Torture Report Released

[Liquid Karma]

In law school we learned about a case where the Supreme Court was attempting to distinguish between porn and art. I don't remember which justice it was, but the test was "I know it when I see it."

Potter Stewart

 

[TuffaloDeac10]

Question for folks who support "enhanced interrogation", but don't support "torture": where do you draw the distinction between the two?

I'm not one of those folks but I can explain the difference. "Torture" is a clear English word that effectively communicates the idea it represents. "Enhanced interrogation" is a Nazi euphemism that allows the speaker or writer to hide what they're talking about. People support "enhanced interrogations" but not "torture" because they are defending the indefensible.

 

[Wakeforest22890]

Not even getting into the merits of the report conducted, but in what other world does a group of people (or a person) remove themselves voluntarily from a process and then blast the remaining people for being "partisan" when by definition your exclusion made the process "partisan" in the first place?

"Andy, Bert, and Candice were tasked to complete a project. Candice said she wasn't going to help out on the project and then when the project came out Candice blasted it as being biased because only men worked on it."

Now how silly would that sound?

 

[WFU71]

Not even getting into the merits of the report conducted, but in what other world does a group of people (or a person) remove themselves voluntarily from a process and then blast the remaining people for being "partisan" when by definition your exclusion made the process "partisan" in the first place?

"Andy, Bert, and Candice were tasked to complete a project. Candice said she wasn't going to help out on the project and then when the project came out Candice blasted it as being biased because only men worked on it."

Now how silly would that sound?

Wait a few months.

 

[Wakeforest22890]

Wait a few months.

Why do I need to do that when I can just look at the previous four years of Congress where the exact same thing has happened?

 

[WFU71]

Because it will be interesting to see how the Democrats respond when the Senate majority wants to skewer this administration. Will they participate? If they don't, will you have the same passion for their refusal?

 

[wakelaw13]

Potter Stewart

word, thanks

 

[Liquid Karma]

Not even getting into the merits of the report conducted, but in what other world does a group of people (or a person) remove themselves voluntarily from a process and then blast the remaining people for being "partisan" when by definition your exclusion made the process "partisan" in the first place?

"Andy, Bert, and Candice were tasked to complete a project. Candice said she wasn't going to help out on the project and then when the project came out Candice blasted it as being biased because only men worked on it."

Now how silly would that sound?

When the chair of the committee heading the investigation makes it clear the conclusion of the investigation is already determined and that the investigation will be nothing more than finding evidence in support of that, it's already a partisan process before the Republicans removed themselves.

 

[RChildress107]

Let's leave my breakfast choices out of this, Mr. Siglesworth.

While I don't endorse physical harm as a matter of policy (or exception to policy), there is an awful lot of middle ground between "I'd arrest him and get him his choice of Ivy league counsel" and "Let's put this interrogation into high Gere."

The law enforcement approach to interdicting terror threats did not work. Our country's interests endured a series of lethal attacks throughout the 1990's and early part of the last decade using the law enforcement approach. We tried and convicted the first WTC bomber and the Blind Sheik. That ultimately failed, as many of us remember.

We've been relatively safe since 2001. From a pure functionality examination, our policies since that time have been successful.

Since you asked, I would encourage our policy makers not to torture people. We have a body of policies that has worked. Let's study those policies, eliminate those that don't work (sit down, RJ. No one wants to hear your feelings. We need facts and evidence. The sorts of things that you would get with interviews of actual people. This is the U.S. Senate, not ROLLING STONE), eliminate those that are inconsistent with our values, but let's not---in the wake of 14 years of security---naively pretend that the policies of 20 years ago were effective. The "I'd arrest him" approach failed. I know that because up to 100 of our fellow citizens who were placed in a position that motivated them to execute the best course of action in diving dive face-first off the 110th floor of the World Trade Center. Let's not do that again.

If I was King for a day and had to draw the line, it would be at physical harm. When you are dealing with bad and dangerous actors, we have to have the right to interrogate them in the interests of national security, including indefinite detention during kinetics in a war declared by others on us. To the extent that detainees know that they can camp out in Cuba with nutrition, medical care and under monitoring by third party NGOs to ensure that they are free from physical harm, I'm fully satisfied that we have met our obligations. If in that process our intelligence professionals use tradecraft that is designed to induce them to cooperate without imparting physical harm, I'm also satisfied that that is the best balance of the equities.

This. Not exactly sure how the rest of your post is relevant (other than to the strawman you are knocking down), but at least you picked up on the key issue.

We should eliminate policies that are ineffective.

We should also eliminate polices that are against our values.


Debating whether torture fits within the first category seems pointless when it so clearly (i hope) fits within the second.

 

[PhDeac]

When the chair of the committee heading the investigation makes it clear the conclusion of the investigation is already determined and that the investigation will be nothing more than finding evidence in support of that, it's already a partisan process before the Republicans removed themselves.

I think anybody who publicly said "Well we don't know if the US has tortured anybody" would look like a fool.

 

[jhmd2000]

This. Not exactly sure how the rest of your post is relevant (other than to the strawman you are knocking down), but at least you picked up on the key issue.

We should eliminate policies that are ineffective.

We should also eliminate polices that are against our values.


Debating whether torture fits within the first category seems pointless when it so clearly (i hope) fits within the second.

The (sitting, appointed by current management) took to the podium today to say that people subjected to EITs gave information which led to the capture of Bin Laden.

It seems curious that you guys insist others accept as fact your opinions that "EITs=torture" and "torture doesn't work", when the current DCI (who was not around during the conduct in question) says otherwise. Your feelings aren't facts.

 

[PhDeac]

Doesn't the report include their cables at the time to conclude that torture didn't work?

 

[jhmd2000]

Doesn't the report include their cables at the time to conclude that torture didn't work?

So are the last four Directors of Central Intelligence all lying or do none of them know as much about intelligence gathering as you?

 

[DistrictDeacon]

So are the last four Directors of Central Intelligence all lying or do none of them know as much about intelligence gathering as you?

They are lying. They have no incentive to tell the truth, and there's no disincentive to lie.

 

[jhmd2000]

They are lying. They have no incentive to tell the truth, and there's no disincentive to lie.

You guys are speaking in unqualified absolutes about unknowable, future events. "Torture never works."

Are we going to have a conversation or not?

 

[PhDeac]

So are the last four Directors of Central Intelligence all lying or do none of them know as much about intelligence gathering as you?

You don't think the former leaders of a government spying organization may be lying?

 

[jhmd2000]

You don't think the former leaders of a government spying organization may be lying?

I love big government, and my faith in the veracity of the current Administration is well-documented, so it pains me to ask this: why would the people most responsible for gathering intelligence do it on the scale alleged if they knew (with even a modicum of the confidence of lay posters here about future probabilities of success) it wouldn't work?

To borrow a question, what is their incentive to repeatedly try a tool that has no chance of success?

 

[RChildress107]

The (sitting, appointed by current management) took to the podium today to say that people subjected to EITs gave information which led to the capture of Bin Laden.

It seems curious that you guys insist others accept as fact your opinions that "EITs=torture" and "torture doesn't work", when the current DCI (who was not around during the conduct in question) says otherwise. Your feelings aren't facts.

If you wan't to have a debate about what constitutes torture then have that debate. I personally don't think our government officials should be anywhere near the line, but I do recognize its important to establish as best we can exactly where that line is. That's a worthwhile debate.


Debating whether torture is effective, or whether it's moral (or justified) are not worthwhile debates. The first because it's irrelevant and the second because it's not debatable.

 

[PhDeac]

I love big government, and my faith in the veracity of the current Administration is well-documented, so it pains me to ask this: why would the people most responsible for gathering intelligence do it on the scale alleged if they knew (with even a modicum of the confidence of lay posters here about future probabilities of success) it wouldn't work?

To borrow a question, what is their incentive to repeatedly try a tool that has no chance of success?

To see if it would work but it didn't.

 

[jhmd2000]

To see if it would work but it didn't.

Then why does the sitting DCI say it worked? A huge, bipartisan, decade and a half unincentivized con? The Fruitless Ruse theory? Makes no sense.

ETA: To be clear, I don't know if it worked or didn't work. I didn't read the entire report nor interview a single witness (fair to say I'm half as prepared as the Committee who wrote it). I don't have a TS clearance or a vested interest on either outcome. I want to try what works and what is legal.