US/Pakistan capture top taliban senior

[MFL]

they did not deny that they were torturing people

Because no one released that they had until years after it happened. (This specifically applies to waterboarding, and generally where elsewhere appropriate.)

the information about them torturing came out in in around 2005

Actually it had been available by at least 2003, but not as much as your memory would think so. Widespread knowledge and opinion about it opened up by degrees over the years, starting with a little, ending up with what we have now.

I could be wrong on the year, thats my memory,

Yes.

That's when the torture debate heated up.

No.

So if they wanted to gain popular support the best thing they could have done was shown that torture worked.

They weren't trying to GAIN support in 2003. They already had it! 9/11, the war in Afghanistan going well, the only thing they had to gain by releasing that would be sparing us of the rest of their careers.

So again, why would they hide evidance of torture working when everyone already knew they were torturing people?

Because of the risk involved with such action and how the consequences would effect their political agenda.

 

[No Limit]

No, what you are saying is absolutely not true. By the time Alberto Gonzales had his confirmation hearings in 2005 the torture debate was in full swing and the administration was not denying its use of waterboarding. Do you really need me to waste my time finding links for you? Look up Gonzales's confirmation.

On edit, article from 2005:

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/Investigation/story?id=1322866

So no, Im not wrong on this. So going back, why wouldnt they release evidance showing it was effective when they did not deny the torture? Not only did they have midterm elections coming up this could have helped the republican party in the 2008 election as well.

 

[CptStern]

Stern, I would like more elaboration on my reasoning not being sound than just saying that it is not, especially when I have explained how it is as it regards that proof of ineffectiveness of torture isn't possible right now.

because you're speculating without providing anything to back you up except more speculation:

that proof of ineffectiveness of torture isn't possible right now

I provided proof of its ineffectiveness from someone who had direct experience interrogating prisoners. that's good enough for me. especially since there's no shortage of other sources that say the exact same thing

And I never did ignore the evidence supplied by Mr. Alexander, I just never noted it or argued against it

sounds like ignoring to me

because it doesn't prove that torture is always ineffective, and other then being another example of how torture is ineffective it is has no bearing on what I was talking about. It has been ineffective, yes. Fine. To say that it is always ineffective is not a statement that can be verified. If you can prove that torture is ineffective 100% of the time, people will probably stop it. By all means, do so.

you're saying that because there's no evidence then it must be true. you have nothing to support your contention that it MUST have been effective at SOME point in time. that's not evidence, that's speculation. I presented first hand direct experience with people who personally conducted hundreds of interrogations as well supervising hundreds more. you respond with the equivilent of saying "well at some point in the entire history of torture it MUST have been effective".

Good on ya, specialists in a field should always be given priority over all others. Especially if you want an accurate result. However, that is just one man. The intelligence community is not limited to just him.

come on. at least you could have read what I posted:

a former special intelligence operations officer, who in 1996 led an interrogations team in Iraq

.... He conducted more than 300 interrogations and supervised more than a thousand

direct first hand experience

And even after that, to ignore what I have put forward purely on the assumption that I do not know what I am talking about would be just as much an error in reasoning as what you accuse me of making.

you were speculating without providing proof. and then going so far as to say the evidence is there it's just the nature of the evidence means it can never be known. this doesnt make rational sense. that's like sayin gthere is a god even though there's absolute proof but because we're here he MUST exist

 

[MFL]

No Limit, people have been arguing about torture for a lot longer than Americans has been at it.

Stern, it's more like I said, "well at some point in the entire history of torture it COULD have been effective". You're right, it is speculation. It makes it less viable than your evidence, however, it is still there. If speculatory reasoning is all I've got to go on, I'll take it. If you can't disprove it, then it stands. I wish you could.

 

[No Limit]

No Limit, people have been arguing about torture for a lot longer than Americans has been at it.

That doesnt' address anything, all you are doing is copping out. You wanna try again?

Just in case you need a recap. We are talking about why Bush wouldn't release evidance showing torutre worked if such evidance exists. Your first claim was that they didn't want to incriminate themselves and if I understood you correctly you said that we didn't know about torture while they were in office. That claim from you turned out to be totally false.

So again, why did Bush not release evidance that torture is effective if such evidance existed?

 

[No Limit]

Stern, it's more like I said, "well at some point in the entire history of torture it COULD have been effective". You're right, it is speculation. It makes it less viable than your evidence, however, it is still there. If speculatory reasoning is all I've got to go on, I'll take it. If you can't disprove it, then it stands. I wish you could.

And George Bush could have brought down the twin towers with a secret magic spell. You can't prove otherwise, so it COULD be true.

And no, speculation is not evidance. Never has been.

 

[MFL]

It's not as black and white as that. Technically, most things that can't be proven with math and logic are speculation. Some are less likely than others. The more evidence that is associated to speculation, the more likely it is. George Bush could have done that very thing. Is it likely? Not particularly. Is it likely that torture has ever produced a beneficial effect? More so.

f I understood you correctly you said that we didn't know about torture while they were in office. That claim from you turned out to be totally false.

On the contrary, I never made that claim. Most people, during some point of the course of the Bush Administration, were aware to some degree of what was going on. What they were aware of, and to what degree the Bush Administration was able to get away with it, increased as time went on. Quite a bit of what happened was because they used the support they gained from 9/11 effectively to make their way.

And as for me copping out, I was addressing you saying that the torture debate heated up in 2005. Sure, the American debate might have... for the first time since the Cold War... but people have been having trouble with this for a loooooong time. (is what I was saying.)

 

[VictimOfScience]

The absolute worst thing you could do to him would be to bring him to America and give him a mansion in Miami with his own personal gold-plated and fully-stocked BangBus to ride around in. Give him a taste of the good life under US-bred capitalism and he will forget he ever gave a shit about his people's gripes with our imperialistic and exploitative aggression toward them. That outta scare him enough to get some juicy info alright.

 

[MFL]

That's awesome.

 

[No Limit]

It's not as black and white as that. Technically, most things that can't be proven with math and logic are speculation. Some are less likely than others. The more evidence that is associated to speculation, the more likely it is. George Bush could have done that very thing. Is it likely? Not particularly. Is it likely that torture has ever produced a beneficial effect? More so.

The point is you are just making shit up and have no evidance to back up what you are saying. Yet there is plenty of evidance that goes the other way.

And as for me copping out, I was addressing you saying that the torture debate heated up in 2005. Sure, the American debate might have... for the first time since the Cold War... but people have been having trouble with this for a loooooong time. (is what I was saying.)

Ok, well, can you address the damn point? Why would Bush not release such evidance?

 

[Dan]

The torture method I put forward is pretty simple, and if it is applied, is guaranteed to get correct information. I am not saying that other methods don't also work, and I am not saying that anything about other long term effects on your image or morality. I am saying that it is guaranteed to get information. It relies on two simple premises:

Under sufficient duress, pain, or threat of such, any individual will do anything to make that duress or pain stop.

An individual can be made to believe that giving correct information will make that pain stop. This is the part where amateur interrogators might make a mistake. Getting made up information and accepting it means that the interrogator screwed this part up.

Torture is ineffectual? Maybe if you are asking unverifiable questions, like "what did you have for breakfast?", or "What is your opinion of So And So?" But throw in a lie detector and some questions that you know the answers to and a few questions that you can check the answers to, and a few questions that you have an idea of the answer from other torture victims along with the questions that you don't know the answer to at all, and you have a very effective tool for gaining information. On every question, increase the torture until you get the true answer. On the questions you aren't sure about, increase the torture as though you were getting false answers until you are satisfied you have the truth, and then add a lot of repetition to everything.

 

[MFL]

just making shit up and have no evidance to back up what you are saying.

If what I propose is possible (even if it is only speculation) and likely (that torture can provide effective practical information), then it should be taken into account. I.E. if I knew that studying had a chance to improve my grades, I would consider studying. (as long as there is any chance, this holds true, but as the chance decreases, so does the likelihood [which is why I would like Stern, or anyone for that matter, to prove that torture is ineffective 100% of the time, because then there is absolutely no justification for torture whatsoever])

Why would Bush not release such evidance?

Because at the time it was not in his interest to do so. If at that point Bush had released any information at all that he was condoning torture, whether or not it was effective would not have eased the backlash that would have resulted. It would not have been a holy grail of torture theory like what I expect you think it would have been. It would have been what we were talking about earlier, that they had tortured the Afghan/Iraq connection out of someone. Or that in some way, some bit of information that had been tortured out of someone had produced some viable effect towards the furtherance of their goals. This would not have proven that torture was ok, because you can't do that from a moral perspective, and that is what most of the populace would have based their SUDDEN AND IMMEDIATE LOSS OF SUPPORT on.

Also, please for the love of c'thulu, stop spelling it evidance.

 

[No Limit]

Again, they never denied waterboarding. So as far back as 2005 they admitted to this torture. So not releasing evidance of torture being effective had nothing to do with covering their ass. Try again.

If what I propose is possible (even if it is only speculation) and likely (that torture can provide effective practical information), then it should be taken into account. I.E. if I knew that studying had a chance to improve my grades, I would consider studying. (as long as there is any chance, this holds true, but as the chance decreases, so does the likelihood)

Not if there is evidance to the contrary.

Look at it this way. You are having a debate about an issue, any issue. One guy gives you plenty of evidance. The other only offers something that could have happened with absolutely no evidance. Who do you believe?

 

[MFL]

In this thread 2005 is 2003.

 

[No Limit]

SO ****ING WHAT! What does the year have to do with it? They had a midterm election coming up, what are you talking about? Releasing evidance that torture worked after everyone knew they tortured would have only been benefitial to them. Your claim that it would have hurt them is absoluely false. So again, why not release this evidance if it existed? The answer is because such evidance doesnt exist.

 

[Shyam]

Guys, whatever your opinions, the guy that is caught, is probably with the Pakistani authorities now, handed over to them by the CIA to wash themselves off the responsibility of torture.

Isn't that how things work with these things, they outsource the torture to America's Muslim allies ?

 

[CptStern]

The torture method I put forward is pretty simple, and if it is applied, is guaranteed to get correct information.

you've tried this?

I am not saying that other methods don't also work, and I am not saying that anything about other long term effects on your image or morality. I am saying that it is guaranteed to get information. It relies on two simple premises:

Under sufficient duress, pain, or threat of such, any individual will do anything to make that duress or pain stop.

An individual can be made to believe that giving correct information will make that pain stop.

or anything that will make the pain stop regardless if it's true or not

"are you a member of al qaeda?

"no ...YEARRRGHHHHH ....I mean yes, oh god I can see my spleen ..."

This is the part where amateur interrogators might make a mistake. Getting made up information and accepting it means that the interrogator screwed this part up.

what mistake by not interpreting the lie detector correctly? come on it's not that black and white. a ploygraph technician makes that determination not the interrogator.

 

[Acepilotf14]

Do you want to know how to make him talk?
It's a very cruel method, but it is 100% guaranteed to make him cry on the ground and give up his information.
It's a bloodless method, and although it might scar him psychologically for life that's the price we sometimes must pay for safety.

have you figured it out yet?

Spoiler

We make them watch Lucky Star until they give up.

 

[Shyam]

what mistake by not interpreting the lie detector correctly? come on it's not that black and white. a ploygraph technician makes that determination not the interrogator.

Aren't lie detectors not foolproof, I mean I know some countries were admissions through lie detectors are not permissible in Court.

Also, it will be interesting how Taliban will react to this. Lots of top level leaders have been killed before, without making much dent (Baitullah Mehsud).

We'll see.

 

[MFL]

It matters that it was 2003 because of the example that has been noted in this thread was a CNN report that detailed torture that was done in 2002-2003 to get intelligence that was used to support the Afghan/Iraq connection to provide support for the invasion of Iraq that happened in 2003. Which they needed the support of the populace to operate without interference.

 

[No Limit]

It matters that it was 2003 because of the example that has been noted in this thread was a CNN report that detailed torture that was done in 2002-2003 to get intelligence that was used to support the Afghan/Iraq connection to provide support for the invasion of Iraq that happened in 2003. Which they needed the support of the populace to operate without interference.

Dude, what the hell are you talking about? You must have gotten distracted somewhere along the way. I guess its time for another recap. The example in 2003 was just that, an example.

You say that evidance that torture works wasn't released by Bush because it would have hurt him. That is absolutely not true, it would have helped him especially in the upcoming midterm elections. Do you dispute this? If so explain how it would have hurt him.

If you can't explain how it would have hurt him then my point stands, releasing the information would have been benefitial to him. So now you have to explain why I should think that such evidance exists if Bush refused to release it knowing it would help him?

 

[MFL]

I have, however you have failed to comprehend.

 

[No Limit]

You giving up? after all this?

Show me where. I've been very fair in addressing all your points, if I missed anything you are welcome to point me to it.

How would have leaking evidance of torture working hurt him? Your original excuse was that he didn't admit to it, that's not true; he did as far back as 2005. And no one would even have to know he is the one that leaked the evidance showing the effectiveness of torture. It would have only served to help him and his party especially when he had upcoming midterm elections (where he got his ass beat I should point out). Which part of this is wrong on my part?

 

[Dan]

what mistake by not interpreting the lie detector correctly? come on it's not that black and white. a ploygraph technician makes that determination not the interrogator.

No, lie detector or other "guessing methods" are only used to back up the questions that you have no intel at all on. What you do is build a picture by corroborating facts, not just straight up asking "where is the secret base?" And taking the answer as truth.

Start with a list of questions, most of which you know the answer to. Keep asking and applying pressure until you get any answer. Then go back through each question and ask again, starting with the questions that you know the answers to. This time apply pressure (pain, fear, whatever) until you get the correct answer. Only accept one answer and make sure they are sure of it before increasing or decreasing the pressure. They will quickly stop giving wrong answers. For every question, make sure they expand on all of the little details around that answer without asking for specific information. This gives you more information. Then bring it back down. Pretty soon, they will be spitting out the correct answers right away.

When you get to a question that you don't know the answer to, or aren't certain, or don't have complete information, you go through the same method, and write down your answers.

Then you take the results from a group of people all who share in some pool of information and check them against each other. If one person's answers don't add up, guess who gets another session.

 

[No Limit]

So Dan, why no evidance of it ever working? There is only evidance to the contrary including straight up lies about Saddam / Al Queda links that were later used as evidance by the prior administration. They waterboarded KSM 183 times in a month, why waterboard someone 183 times in a month if it's effective?

 

[Dan]

So Dan, why no evidance of it ever working? There is only evidance to the contrary including straight up lies about Saddam / Al Queda links that were later used as evidance by the prior administration. They waterboarded KSM 183 times in a month, why waterboard someone 183 times in a month if it's effective?

Probably amateur interrogators allowed the subject to know what information they don't know. Or just following the standard training to psychologically break him. US military isn't well known for effectively training it's own interrogators. Mostly they outsource that job.

 

[No Limit]

Probably amateur interrogators allowed the subject to know what information they don't know. Or just following the standard training to psychologically break him. US military isn't well known for effectively training it's own interrogators. Mostly they outsource that job.

It was the CIA that did these interrogations, wasn't it? You really think you would do better at torture than the CIA did?

 

[MFL]

You all should have just quoted me up and down the logical fallacy sticky =). Let this be a lesson to the good boys and girls out there, reversing the burden of proof and arguing from ignorance does not let you electrocute your siblings and playmates, and it shouldn't let your government pour water up your nose, no matter how much wishful thinking is going on.

 

[Sparta]

Wait a second.

Am I reading that wrong, or did MFL reverse his position?

Is that the first time someone in a politics thread has actually done so?

Should I begin making a plaque to commemorate the occasion?

 

[Shyam]

Should I begin making a plaque to commemorate the occasion?

Do it, before he changes his mind.

 

[Noodle]

No, it seems like more of a "devil's advocate cop-out".