FBI agent say torture doesn't work

[Godboy]

...but it is true, and the fact that you think it isnt only proves that no one should take any of your veiws seriously.

Whether you choose to take me seriously is your prerogative. I don't really care.

You can shout "TORTURE WORKS!" from the rooftops all you like, but until you start providing evidence and arguing in a reasonable way, reasonable people shouldn't take you seriously.

Personally, I don't give a rat's ass if torture works. Torture is wrong. Period. End of conversation. If you believe that torture is permissible, than that is only evidence of your own moral failures.

I believe that principle means something. Many on the right apparently believe that principle is simply what you tell people you believe in, while doing whatever you feel like behind their backs. This country is a greater country than that, and will not suffer such a travesty for long.

America is better than this.

You are welcome to think that torture is an immoral act, and i wouldnt fault you for it, but you i wont let you get away with saying that torture doesnt work, because thats a ridiculous claim and absolutely naive. If you think torture doesnt work, its because you simply dont understand how its used. You dont like the fact that it works because it destroys your little fantasy world where you believe peace freaks are enlightened while everyone else is ignorant, and "immoral acts" can never have a positive impact or work in any way.

 

[Pyrite]

You are welcome to think that torture is an immoral act, and i wouldnt fault you for it, but you i wont let you get away with saying that torture doesnt work, because thats a ridiculous claim and absolutely naive. If you think torture doesnt work, its because you simply dont understand how its used. You dont like the fact that it works because it destroys your little fantasy world where you believe peace freaks are enlightened while everyone else is ignorant, and "immoral acts" can never have a positive impact or work in any way.

Ok, now I've been convinced that you have no grasp whatsoever on the language. That does not even resemble what I've said.

I admit that some information may be gained from torture. From what I have been read and heard from military and psychological experts on the subject, it is less effective than other methods at gaining information from prisoners.

If you would like to argue this point, then please do. Explain how torture is used. Give me examples of what intelligence it has produced.

It could be the case that torture is, in fact, more effective, but that is irrelevant. It is still both criminal and immoral, an act beneath the dignity and honor of this nation. If you wish to contend that this nation has neither dignity or honor, then I can only, as an American, be insulted.

 

[Godboy]

I admit that some information may be gained from torture. From what I have been read and heard from military and psychological experts on the subject, it is less effective than other methods at gaining information from prisoners.

Its not less effective than other methods, because they exhausted all the other methods before they waterboarded these guys, which got them the information they needed.

If you would like to argue this point, then please do. Explain how torture is used. Give me examples of what intelligence it has produced.

The interrogators have alot of intel to start with, and they ask questions they already know the answers to, and suspect that the prisoner knows. They waterboard him until he finally starts answering those questions truthfully, and thats when they start asking the questions they dont have the answers to.

The arguement by some people is "how do you know if hes telling the truth". They know hes telling the truth because they ask very specific questions about bomb makers and their locations, and they also ask about the locations of other high value targets. When they torture a guy until he gives up an address, at that point they send a team to raid the house. If It appears he was lying and theres no terrorist at that location, they come back and waterboard him some more.

Eventually the subject will just want the waterboarding to end and he will give them what they want to know, because on top of being waterboarded, he doesnt eat much, gets no sleep (sometimes up to 9 days without sleep), and they keep him in a cold cell with no blanket or bed. They will entice him with the luxuries of bedding, food and sleep, and after weeks going without and being waterboarded, anyone would tell them what they want to know just to make the madness end. I dont know if youve ever gone without sleep for an extended period of time, but it breaks your mind down terribly, especially by about the 3rd or 4th day. Its actually similar in alot of ways to being really high on LSD, if you know what thats like. You basically go insane without R.E.M. sleep, and the waterboarding is just too much when you get to that point and you break.

Abu Zubaydah was the first person the CIA used the enhanced interrogation on, that included waterboarding. After weeks of normal interrogation, they grew frustrated because they knew he was hiding information, but he began to adapt to their other techniques, so they argued that they needed to use "harsher techniques", at which point authorization was given to waterboard him.

What information did they get from waterboarding him you ask? He gave up crucial intelligence that allowed the CIA to capture Khalid Shaikh Mohammed (the 911 mastermind), among other intelligence. This was a huge win for the US in SO many ways.

After Khalid Shaikh Mohammeds capture, they eventually waterboarded him too, and they got a ton of information out of him, including him filling in the empty blanks they had about how 911 was planned. On top of that, it gave the CIA a much greater picture of AQs command and control structure.

Before they waterboarded KSM, when they asked him about future atacks in the US, he cryptically answered "you will know soon". After they waterboarded him, he gave up locations inside the U.S. that AQ was interested in hitting, he gave up information which led to the capture of other key AQ allies, and he gave up the information that stopped a terrorist attack in LA. by an eastern asian terrorist cell.

The simple act of waterboarding 2 vile men was responsible for saving MANY lives.

 

[Pyrite]

I admit that some information may be gained from torture. From what I have been read and heard from military and psychological experts on the subject, it is less effective than other methods at gaining information from prisoners.

Its not less effective than other methods, because they exhausted all the other methods before they waterboarded these guys, which got them the information they needed.

If you would like to argue this point, then please do. Explain how torture is used. Give me examples of what intelligence it has produced.

The interrogators have alot of intel to start with, and they ask questions they already know the answers to, and suspect that the prisoner knows. They waterboard him until he finally starts answering those questions truthfully, and thats when they start asking the questions they dont have the answers to.

The arguement by some people is "how do you know if hes telling the truth". They know hes telling the truth because they ask very specific questions about bomb makers and their locations, and they also ask about the locations of high value targets. When they torture a guy until he gives up an address, at that point they send a team to raid the house. If It appears he was lying and theres no terrorist at that location, they come back and waterboard him some more.

Eventually the subject will just want the waterboarding to end and he will give them what they want to know, because on top of being waterboarded, he doesnt eat much, gets no sleep (sometimes up to 9 days without sleep), and they keep him in a cold cell with no blanket or bed. They will entice him with the luxuries of bedding, food and sleep, and after weeks going without, anyone would tell them what they want to know just to make the madness end. I dont know if youve ever gone without sleep for an extended period of time, but it breaks your mind down terribly, especially by about the 3rd or 4th day.

Abu Zubaydah was the first person the CIA used the enhanced interrogation on, that included waterboarding. After weeks of normal interrogation, they grew frustrated because they knew he was hiding information, but he began to adapt to their other techniques, so they argued that they needed to use "harsher techniques", at which point authorization was given to waterboard him.

What information did they get from waterboarding him you ask? He gave up crucial intelligence that allowed the CIA to capture Khalid Shaikh Mohammed (the 911 mastermind), among other intelligence. This was a huge win for the US, in so many ways.

After Khalid Shaikh Mohammeds capture, they eventually waterboarded him too, and they got a ton of information out of him, including him filling in the empty blanks they had about how 911 was planned. On top of that, it gave the CIA a much greater picture of AQs command and control structure.

Before they waterboarded KSM, when they asked him about future atacks in the US, he cryptically answered "you will know soon". After they waterboarded him, he gave up key locations inside the U.S. that AQ was interested in hitting, he gave up the information that stopped a terrorist attack in LA. by an eastern asian terrorist cell, AND the capture of other key AQ allies.

Waterboarding was responsible for saving MANY lives.

See, I've gotten a very different timeline from other inside sources, which indicated that the info leading to the capture of KSM and the revelation regarding KSM's planning of 9/11 were obtained through normal, legal interrogation. From what sources did you get your information?

I've been deprived of sleep, and after only two days I am usually rendered completely unintelligible. after nine day, a person becomes completely delusional and experiences hallucinations, and is no longer able to distinguish reality from fantasy. this does not seem an ideal mental state to have someone you are hoping to get useful information out of in.

the man who interrogated Zubaydah said this.

Soufan told the committee that within the first hour of his interrogating Zubaydah, the suspected terrorist provided actionable intelligence.

But once the CIA contractors took over and used harsh methods, Soufan said, Zubaydah stopped talking. When Soufan was asked to resume questioning, Zubaydah cooperated. After another round of more coercive techniques used by the contractors, however, Soufan said it was difficult for him to re-engage Zubaydah.

Which seems to contradict the timeline you've established.

 

[Godboy]

I admit that some information may be gained from torture. From what I have been read and heard from military and psychological experts on the subject, it is less effective than other methods at gaining information from prisoners.

Its not less effective than other methods, because they exhausted all the other methods before they waterboarded these guys, which got them the information they needed.



The interrogators have alot of intel to start with, and they ask questions they already know the answers to, and suspect that the prisoner knows. They waterboard him until he finally starts answering those questions truthfully, and thats when they start asking the questions they dont have the answers to.

The arguement by some people is "how do you know if hes telling the truth". They know hes telling the truth because they ask very specific questions about bomb makers and their locations, and they also ask about the locations of high value targets. When they torture a guy until he gives up an address, at that point they send a team to raid the house. If It appears he was lying and theres no terrorist at that location, they come back and waterboard him some more.

Eventually the subject will just want the waterboarding to end and he will give them what they want to know, because on top of being waterboarded, he doesnt eat much, gets no sleep (sometimes up to 9 days without sleep), and they keep him in a cold cell with no blanket or bed. They will entice him with the luxuries of bedding, food and sleep, and after weeks going without, anyone would tell them what they want to know just to make the madness end. I dont know if youve ever gone without sleep for an extended period of time, but it breaks your mind down terribly, especially by about the 3rd or 4th day.

Abu Zubaydah was the first person the CIA used the enhanced interrogation on, that included waterboarding. After weeks of normal interrogation, they grew frustrated because they knew he was hiding information, but he began to adapt to their other techniques, so they argued that they needed to use "harsher techniques", at which point authorization was given to waterboard him.

What information did they get from waterboarding him you ask? He gave up crucial intelligence that allowed the CIA to capture Khalid Shaikh Mohammed (the 911 mastermind), among other intelligence. This was a huge win for the US, in so many ways.

After Khalid Shaikh Mohammeds capture, they eventually waterboarded him too, and they got a ton of information out of him, including him filling in the empty blanks they had about how 911 was planned. On top of that, it gave the CIA a much greater picture of AQs command and control structure.

Before they waterboarded KSM, when they asked him about future atacks in the US, he cryptically answered "you will know soon". After they waterboarded him, he gave up key locations inside the U.S. that AQ was interested in hitting, he gave up the information that stopped a terrorist attack in LA. by an eastern asian terrorist cell, AND the capture of other key AQ allies.

Waterboarding was responsible for saving MANY lives.

See, I've gotten a very different timeline from other inside sources, which indicated that the info leading to the capture of KSM and the revelation regarding KSM's planning of 9/11 were obtained through normal, legal interrogation. From what sources did you get your information?

I've been deprived of sleep, and after only two days I am usually rendered completely unintelligible. after nine day, a person becomes completely delusional and experiences hallucinations, and is no longer able to distinguish reality from fantasy. this does not seem an ideal mental state to have someone you are hoping to get useful information out of in.

the man who interrogated Zubaydah said this.

Soufan told the committee that within the first hour of his interrogating Zubaydah, the suspected terrorist provided actionable intelligence.

But once the CIA contractors took over and used harsh methods, Soufan said, Zubaydah stopped talking. When Soufan was asked to resume questioning, Zubaydah cooperated. After another round of more coercive techniques used by the contractors, however, Soufan said it was difficult for him to re-engage Zubaydah.

Which seems to contradict the timeline you've established.

Your time line is wrong. If yours was right, then Obamas team wouldnt have released the statement that the waterboarding did work. A statement that hasnt been popluar with his voting base for obvious reasons.

Besides, think about what you are saying.... "they got all that without waterboarding him". If he was giving up all kinds of information, why would they have bothered with the highly controversial waterboarding techinique? If they were using this technique willy nilly, they would have used it on everyone, but they only used it on 2 people.

 

[Pyrite]

Your time line is wrong. If yours was right, then Obamas team wouldnt have released the statement that the waterboarding did work. A statement that hasnt been popluar with his voting base.

Besides, think about what you are saying.... they got all that without waterboarding him. If he was giving up all kinds of information, why would they have bothered with the highly controversial waterboarding techinique? If they were using this technique willy nilly, they would have used it on everyone, but they only used it on 2 people.

So where did yours come from?

furthermore, then, are you calling Ali Soufan, an FBI agent involved with numerous investigations of sensitive international terrorism cases, including the East Africa bombings, the attack on the USS Cole, and the September 11 attacks, a liar? He testified under oath, before congress, that this is what happened.

 

[Godboy]

Your time line is wrong. If yours was right, then Obamas team wouldnt have released the statement that the waterboarding did work. A statement that hasnt been popluar with his voting base.

Besides, think about what you are saying.... they got all that without waterboarding him. If he was giving up all kinds of information, why would they have bothered with the highly controversial waterboarding techinique? If they were using this technique willy nilly, they would have used it on everyone, but they only used it on 2 people.

So where did yours come from?

furthermore, then, are you calling Ali Soufan, an FBI agent involved with numerous investigations of sensitive international terrorism cases, including the East Africa bombings, the attack on the USS Cole, and the September 11 attacks, a liar? He testified under oath, before congress, that this is what happened.

Are you calling the CIA liars? As for sources, its way too late to be looking that stuff up right now and im not in the mood to do it anyway.

Think about what you are saying. Your claim is that Ali Soufan was doing a wonderful job of interrogating, he got all that information out of him, then for some strange reason the pulled him off the case and brought in the CIA to replace him? Why would they do that if he was getting the information they needed? That would be stupid and no intelligence agent would ever do that.

The Bush administration says it worked, the Obama administration says it worked, and the CIA says it worked. What more do i need to produce to prove my arguement? All youve come up with is a lone guy who was bitter about being pulled off the interrogation, because he probably felt like it was a poor reflection of his skills. Im sure he wasa competent interrogator, but his techniques werent enough, thats why they brought in the CIA.

 

[Pyrite]

Your time line is wrong. If yours was right, then Obamas team wouldnt have released the statement that the waterboarding did work. A statement that hasnt been popluar with his voting base.

Besides, think about what you are saying.... they got all that without waterboarding him. If he was giving up all kinds of information, why would they have bothered with the highly controversial waterboarding techinique? If they were using this technique willy nilly, they would have used it on everyone, but they only used it on 2 people.

So where did yours come from?

furthermore, then, are you calling Ali Soufan, an FBI agent involved with numerous investigations of sensitive international terrorism cases, including the East Africa bombings, the attack on the USS Cole, and the September 11 attacks, a liar? He testified under oath, before congress, that this is what happened.

Are you calling the CIA liars? As for sources, its way too late to be looking that stuff up right now and im not in the mood to do it anyway.

Think about what you are saying. Your claim is that Ali Soufan was doing a wonderful job of interrogating, he got all that information out of him, then for some strange reason the pulled him off the case and brought in the CIA to replace him? Why would they do that if he was getting the information they needed? That would be stupid and no intelligence agent would ever do that.

The Bush administration says it worked, the Obama administration says it worked, and the CIA says it worked. What more do i need to produce to prove my arguement? All youve come up with is a lone guy who was bitter about being pulled off the interrogation, because he probably felt like it was a poor reflection of his skills. Im sure he wasa competent interrogator, but his techniques werent enough, thats why they brought in the CIA.

So far, I've only seen general statements from key sources in support of the efficacy of torture, and I've seen specific statements from key sources arguing against.

but you're right, it is getting too late. We can resume this later if you want.