Torture vs Security

[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

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.

Hmmmm, no name "officials" in 2009 or Leon Panetta in the here and now.

I'm sticking with the facts you can have your fantasy.

 

[JBeukema]

Are waterboarding and/or any other such methods ever okay? Why or why not?

Here's where I stand: Yes, waterboarding is torture. We called it such when the VC did it and we've punished others for it in the past. It is torture under American Law and precedent. It is also torture under international Law and a treaty to which America has agreed.

The question, then, is whether it is ever acceptable to torture. I say: yes. I'm not going to claim torture is ever a good or right thing to do. I think we can all agree that such acts, in principle, are at the very least objectionable. Nobody wants such calls to have to be made and in a perfect world they never would. However, we do not live in a perfect world and letting ourselves be ruled by blind idealism and pretending the world operates on perfect moral principles would be severely misguided.

Let us take a simple example. There is a bomb hidden somewhere but you do not know where. If it goes off, who knows how many people will die or where. The person who planted the bomb is handcuffed to a chair and refuses to tell you where it is even though you threaten to take away his playing cards, take away his tv, and deny him rec time outside. I'll not pretend skateboarding him or arguably even beating him with an electrical cord or punching his teeth out is a moral choice. But I will ask is this: is it better allow God and history to judge you as they will for your own evil actions undertaken to save countless lives or to sit back and praise yourself for your blind idealism as hundreds or even thousands are killed as a result of your inaction?

I don't know if I'd use the term 'greater good', but I think it's clear which choice is the lesser evil- and, unfortunately, we live in the real world and sometimes the ideal choice isn't an option and all you can do is choose the lesser evil to prevent the greater atrocity.

Waterboarding and other sch methods, then, are tools we wish we never had to use. But then, we also wish we didn't need paramedics, firefighters and police. Perhaps Man will some day live in a perfect world where none of these will be needed and nobody will ever have to make the call between the lesser evil and the greater atrocity. Until that day, however, when that call has to be made, let's be glad for those who let reality intrude upon their idealism.

Where do you stand?

 

[TheBrain]

I say the only problem with it is that we found out the government was doing it. Of course that's going to happen anytime you tell a politician something.

 

[chikenwing]

I agree,it sucks,but there are times that you do what you need to do,I'll bet a weeks pay if Obamma is presented such choices he would do what he had to.

We can't forget we are dealing ,not with a solder of an enemy army,but cold blooded killers,there is a difference.

 

[Mr. Jones]

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

All the detainee has to do is lie and admit to something or 'give up" some info pleasing to his torturers, and send them off on a wild goose chase. It is not a good way of getting valuable information, but it is a good way of getting someone to say what you want to take the agenda in the desired direction and storyline.

Interrogators Decry Glorification of Torture’s Role in Killing of Bin Laden | Human Rights First

Washington's Blog

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Waterboarding and other forms of torture are illegal, whether or not it works is irrelevant. And the ends never justify the means as that would constitute a violation of he rule of law.

 

[Wiseacre]

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

All the detainee has to do is lie and admit to something or 'give up" some info pleasing to his torturers, and send them off on a wild goose chase. It is not a good way of getting valuable information, but it is a good way of getting someone to say what you want to take the agenda in the desired direction and storyline.

Interrogators Decry Glorification of Torture’s Role in Killing of Bin Laden | Human Rights First

Washington's Blog

First of all, that could happen whether you torture 'em or not. You gotta check out whatever they say to verify it's truthfulness. And that's what they do, you waterbaord somebody until they finally break, and they do, and you know it cuz they begin telling the truths that you already know are true. From that point, you get good intel.

Doesn't mean it's foolproof and always works, I wouldn't claim that. And maybe the same intel could have been gathered without the EIT. But for me, that's not a chance I'm willing to take with hundreds or even thousands of American lives at stake. And I'm not thrilled than some people are willing to take that chance, I think the human rights of a terrorist do not outweigh the rights of innocent victims.

 

[Wiseacre]

Waterboarding and other forms of torture are illegal, whether or not it works is irrelevant. And the ends never justify the means as that would constitute a violation of he rule of law.

And you are therefore willing to sacrifice hundreds if not thousands of American lives? You say it's irrelevant, would it still be irrelevant if your spouse or children or parents were among the dead?

 

[edthecynic]

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.

My favorite part from your link was:

The application of techniques such as waterboarding - a form of simulated drowning that U.S. officials had previously deemed a crime - prompted a sudden torrent of names and facts. Abu Zubaida began unspooling the details of various al Qaeda plots, including plans to unleash weapons of mass destruction.

Abu Zubaida's revelations triggered a series of alerts and sent hundreds of CIA and FBI investigators scurrying in pursuit of phantoms. The interrogations led directly to the arrest of Jose Padilla, the man Abu Zubaida identified as heading an effort to explode a radiological "dirty bomb" in an American city. Padilla was held in a naval brig for 3 1/2 years on the allegation but was never charged in any such plot. Every other lead ultimately dissolved into smoke and shadow, according to high-ranking former U.S. officials with access to classified reports.

"We spent millions of dollars chasing false alarms," one former intelligence official said.

Despite the poor results, Bush White House officials and CIA leaders continued to insist that the harsh measures applied against Abu Zubaida and others produced useful intelligence that disrupted terrorist plots and saved American lives.

Two weeks ago, Bush's vice president, Richard B. Cheney, renewed that assertion in an interview with CNN, saying that "the enhanced interrogation program" stopped "a great many" terrorist attacks on the level of Sept. 11.

"I've seen a report that was written, based upon the intelligence that we collected then, that itemizes the specific attacks that were stopped by virtue of what we learned through those programs," Cheney asserted, adding that the report is "still classified," and, "I can't give you the details of it without violating classification."

Since 2006, Senate intelligence committee members have pressed the CIA, in classified briefings, to provide examples of specific leads that were obtained from Abu Zubaida through the use of waterboarding and other methods, according to officials familiar with the requests.

The agency provided none, the officials said.

 

[TheBrain]

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.

My favorite part from your link was:

The application of techniques such as waterboarding - a form of simulated drowning that U.S. officials had previously deemed a crime - prompted a sudden torrent of names and facts. Abu Zubaida began unspooling the details of various al Qaeda plots, including plans to unleash weapons of mass destruction.

Abu Zubaida's revelations triggered a series of alerts and sent hundreds of CIA and FBI investigators scurrying in pursuit of phantoms. The interrogations led directly to the arrest of Jose Padilla, the man Abu Zubaida identified as heading an effort to explode a radiological "dirty bomb" in an American city. Padilla was held in a naval brig for 3 1/2 years on the allegation but was never charged in any such plot. Every other lead ultimately dissolved into smoke and shadow, according to high-ranking former U.S. officials with access to classified reports.

"We spent millions of dollars chasing false alarms," one former intelligence official said.

Despite the poor results, Bush White House officials and CIA leaders continued to insist that the harsh measures applied against Abu Zubaida and others produced useful intelligence that disrupted terrorist plots and saved American lives.

Two weeks ago, Bush's vice president, Richard B. Cheney, renewed that assertion in an interview with CNN, saying that "the enhanced interrogation program" stopped "a great many" terrorist attacks on the level of Sept. 11.

"I've seen a report that was written, based upon the intelligence that we collected then, that itemizes the specific attacks that were stopped by virtue of what we learned through those programs," Cheney asserted, adding that the report is "still classified," and, "I can't give you the details of it without violating classification."

Since 2006, Senate intelligence committee members have pressed the CIA, in classified briefings, to provide examples of specific leads that were obtained from Abu Zubaida through the use of waterboarding and other methods, according to officials familiar with the requests.

The agency provided none, the officials said.

ALL that means is that he didn't have any valid intel. I guarantee you if he did, he would have given it up.

 

[edthecynic]

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.

My favorite part from your link was:

The application of techniques such as waterboarding - a form of simulated drowning that U.S. officials had previously deemed a crime - prompted a sudden torrent of names and facts. Abu Zubaida began unspooling the details of various al Qaeda plots, including plans to unleash weapons of mass destruction.

Abu Zubaida's revelations triggered a series of alerts and sent hundreds of CIA and FBI investigators scurrying in pursuit of phantoms. The interrogations led directly to the arrest of Jose Padilla, the man Abu Zubaida identified as heading an effort to explode a radiological "dirty bomb" in an American city. Padilla was held in a naval brig for 3 1/2 years on the allegation but was never charged in any such plot. Every other lead ultimately dissolved into smoke and shadow, according to high-ranking former U.S. officials with access to classified reports.

"We spent millions of dollars chasing false alarms," one former intelligence official said.

Despite the poor results, Bush White House officials and CIA leaders continued to insist that the harsh measures applied against Abu Zubaida and others produced useful intelligence that disrupted terrorist plots and saved American lives.

Two weeks ago, Bush's vice president, Richard B. Cheney, renewed that assertion in an interview with CNN, saying that "the enhanced interrogation program" stopped "a great many" terrorist attacks on the level of Sept. 11.

"I've seen a report that was written, based upon the intelligence that we collected then, that itemizes the specific attacks that were stopped by virtue of what we learned through those programs," Cheney asserted, adding that the report is "still classified," and, "I can't give you the details of it without violating classification."

Since 2006, Senate intelligence committee members have pressed the CIA, in classified briefings, to provide examples of specific leads that were obtained from Abu Zubaida through the use of waterboarding and other methods, according to officials familiar with the requests.

The agency provided none, the officials said.

ALL that means is that he didn't have any valid intel. I guarantee you if he did, he would have given it up.

No, it means the Sadist Cheney got caught lying!!!!

 

[TheBrain]

My favorite part from your link was:

ALL that means is that he didn't have any valid intel. I guarantee you if he did, he would have given it up.

No, it means the Sadist Cheney got caught lying!!!!

LOL - You are mistaken if you think I am going to take on the challenge of defending ANY politician in regards to being a liar.

Doesn't change the fact, that no one can train themselves to give up only fake intel under intense interrogation.

 

[edthecynic]

Despite the poor results, Bush White House officials and CIA leaders continued to insist that the harsh measures applied against Abu Zubaida and others produced useful intelligence that disrupted terrorist plots and saved American lives.

Two weeks ago, Bush's vice president, Richard B. Cheney, renewed that assertion in an interview with CNN, saying that "the enhanced interrogation program" stopped "a great many" terrorist attacks on the level of Sept. 11.

"I've seen a report that was written, based upon the intelligence that we collected then, that itemizes the specific attacks that were stopped by virtue of what we learned through those programs," Cheney asserted, adding that the report is "still classified," and, "I can't give you the details of it without violating classification."

Since 2006, Senate intelligence committee members have pressed the CIA, in classified briefings, to provide examples of specific leads that were obtained from Abu Zubaida through the use of waterboarding and other methods, according to officials familiar with the requests.

The agency provided none, the officials said.

ALL that means is that he didn't have any valid intel. I guarantee you if he did, he would have given it up.

No, it means the Sadist Cheney got caught lying!!!!

LOL - You are mistaken if you think I am going to take on the challenge of defending ANY politician in regards to being a liar.

Doesn't change the fact, that no one can train themselves to give up only fake intel under intense interrogation.

And that doesn't change the fact that the CIA cannot give even one single example of a credible lead that was extracted by torture!!!!!

 

[TheBrain]

Despite the poor results, Bush White House officials and CIA leaders continued to insist that the harsh measures applied against Abu Zubaida and others produced useful intelligence that disrupted terrorist plots and saved American lives.

Two weeks ago, Bush's vice president, Richard B. Cheney, renewed that assertion in an interview with CNN, saying that "the enhanced interrogation program" stopped "a great many" terrorist attacks on the level of Sept. 11.

"I've seen a report that was written, based upon the intelligence that we collected then, that itemizes the specific attacks that were stopped by virtue of what we learned through those programs," Cheney asserted, adding that the report is "still classified," and, "I can't give you the details of it without violating classification."

Since 2006, Senate intelligence committee members have pressed the CIA, in classified briefings, to provide examples of specific leads that were obtained from Abu Zubaida through the use of waterboarding and other methods, according to officials familiar with the requests.

The agency provided none, the officials said.

No, it means the Sadist Cheney got caught lying!!!!

LOL - You are mistaken if you think I am going to take on the challenge of defending ANY politician in regards to being a liar.

Doesn't change the fact, that no one can train themselves to give up only fake intel under intense interrogation.

And that doesn't change the fact that the CIA cannot give even one single example of a credible lead that was extracted by torture!!!!!

Bin Laden is dead due to leads gained by water boarding according to the CIA. Is that statement true or false?

Oh, and in case you didn't know, the CIA is not in the habit of telling anyone shit. We shouldn't know anything they are doing. Sad that a few big mouths have ruined that.

 

[edthecynic]

Despite the poor results, Bush White House officials and CIA leaders continued to insist that the harsh measures applied against Abu Zubaida and others produced useful intelligence that disrupted terrorist plots and saved American lives.

Two weeks ago, Bush's vice president, Richard B. Cheney, renewed that assertion in an interview with CNN, saying that "the enhanced interrogation program" stopped "a great many" terrorist attacks on the level of Sept. 11.

"I've seen a report that was written, based upon the intelligence that we collected then, that itemizes the specific attacks that were stopped by virtue of what we learned through those programs," Cheney asserted, adding that the report is "still classified," and, "I can't give you the details of it without violating classification."

Since 2006, Senate intelligence committee members have pressed the CIA, in classified briefings, to provide examples of specific leads that were obtained from Abu Zubaida through the use of waterboarding and other methods, according to officials familiar with the requests.

The agency provided none, the officials said.

LOL - You are mistaken if you think I am going to take on the challenge of defending ANY politician in regards to being a liar.

Doesn't change the fact, that no one can train themselves to give up only fake intel under intense interrogation.

And that doesn't change the fact that the CIA cannot give even one single example of a credible lead that was extracted by torture!!!!!

Bin Laden is dead due to leads gained by water boarding according to the CIA. Is that statement true or false?

Oh, and in case you didn't know, the CIA is not in the habit of telling anyone shit. We shouldn't know anything they are doing. Sad that a few big mouths have ruined that.

False.
If true then you can give the lead. If you can't give the lead then false. You can't give the lead.

 

[TheBrain]

And that doesn't change the fact that the CIA cannot give even one single example of a credible lead that was extracted by torture!!!!!

Bin Laden is dead due to leads gained by water boarding according to the CIA. Is that statement true or false?

Oh, and in case you didn't know, the CIA is not in the habit of telling anyone shit. We shouldn't know anything they are doing. Sad that a few big mouths have ruined that.

False.
If true then you can give the lead. If you can't give the lead then false. You can't give the lead.

Really? So Panetta lied? Okay

 

[Ravi]

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?

If you want to torture someone because you believe it will save people, then go right ahead and then make your case in the courts.

There is no reason to make torture legal.

 

[TheBrain]

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?

If you want to torture someone because you believe it will save people, then go right ahead and then make your case in the courts.

There is no reason to make torture legal.

There is a third, and better, option. Do it, but don't get caught doing it.

 

[Ravi]

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?

If you want to torture someone because you believe it will save people, then go right ahead and then make your case in the courts.

There is no reason to make torture legal.

There is a third, and better, option. Do it, but don't get caught doing it.

That's the coward's way.

 

[Big Black Dog]

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.

I disagree. Anything is fair game as far as I'm concerned. If it saves just one life it's well-worth it. Behind your rose colored glasses, you need to know something about the real world. All of our enemies use torture. If you don't believe this you live in a fantasy world. While the world shakes their head in shame, behind the closed doors, torture is used by all.