a close look at waterboarding and you tell me if you think that is torture or not.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

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

This torture has never been about gaining intelligence. It is about setting the precedent that the government can do whatever it wants, whenever it wants, to whomever it wants. It is meant to give any political opposition pause before opening their mouth. It is about display of ultimate power, nothing more.

CIA officers, military and law enforcement officials and even the Army’s own manuals state that torturing doesn’t produce good intelligence. So anyone who tells you otherwise is just covering up the horrible truth. It’s about power, that’s it.[/quote]

CONCHO: I had this very argument with Casca on another thread. You’re absolutely correct. I spent three years in Central America during the 1980s with an Army advisory team and saw both torture and interrogations (there is a clear difference between the two).

Torture was used to send a psychological message (Psyops) and was NOT used to gather or glean intelligence. That was what interrogations were for. You would be amazed what sitting down with someone over a period of hours or days can produce in terms of useful intelligence.

You subject someone to excruciating pain and they will tell you anything to get the pain to stop. The US Army and CIA did extensive research following the Vietnam War on the various “tells” or “leads” a questioner would provide a torture victim and how the torture victim would then answer questions trying to satisfy the questioner.

All that being said, you also have to create a dividing line between what constitutes an interrogation and what is genuinely torture. Sleep deprivation, threat of punishment/pain, etc are all valid interrogation methods. Take a close look at waterboarding and you tell me if you think that is torture or not.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

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

This torture has never been about gaining intelligence. It is about setting the precedent that the government can do whatever it wants, whenever it wants, to whomever it wants. It is meant to give any political opposition pause before opening their mouth. It is about display of ultimate power, nothing more.

CIA officers, military and law enforcement officials and even the Army’s own manuals state that torturing doesn’t produce good intelligence. So anyone who tells you otherwise is just covering up the horrible truth. It’s about power, that’s it.[/quote]

CONCHO: I had this very argument with Casca on another thread. You’re absolutely correct. I spent three years in Central America during the 1980s with an Army advisory team and saw both torture and interrogations (there is a clear difference between the two).

Torture was used to send a psychological message (Psyops) and was NOT used to gather or glean intelligence. That was what interrogations were for. You would be amazed what sitting down with someone over a period of hours or days can produce in terms of useful intelligence.

You subject someone to excruciating pain and they will tell you anything to get the pain to stop. The US Army and CIA did extensive research following the Vietnam War on the various “tells” or “leads” a questioner would provide a torture victim and how the torture victim would then answer questions trying to satisfy the questioner.

All that being said, you also have to create a dividing line between what constitutes an interrogation and what is genuinely torture. Sleep deprivation, threat of punishment/pain, etc are all valid interrogation methods. Take a close look at waterboarding and you tell me if you think that is torture or not.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

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

This torture has never been about gaining intelligence. It is about setting the precedent that the government can do whatever it wants, whenever it wants, to whomever it wants. It is meant to give any political opposition pause before opening their mouth. It is about display of ultimate power, nothing more.

CIA officers, military and law enforcement officials and even the Army’s own manuals state that torturing doesn’t produce good intelligence. So anyone who tells you otherwise is just covering up the horrible truth. It’s about power, that’s it.[/quote]

CONCHO: I had this very argument with Casca on another thread. You’re absolutely correct. I spent three years in Central America during the 1980s with an Army advisory team and saw both torture and interrogations (there is a clear difference between the two).

Torture was used to send a psychological message (Psyops) and was NOT used to gather or glean intelligence. That was what interrogations were for. You would be amazed what sitting down with someone over a period of hours or days can produce in terms of useful intelligence.

You subject someone to excruciating pain and they will tell you anything to get the pain to stop. The US Army and CIA did extensive research following the Vietnam War on the various “tells” or “leads” a questioner would provide a torture victim and how the torture victim would then answer questions trying to satisfy the questioner.

All that being said, you also have to create a dividing line between what constitutes an interrogation and what is genuinely torture. Sleep deprivation, threat of punishment/pain, etc are all valid interrogation methods. Take a close look at waterboarding and you tell me if you think that is torture or not.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

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

This torture has never been about gaining intelligence. It is about setting the precedent that the government can do whatever it wants, whenever it wants, to whomever it wants. It is meant to give any political opposition pause before opening their mouth. It is about display of ultimate power, nothing more.

CIA officers, military and law enforcement officials and even the Army’s own manuals state that torturing doesn’t produce good intelligence. So anyone who tells you otherwise is just covering up the horrible truth. It’s about power, that’s it.[/quote]

CONCHO: I had this very argument with Casca on another thread. You’re absolutely correct. I spent three years in Central America during the 1980s with an Army advisory team and saw both torture and interrogations (there is a clear difference between the two).

Torture was used to send a psychological message (Psyops) and was NOT used to gather or glean intelligence. That was what interrogations were for. You would be amazed what sitting down with someone over a period of hours or days can produce in terms of useful intelligence.

You subject someone to excruciating pain and they will tell you anything to get the pain to stop. The US Army and CIA did extensive research following the Vietnam War on the various “tells” or “leads” a questioner would provide a torture victim and how the torture victim would then answer questions trying to satisfy the questioner.

All that being said, you also have to create a dividing line between what constitutes an interrogation and what is genuinely torture. Sleep deprivation, threat of punishment/pain, etc are all valid interrogation methods. Take a close look at waterboarding and you tell me if you think that is torture or not.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[blahblahblah]

Take a close look at waterboarding and you tell me if you think that is torture or not.

“Waterboarding” sounds like an extreme sport. Let’s just call it “drowning” which is what it is. As for whether it’s torture or not, I’ll take Christopher Hitchens’ word for it.

[blahblahblah]

Take a close look at waterboarding and you tell me if you think that is torture or not.

“Waterboarding” sounds like an extreme sport. Let’s just call it “drowning” which is what it is. As for whether it’s torture or not, I’ll take Christopher Hitchens’ word for it.

[blahblahblah]

Take a close look at waterboarding and you tell me if you think that is torture or not.

“Waterboarding” sounds like an extreme sport. Let’s just call it “drowning” which is what it is. As for whether it’s torture or not, I’ll take Christopher Hitchens’ word for it.

[blahblahblah]

Take a close look at waterboarding and you tell me if you think that is torture or not.

“Waterboarding” sounds like an extreme sport. Let’s just call it “drowning” which is what it is. As for whether it’s torture or not, I’ll take Christopher Hitchens’ word for it.

[Author]

Posts