Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov
I disagree with the premise of the question, so I can't really answer it. At the very least, a whole lot of additional information is needed before you can even being to assert that waterboarding ---> "prevention of a massive attack on L.A." - that's very faulty logic to use that line of causality without more context. By your article's own admission, there were like seven layers to the operation that uncovered the "planned attack", and no mention of whether it was anywhere near coming to fruition.
Obviously if I believed that torture improved security, I'd be more inclined to support it. But in my opinion, this is one of those rare times where morality falls in line with being pragmatic.
Forget the theoretical position you're using to not answer the question how you know it should be answered... which is yes, knowing what we know now, waterboarding KSM in this situation was a good idea because it lead to a major attack being stopped. Lets not forget that congress signed off on this too. Mock executions fit the definition of "torture", but they also saved a lot of American lives in this case... admitting to this reality is what can finally lead to an honest debate on the subject rather than one extreme pretending torture never works and the other extreme being too open to using it across the board. You said that obviously you'd be more inclined to support it if it improved security, and now we know it has... opening up to that reality shouldn't make you feel like you're betraying your sensibilities (if you are); new stuff has come to light so things are different.
I'm not trying to rationalize to say it's a good idea and should always be used, but the fact that so many waterboarding demonstrations have taken place should give pause to those who call it torture. If it's so bad, why are people voluntarily going through it for demonstration purposes? I don't see people volunteering for electrocution or having their balls hit with a hammer.
And I don't really see the issue regarding how many layers to the "second wave" operation were uncovered; it was a process that couldn't have even begun without the information obtained. Yeah we didn't know how close it was to fruition, but should we only act when we know it's a couple of days away from happening? The justice department memo to the CIA explains the layers here:
quote:
“You have informed us that the interrogation of KSM—once enhanced techniques were employed—led to the discovery of a KSM plot, the ‘Second Wave,’ ‘to use East Asian operatives to crash a hijacked airliner into’ a building in Los Angeles,” says the memo.
“You have informed us that information obtained from KSM also led to the capture of Riduan bin Isomuddin, better known as Hambali, and the discover of the Guraba Cell, a 17-member Jemaah Islamiyah cell tasked with executing the ‘Second Wave,’” reads the memo. “More specifically, we understand that KSM admitted that he had [redaction] large sum of money to an al Qaeda associate [redaction] … Khan subsequently identified the associate (Zubair), who was then captured. Zubair, in turn, provided information that led to the arrest of Hambali. The information acquired from these captures allowed CIA interrogators to pose more specific questions to KSM, which led the CIA to Hambali’s brother, al Hadi. Using information obtained from multiple sources, al-Hadi was captured, and he subsequently identified the Garuba cell. With the aid of this additional information, interrogations of Hambali confirmed much of what was learned from KSM.”
So, a terrorist cell inside the U.S. as well as the coordinating East Asia group was uncovered. I read somewhere today that George Tenant (I think it was him) said that the information provided by waterboarding KSM was more valuable than what the NSA, CIA, and FBI had COMBINED... and lead to over 6000 intelligence reports for the CIA. That's pretty substantial stuff.
Clovis
quote:
Originally posted by The17sss
I don't see people volunteering for electrocution or having their balls hit with a hammer.
Apparently you've never watched JACKASS...
Lebezniatnikov
quote:
Originally posted by The17sss
Forget the theoretical position you're using to not answer the question how you know it should be answered... which is yes, knowing what we know now, waterboarding KSM in this situation was a good idea because it lead to a major attack being stopped.
I just told you I'd like to see more evidence and less conjecture that this is true. Was this causation or correlation? I think given the implications of that answer, that's a fairly significant thing to work out.
The details of the article you posted are extraordinarily ambiguous. KSM was waterboarded over 200 times, and at some point he divulged information that led indirectly to the arrest of another al-Qaeda guy. That (subsequent waterboarding?) led to the arrest of someone else, and that (more waterboarding?) led to the arrest of someone else... etc. until some group of individuals with the intention of attacking L.A. were found.
Now this mysterious attack on L.A. is very unclear as well. It doesn't even specify what type of attack, which leads me to believe that the plan wasn't very sophisticated (or realistic?).
In the end I don't see any way for intelligent, rational observers to conclusively say that torture in this case saved lives. There are way too many unknown variables and far too much loose conjecture in the mix. I'm not willing to forsake our morals and (in my opinion) decrease America's position in the War on Terror simply because I jumped to the first conclusions presented by a right-wing news service.
Don't forget to unpack the political implications of the CIA report as well - who stands to benefit from a validation of CIA tactics over the past six years? Well, naturally, the CIA.
I'm a little surprised at how quickly you've bought this argument and accepted it wholesale as truth.
quote:
I'm not trying to rationalize to say it's a good idea and should always be used, but the fact that so many waterboarding demonstrations have taken place should give pause to those who call it torture. If it's so bad, why are people voluntarily going through it for demonstration purposes? I don't see people volunteering for electrocution or having their balls hit with a hammer.
I don't see any argument as to whether the latter acts constitute torture. To the best of my knowledge everyone who has "volunteered" for waterboarding has gone on to say it is torture, despite the fact that they were conscious of what was occurring the whole time.
pkcRAISTLIN
quote:
Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov
Now this mysterious attack on L.A. is very unclear as well. It doesn't even specify what type of attack, which leads me to believe that the plan wasn't very sophisticated (or realistic?).
whereas the exaggerations by US authorities re terrorism charges is well documented.
Lebezniatnikov
quote:
Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
whereas the exaggerations by US authorities re terrorism charges is well documented.
Also a good point. Which leads to my other concern in response to Shakka's opinion that torture be used selectively... who's doing the selection, and based on what evidence? Surely the argument (has and) will be made that we should torture all suspected terrorists in order to make sure we get as much actionable information as possible? It's difficult to even put words like Guantanamo and "due process" or "burden of proof" in the same sentence. Promoting "selective torture" is deluded at best and insidious at worst.
Clovis
quote:
Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov
I'm a little surprised at how quickly you've bought this argument and accepted it wholesale as truth.
Are you serious? He quotes Rush Limbaugh...
Lebezniatnikov
quote:
Originally posted by Clovis
Are you serious? He quotes Rush Limbaugh...
Yeah... I always try to forget that.
But seriously, he seems intelligent enough to understand that we need more evidence to make a conclusion like the one in the thread title... right?
Shakka
quote:
Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov
Surely the argument (has and) will be made that we should torture all suspected terrorists in order to make sure we get as much actionable information as possible?
Hold on a second. It has been claimed many times in this thread already that much useful information could be obtained without resorting to the harshest interrogation techniques (can we stop just saying "torture" as if the situation goes from an interrogator asking a question, not getting a sufficient reply, so immediately resorts to waterboarding as the next and only logical step).
You're taking a bit too much leeway with this argument to assume interrogation must be escalated to the maximum levels on everyone immediately. I was very specific to say case-by-case and to not make the argument that "we should torture all suspected terrorists in order to make sure..." You're putting words in my mouth that I specifically did not say.
Lastly, if the field manual said waterboarding was OK, how would you feel about it?
Lebezniatnikov
quote:
Originally posted by Shakka
Hold on a second. It has been claimed many times in this thread already that much useful information could be obtained without resorting to the harshest interrogation techniques (can we stop just saying "torture" as if the situation goes from an interrogator asking a question, not getting a sufficient reply, so immediately resorts to waterboarding as the next and only logical step).
You're taking a bit too much leeway with this argument to assume interrogation must be escalated to the maximum levels on everyone immediately. I was very specific to say case-by-case and to not make the argument that "we should torture all suspected terrorists in order to make sure..." You're putting words in my mouth that I specifically did not say.
Lastly, if the field manual said waterboarding was OK, how would you feel about it?
I'm not putting words in your mouth. At least I don't think so. You said that we should evaluate on a case by case basis which suspects should be given more elevated interrogation methods that may constitute torture. I'm merely asking how that case by case determination is made, and by whom.
As d_bag (lol) pointed out, surely someone will note that by not using enhanced interrogation methods in all cases, undoubtedly many innocents will go untortured but perhaps some guilty as well. The argument was made by the Defense Department under the Bush Administration that a more widely cast net in this case would yield more results.
That's all I'm saying - not that you're arguing for that widely cast net, but that it is an inevitable outcome from approaching this on a case by case basis.
And no, I don't believe I would be ok with waterboarding just because the field manual says it is not torture. As I noted before, my stand against waterboarding is on the grounds that 1. it is unreliable, 2. it is counter to the values and principles ingrained in the American experiment, and 3. it is perceived as torture and as such jeopardizes the "hearts and minds" front of the War on Terror.
Shakka
quote:
Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov
I'm not putting words in your mouth. At least I don't think so. You said that we should evaluate on a case by case basis which suspects should be given more elevated interrogation methods that may constitute torture. I'm merely asking how that case by case determination is made, and by whom.
Jack Bauer of course.;) Honestly I don't have the answer to that question and I'm not sure anyone does. Certainly there should be more transparency and coordination between federal agencies and the military/interrogators to give more legitimacy to the process. I don't think that not having the right answer to this question now as to who makes the determination should preclude anyone from pursuing it though. However, I also don't think it's practical to set up a bureaucratic process that drags out the process wasting critical moments of time.
Magnetonium
I think that the C.I.A. report is a pile of horse. They just scribbled it down few days ago, probably, to cover their own asses up. How come we haven't heard back in 2005 or so about this miraculous success of illegal torture (when they allegedly prevented the L.A. attack)?
I doubt that these people will confess their true intentions or all their associates. They couldn't care about their lives in the first place, and extreme torture methods only increase resistance, as the reports state.
Shakka
Someone should jump all over this and make it happen.
