Torture vs Security

[Wiseacre]

We have an ongoing debate about using waterboarding and EIT in this country, which some consider to be torture. Some on the left do not support these techniques under any circumstances, but the problem is that by eliminating these tools you could possibly not get certain information that could lead to prevention of a terrorist attack. You could discount the probability that EIT could work, but even if the possibility is slight, should we not use evry avenue available to us, including EIT?

So, the question is, for those who would not allow EIT at all, are you willing to accept the security risk? We would never know whether or not EIT would have saved lives if an event occurs and it comes to light that a prisoner had information that might have led to prevention of the attack. But that would seem to me an acceptable chance to take. What say you?

 

[Truthseeker420]

Torture is the worst way to get information. No useful information was obtained from torture/waterboarding from the Bush admin.

 

[R.D.]

CIA Director Leon Panetta stomped on the White House’s political script when he told Tuesday night’s broadcast of NBC Nightly News that the waterboarding of jihadi detainees contributed information that led to the location and killing of Osama bin Laden.

“We had multiple series of sources that provided information with regards to this situation… clearly some of it came from detainees [and] they used these enhanced interrogation techniques against some of those detainees,” he told NBC anchor Brian Williams.

When asked by Williams if water-boarding was part of the “enhanced interrogation techniques,” Panetta simply said “that’s correct.”

CLICK

 

[Wiseacre]

Torture is the worst way to get information. No useful information was obtained from torture/waterboarding from the Bush admin.

Not many would argue that torture is the worst way to get information. But many former CIA directors, including Leon Panetta, have said that some information was indeed obtained as a result of EIT. Why do you discount their opinion, and what is your basis for that viewpoint?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

We have an ongoing debate about using waterboarding and EIT in this country, which some consider to be torture. Some on the left do not support these techniques under any circumstances, but the problem is that by eliminating these tools you could possibly not get certain information that could lead to prevention of a terrorist attack. You could discount the probability that EIT could work, but even if the possibility is slight, should we not use evry avenue available to us, including EIT?

So, the question is, for those who would not allow EIT at all, are you willing to accept the security risk? We would never know whether or not EIT would have saved lives if an event occurs and it comes to light that a prisoner had information that might have led to prevention of the attack. But that would seem to me an acceptable chance to take. What say you?

National security does not justify the use of torture.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Torture is the worst way to get information. No useful information was obtained from torture/waterboarding from the Bush admin.

Leon Panetta, among others, disagrees with you.

 

[Truthseeker420]

CIA Director Leon Panetta stomped on the White House’s political script when he told Tuesday night’s broadcast of NBC Nightly News that the waterboarding of jihadi detainees contributed information that led to the location and killing of Osama bin Laden.

“We had multiple series of sources that provided information with regards to this situation… clearly some of it came from detainees [and] they used these enhanced interrogation techniques against some of those detainees,” he told NBC anchor Brian Williams.

When asked by Williams if water-boarding was part of the “enhanced interrogation techniques,” Panetta simply said “that’s correct.”

CLICK

He said waterboarding was part of “enhanced interrogation" not that it any way led to the capture of OBL. You left a lot out of that conversation.


Officials: Waterboarding Foiled No Plot - CBS News

Officials: Waterboarding Foiled No Plot

When CIA officials subjected their first high-value captive, Abu Zubaida, to waterboarding and other harsh interrogation methods, they were convinced that they had in their custody an al Qaeda leader who knew details of operations yet to be unleashed, and they were facing increasing pressure from the White House to get those secrets out of him.

The methods succeeded in breaking him, and the stories he told of al Qaeda terrorism plots sent CIA officers around the globe chasing leads.

In the end, though, not a single significant plot was foiled as a result of Abu Zubaida's tortured confessions, according to former senior government officials who closely followed the interrogations. Nearly all of the leads attained through the harsh measures quickly evaporated, while most of the useful information from Abu Zubaida - chiefly names of al Qaeda members and associates - was obtained before waterboarding was introduced, they said.

 

[Truthseeker420]

Torture is the worst way to get information. No useful information was obtained from torture/waterboarding from the Bush admin.

Leon Panetta, among others, disagrees with you.

You didn't listen do the video did you?

 

[TheBrain]

Torture is the worst way to get information. No useful information was obtained from torture/waterboarding from the Bush admin.

A) Torture absolutely works. The only questions are is can the truth be verified from bullshit and then of course the question of ethics. No question torture will get what you want to know EVERY TIME.

B) Dubya wasn't the first President to authorize torture, and Obama won't be the last.

Those two things are fact, deal with it.

 

[Truthseeker420]

Torture is the worst way to get information. No useful information was obtained from torture/waterboarding from the Bush admin.

A) Torture absolutely works. The only questions are is can the truth be verified from bullshit and then of course the question of ethics. No question torture will get what you want to know EVERY TIME.

B) Dubya wasn't the first President to authorize torture, and Obama won't be the last.

Those two things are fact, deal with it.

Officials: Waterboarding Foiled No Plot - CBS News

Officials: Waterboarding Foiled No Plot

When CIA officials subjected their first high-value captive, Abu Zubaida, to waterboarding and other harsh interrogation methods, they were convinced that they had in their custody an al Qaeda leader who knew details of operations yet to be unleashed, and they were facing increasing pressure from the White House to get those secrets out of him.

The methods succeeded in breaking him, and the stories he told of al Qaeda terrorism plots sent CIA officers around the globe chasing leads.

In the end, though, not a single significant plot was foiled as a result of Abu Zubaida's tortured confessions, according to former senior government officials who closely followed the interrogations. Nearly all of the leads attained through the harsh measures quickly evaporated, while most of the useful information from Abu Zubaida - chiefly names of al Qaeda members and associates - was obtained before waterboarding was introduced, they said.

 

[TheBrain]

Torture is the worst way to get information. No useful information was obtained from torture/waterboarding from the Bush admin.

A) Torture absolutely works. The only questions are is can the truth be verified from bullshit and then of course the question of ethics. No question torture will get what you want to know EVERY TIME.

B) Dubya wasn't the first President to authorize torture, and Obama won't be the last.

Those two things are fact, deal with it.

Officials: Waterboarding Foiled No Plot - CBS News

Officials: Waterboarding Foiled No Plot

When CIA officials subjected their first high-value captive, Abu Zubaida, to waterboarding and other harsh interrogation methods, they were convinced that they had in their custody an al Qaeda leader who knew details of operations yet to be unleashed, and they were facing increasing pressure from the White House to get those secrets out of him.

The methods succeeded in breaking him, and the stories he told of al Qaeda terrorism plots sent CIA officers around the globe chasing leads.

In the end, though, not a single significant plot was foiled as a result of Abu Zubaida's tortured confessions, according to former senior government officials who closely followed the interrogations. Nearly all of the leads attained through the harsh measures quickly evaporated, while most of the useful information from Abu Zubaida - chiefly names of al Qaeda members and associates - was obtained before waterboarding was introduced, they said.

Well, that surely proves the man knew nothing of import. It doesn't prove he didn't break. In fact just the opposite.

NO ONE can resist water boarding to the point of making shit up but not giving up any real intel they may have. That's a guarantee.

 

[Truthseeker420]

A) Torture absolutely works. The only questions are is can the truth be verified from bullshit and then of course the question of ethics. No question torture will get what you want to know EVERY TIME.

B) Dubya wasn't the first President to authorize torture, and Obama won't be the last.

Those two things are fact, deal with it.

Officials: Waterboarding Foiled No Plot - CBS News

Officials: Waterboarding Foiled No Plot

When CIA officials subjected their first high-value captive, Abu Zubaida, to waterboarding and other harsh interrogation methods, they were convinced that they had in their custody an al Qaeda leader who knew details of operations yet to be unleashed, and they were facing increasing pressure from the White House to get those secrets out of him.

The methods succeeded in breaking him, and the stories he told of al Qaeda terrorism plots sent CIA officers around the globe chasing leads.

In the end, though, not a single significant plot was foiled as a result of Abu Zubaida's tortured confessions, according to former senior government officials who closely followed the interrogations. Nearly all of the leads attained through the harsh measures quickly evaporated, while most of the useful information from Abu Zubaida - chiefly names of al Qaeda members and associates - was obtained before waterboarding was introduced, they said.

Well, that surely proves the man knew nothing of import. It doesn't prove he didn't break. In fact just the opposite.

NO ONE can resist water boarding to the point of making shit up but not giving up any real intel they may have. That's a guarantee.

I agree it will break anyone but I am just saying it will not get to the truth.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Torture is the worst way to get information. No useful information was obtained from torture/waterboarding from the Bush admin.

Leon Panetta, among others, disagrees with you.

You didn't listen do the video did you?

Which video? He admitted that waterboarding worked a few months after he took over the CIA. The fact that you want to deny if now, even though he just said it again, makes me wonder if you have a brain.

 

[TheBrain]

Officials: Waterboarding Foiled No Plot - CBS News

Officials: Waterboarding Foiled No Plot

When CIA officials subjected their first high-value captive, Abu Zubaida, to waterboarding and other harsh interrogation methods, they were convinced that they had in their custody an al Qaeda leader who knew details of operations yet to be unleashed, and they were facing increasing pressure from the White House to get those secrets out of him.

The methods succeeded in breaking him, and the stories he told of al Qaeda terrorism plots sent CIA officers around the globe chasing leads.

In the end, though, not a single significant plot was foiled as a result of Abu Zubaida's tortured confessions, according to former senior government officials who closely followed the interrogations. Nearly all of the leads attained through the harsh measures quickly evaporated, while most of the useful information from Abu Zubaida - chiefly names of al Qaeda members and associates - was obtained before waterboarding was introduced, they said.

Well, that surely proves the man knew nothing of import. It doesn't prove he didn't break. In fact just the opposite.

NO ONE can resist water boarding to the point of making shit up but not giving up any real intel they may have. That's a guarantee.

I agree it will break anyone but I am just saying it will not get to the truth.

It will, I assure you. Do you think people can be trained to withstand torture to the point of only giving up information they want to give up? Information that is useless.

Quantam wonders whether you have a brain. I don't wonder.

 

[Truthseeker420]

Leon Panetta, among others, disagrees with you.

You didn't listen do the video did you?

Which video? He admitted that waterboarding worked a few months after he took over the CIA. The fact that you want to deny if now, even though he just said it again, makes me wonder if you have a brain.

No he never said waterboarding worked.

 

[Truthseeker420]

Well, that surely proves the man knew nothing of import. It doesn't prove he didn't break. In fact just the opposite.

NO ONE can resist water boarding to the point of making shit up but not giving up any real intel they may have. That's a guarantee.

I agree it will break anyone but I am just saying it will not get to the truth.

It will, I assure you. Do you think people can be trained to withstand torture to the point of only giving up information they want to give up? Information that is useless.

Quantam wonders whether you have a brain. I don't wonder.

Is Quantam smart enough to find the video?

 

[Momanohedhunter]

Torture is the worst way to get information. No useful information was obtained from torture/waterboarding from the Bush admin.

Not if its used right and it is properly executed. There is more to it then beating, cutting, and burning. It is a chess game and a very serious one at that. What thees men were subjected to was not torture. They were made extremely uncomfortable. Google torture and enhanced interrogation and you will get some prospective.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I agree it will break anyone but I am just saying it will not get to the truth.

It will, I assure you. Do you think people can be trained to withstand torture to the point of only giving up information they want to give up? Information that is useless.

Quantam wonders whether you have a brain. I don't wonder.

Is Quantam smart enough to find the video?

If you are talking about the video about him attempting not to admit that waterboarding played a part in finding bin Laden, it is actually irrelevant. He admitted that enhanced interrogation produced results years ago.

 

[Wiseacre]

I really wasn't intending to get into the specifics of the OBL case and whether or not EIT led to his death. Rather the quesrtion is more general: if you have sufficient reason to believe a future attack on US citizens is likely and a captured person could have relevant information, do you believe EIT is an acceptable means to prevent said attack?

Several past CIA directors have said EIT does lead to actionable intel once a person is coerced into cooperating. I would like to hear the reasons why somebody would believe this is not the case. I can understand those who say the intel might have been obtained through other means, but should we take the risk that if EIT is not used we end up with hundreds or thousands of dead Americans.

Assigning blame after the fact is hardly the issue, we would never know if the event could have been prevented if EIT had been used. But with so many potential victims, it seems foolish to deny ourselves that option. Some would define morality as those actions that lead to the greatest good for the greatrest number. Much as I dislike the idea of coercive techniques, I do not accept the idea that the rights of one terrorist outweighs the lives of many others. And let's remember it is they who are foisting this decision on us, it is they who are trying to kill as many Americans as posible.

 

[TheBrain]

I really wasn't intending to get into the specifics of the OBL case and whether or not EIT led to his death. Rather the quesrtion is more general: if you have sufficient reason to believe a future attack on US citizens is likely and a captured person could have relevant information, do you believe EIT is an acceptable means to prevent said attack?

Several past CIA directors have said EIT does lead to actionable intel once a person is coerced into cooperating. I would like to hear the reasons why somebody would believe this is not the case. I can understand those who say the intel might have been obtained through other means, but should we take the risk that if EIT is not used we end up with hundreds or thousands of dead Americans.

Assigning blame after the fact is hardly the issue, we would never know if the event could have been prevented if EIT had been used. But with so many potential victims, it seems foolish to deny ourselves that option. Some would define morality as those actions that lead to the greatest good for the greatrest number. Much as I dislike the idea of coercive techniques, I do not accept the idea that the rights of one terrorist outweighs the lives of many others. And let's remember it is they who are foisting this decision on us, it is they who are trying to kill as many Americans as posible.

Yes, if you have reliable intel that someone knows the details of plan to kill potentially thousands of people, you do WHATEVER it takes to get that information.