Top Bush Terrorism Adviser Admits CIA Docs Didn’t Prove Torture Worked
Okay, this should settle it, but of course it won’t: We now have a former homeland security official under George W. Bush who has contradicted the claim by conservatives that the CIA docs released yesterday proved torture worked, as Dick Cheney said they would.
Frances Fragos Townsend, a homeland security adviser and close confidante of Bush on terrorism, made the admission late last night on CNN, where she’s a contributor. Here’s her quote (from Nexis):
It’s very difficult to draw a cause and effect, because it’s not clear when techniques were applied vs. when that information was received. It’s implicit. It seems, when you read the report, that we got the — the — the most critical information after techniques had been applied. But the report doesn’t say that.
Cheney defenders have grabbed onto the idea that the docs imply torture worked with the urgency of a drowning person clinging to driftwood. But let’s be clear: Cheney said repeatedly that the CIA docs would settle the question. And even a top terror adviser in his administration is now admitting that this isn’t the case.
Townsend, by the way, is hardly a defector from the Bush cause. In other contexts she remains an ardent defender of the administration. When Tom Ridge recently claimed that Bush officials had gamed the terror alerts for political reasons, Townsend aggressively pushed back on the charges. So perhaps her word on the CIA docs counts for something among Cheney defenders?
Update: Think Progress posts video of Townsend.
This blog’s homepage is here. RSS feed here. Twitter feed here. Email me here.
As usual Cheney is being demonstrated to be nothing but a mendacious liar.
As usual that’s barely being mentioned at all in the MSM.
Newsweek, to its credit, did a very good stand alone piece:
http://www.newsweek.com/id/213620
The bottom line here is the same as it always was: it doesn’t matter if it worked. It’s illegal whether it was efficacious or not.
Arguing that it worked therefore it was ok is ridiculous. That’s tantamount to arguing that cutting off someone’s hands worked to keep them from stealing. Yeah, it worked – so what? Wrong is wrong.
I imagine Townsend will issue a “clarification”.
Re the Newsweek report, a significant dropped ball here, isn’t it?
” For example, the document says that the number of intelligence reports generated from the interrogation of Abu Zubaydah, an early CIA captive, “increased” after the detainee was waterboarded 83 times.”
The issue would be whether this quantity increase had any worth in terms of accuracy or truthfulness…the prime argument from experts in the field on why torture has proven so ineffective as an intel-gathering technique.
Here is my thing, why aren’t Democrats pointing out that Dick Cheney and other Republicans who are claiming that torture worked are basically calling Ali Soufan, pretty much a damn hero in the war on terror, a liar? As much as people like Dick and Liz Cheney, Joe Scarborough et al keep saying President Obama and Eric Holder are hurting the CIA, their premise is such that to believe them you have to discard everything Ali Soufan testifed to under oath in front of Congress a few months back. None of those clowns are willing to go on the record under oath to make the claim that torture worked.
To me Soufan should be held up as the gold standard on information about whether torture worked or not in practice or works or not in theory. His testimony itself should be referred to over and over when people are debating this issue because he pointed out exactly why we DON’T want to use torture in a ticking time bomb scenario which is precisely the situation that Republicans/Conservatives try to latch on to for jusitfication of torture.
ps – Just wanted to underline the point Greenwald made yesterday…that these document releases have come entirely as a consequence of ACLU actions. The *&$%%$%* media news operations, outside of a few very hard working and dillengent individuals, have been pretty pathetic.
the document says that the number of intelligence reports generated from the interrogation of Abu Zubaydah, an early CIA captive, “increased” after the detainee was waterboarded 83 times.”
And if I was a betting man I’d bet quite a bit that sufficient further investigation would show that the reason the number of intelligence reports increased after that was because of demands for increased reports from the Vice President. There’s no doubt in my mind that he wanted to know what had changed as a result of his installing a torture regime.
sg – the name “Ali” versus the name “Elizabeth” means he loses before anyone’s mouth opens.
The *&$%%$%* media news operations, outside of a few very hard working and dillengent individuals, have been pretty pathetic.
More evidence that the entire notion of “bad apples” improvising the torture techniques at Abu Ghraib and elsewhere is a massive, self-interested lie by Cheney and Bush.
…
Yes, they studied very carefully how far to freeze a human being to avoid killing him. So when we hear about Navy Seals using rectal thermometers to determine how far they could go in freezing prisoners in iced baths (if you recall this as a Gestapo technique, you are not wrong), we know they were acting on guidance from the White House.
The real war criminals are in the political elite. And the same political and media elite is intent on protecting their own. Even now.
Bernie, from my name geek point of view your last comment is especially ironic.
“Ali” and “Eli-” are cognates. That is, they are simply Hebrew and Arabic variants of the same word.
Can someone please – please – explain to me why it matters whether or not it worked? Seriously = if the GOP and Cheney and the CIA could definitively PROVE it worked, would we then decide torture is an ok thing?
This question of whether or not it worked is a total red herring. Total.
Well, if torture techniques worked there would be pragmatist arguments in favor of using them, at least under certain circumstances.
That they are known to produce only unreliable results makes their adoption all that much more damning.
It is shameful to attempt to justify the use of torture by suggesting it might work. That is not the issue. The issue is one of the violation of International, Military and US law.
http://www.tvnewslies.org/tvnl/index.php/editorial/reggies-commentary/8864-kafka-for-dummies-the-absurd-debate-over-torture.html
OK Folks Can we just admit Chaney was & is a war criminal I actually think Boosh was to dumb to understand this or could even read the Geneva Convention. Just my thoughts this AM Bill
Why are our young men & women still fighting & dying on foreign soil?
Are allusions to drowning really appropriate on Ted Kennedy Day? Of course they are.
“Well, if torture techniques worked there would be pragmatist arguments in favor of using them, at least under certain circumstances. ”
See, that is an ends justifies the means argument and it is totally fallacious. I really believe that every time Cheney or anyone else says: It worked, someone immediately should counter with – so what? It’s illegal and morally reprehensible and wrong. It doesn’t matter if it worked – that is not pragmatic. That’s barbaric.
I was just over perusing the Politico website, came across a piece on Rep. King’s comments E. Holder: ‘You wonder which side they’re on’. As I read the comments from readers, a chill went up my spine. Not only do the majority of the 1100+ comments support enhanced interrogation techniques, i.e., the use of outright torture against detainees, they believe that those of who don’t condone EITs are “unAmerican,”"traitors,” and “communists.”
I don’t know about you but I find this deeply disturbing. Their rants are filled with hate and with ideas that our POTUS is somehow to blame for everything that’s wrong with this country, that they should rise up and take “their” country back.
I would like to think that more than likely, these folks are good and decent people; however, as they arm themselves and show up at political events, perhaps instead they are suffering from mass hysteria brought on by the shock (to them) that someone other than a white person was elected to POTUS. They are filled with hate – how did we get here?
I am afraid for our great country as well as the welfare and safety of our POTUS. These folks will not stop until . . . I’m afraid, very afraid.
Greg is like a drowning man clinging to a wooden match to stay afloat.
“Let’s review. Abu Zubaydah gave up some information before the use of EITs. But “since the use of the waterboard…Abu Zubaydah has appeared to be cooperative,” and gave up even more intelligence. Al Nashiri provided mostly historical information in the short time before EITs were employed. “However, following the use of EITs, he provided information about his most current operational planning…” And “accomplished resistor” Khalid Shaykh Muhammad provided mostly useless information before the application of EITs. Afterwards, he “provided information that helped lead to the arrests of terrorists” – so much information, in fact, that he was regarded as the “most prolific” intelligence source.
Reasonable people can – and do – disagree about the morality of using EITs. But only the most accomplished resister could continue to claim that they were not effective.”
Here’s what I take away: For such a stickler regarding small government, Cheney was all too quick to use the instruments of the state for his own purposes and his own delusional reasons. What a son-of-a-(B)itch! -Kevo
donnabella, and weren’t you scandalized when the Speaker of the House and the Senate Majority Leader called people unAmerica for opposing Obamacare? You commies are laughable – and traitors. Lots of love.
Hugo
a chill went up my spine. Not only do the majority of the 1100+ comments support enhanced interrogation techniques, i.e., the use of outright torture against detainees, they believe that those of who don’t condone EITs are “unAmerican,””traitors,” and “communists.”
I don’t know about you but I find this deeply disturbing.
- political conservative Andrew Sullivan
an “intelligence report” merely is that the detainee made a claim. Gave a name, confessed a crime, asserted that there was a plot. Whether those were valid claims, rather than efforts by the detainee to stop the incessant torture is a different story altogether. We know that several of these individuals have since been released because their confessions after EIT’s were used turned out to have no support from any other evidence. Oh, there were some other people who confirmed that “X was involved” but they too were tortured and only gave up such information after prompting.
It’s much like people in the inquisition confessing to be part of Satanic cabals. Then the people they say were meeting with the Devil were hauled in, and confessed, and gave up more names…who confessed under torture and…..
No, sbj, reasonable people do not disagree.
“Reasonable” people disagreed about the problem presented by Hitler.
And then there wasn’t a choice in the matter anymore.
That’s where embracing torture takes a democracy.
By the way, “enhanced interrogation techniques” was the euphemism the Nazis used.
This is why I learned to love Andrew Sullivan, oddjob. He’s one of the good guys – despite the attitude of some on the left about him.
He’s right. And everyone needs to reread that last sentence until it sinks in all the way.
Who’s embracing torture? The question regards the effectiveness of EITs.
By the way, oddjob –
“No, sbj, reasonable people do not disagree…”
Beautiful comment.
“Who’s embracing torture? The question regards the effectiveness of EITs.”
O no you don’t, Dick Cheney – you do not get to redefine torture to suit your own ends.
We had a discussion already about the meanings of words, sbj.
The right likes to redefine everything that doesn’t fit into their neat little ideas about things. Words have meanings, however, and you cannot escape those meanings no matter how hard you try.
oooooh!
EIT’s = the Nazi euphemis for torture
“Reasonable people can – and do – disagree about the morality of using EITs. But only the most accomplished resister could continue to claim that they were not effective.”
– Dahlia Lithwick
(Hat tip, Patrick Appel over at Sully’s blog.)
At the end of the day talking about “EIT’s” is like oohing and aahing over the emperor’s lovely new clothes.
Let’s not confuse/conflate abuses such as the threat of rape or the use of power drills with the legally sanctioned EITs.
“The purpose of torture is torture.”
- George Orwell, 1984
“EIT’s = the Nazi euphemis for torture”:
Exactly.
However, “option” doesn’t mean “choice” for sbj.
oddjob – re Ali/Eli as cognates, I did not know that. Quite funny, aside from the ironic aspect, as you say.
sbj – your protests are sounding increasingly distant and hollow, as if you were plaintively wailing from the dark basement floor of the outhouse.
It’s easy to do such shallow rhetorical moves and you ought to drop the habit.
Let’s do, sbj. There’s no difference if one consults all relevant US law before George W. Bush became president and Dick Cheney became vice president.
“Al” is Arabic for “god”. “El” is Hebrew for “god”.
Arabic and Hebrew are sibling languages, just as English and German (or Dutch) are.
@tena: You still don’t understand the concept of “trigger words” do you?
@bernie: “It’s easy to do such shallow rhetorical moves and you ought to drop the habit.”
I haven’t a clue what you’re writing about here.
In the memoirs of Menachem Begin one learns that in his opinion, having himsef been tortured by the Soviets, sleep deprivation is the worst form of torture of all.
“Greg is like a drowning man clinging to a wooden match to stay afloat.”
That help?
“Arabic and Hebrew are sibling languages, just as English and German (or Dutch) are.”
Yes that’s the ultimate irony – the Arabs and the Jews are basically both Semites, so in a sense the anti-Arab Jews are actually anti-semitic.
[oy, now I'm going to get it...but it turns out according to my mitochondrial DNA, about 88% of my genetic heritage is Ashkenazi, Sephardi and Mizrahi Jew, which may entitle me to even tell Jewish jokes...cf. Seinfeld and the dentist]
“Arabic and Hebrew are sibling languages, just as English and German (or Dutch) are.”
Knew that, at least. I’ve got some of the word/language geek in me, too. Wish I had more time to muck about with it (not to mention mediterranean basin pre-history and neolithic archaelogy and and and
I’m an expat now living in Cambodia. We’re right in the middle of the Khmer Rouge trials and all of these ‘interrogation techniques’ are being discussed daily here as they were employed at the infamous S-21 prison. Everyone sent to S-21 eventually confessed to something, like the unfortunate Kiwi caught sailing off the coast who confessed to being a CIA agent working under Colonel Sanders. Sick does not come close to the feeling I get reading these things side-by-side.
Vote on the FoxNews website in response to their posted question: Should the Justice Department reopen — and possibly prosecute — cases of alleged mistreatment of terror suspects by CIA interrogators? http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2009/08/24/justice-department-pursue-cia-abuse-cases/
Tena – two days ago a jewish family from the Ukraine stopped in at our store and as we talked I mentioned my mother was from the Ukraine. She said, “Yes, you’re jewish”. I think she didn’t believe me when I said I wasn’t. “You look jewish”. Same thing happened in Manhattan all the time. I’ve considered having my DNA done but honestly, I’m a bit anxious that I might NOT be jewish. I rather like the idea.
@bernie: Sort of like, “plaintively wailing from the dark basement floor of the outhouse?”
“@tena: You still don’t understand the concept of “trigger words” do you?”
I understand that you want to twist the meanings of things by using this idea of “trigger” words to try to say “choice” wasn’t the same thing as “option.”
You fail utterly to understand the deeper underlying issue here – the word “choice” means the same thing as “option.” Therefore, it was not a word that was inserted strictly on the basis of it’s effect as a so called trigger. It happens to be the set of alphabetic symbols that conveys the correct idea.
You have no respect for words, either, along with your lack of respect for common humanity that you’d say EIT is some special category of suffering that isn’t torture.
Everyone sent to S-21 eventually confessed to something
Of course! That’s what “enhanced interrogation” does.
@oddjob: “sleep deprivation is the worst form of torture of all”
According to sg, I believe, sleep deprivation is still permitted per the Army Field Manual.
@tena: You fail to understand that there are ways to convey the correct idea without using emotional trigger words.
“@bernie: Sort of like, “plaintively wailing from the dark basement floor of the outhouse?””
Precisely like it. Don’t bother. Your and our time can be better spent.
@bernie: Huh? You can waste our time but I can’t? (Truthfully I do not wish to waste anyone’s time.)
But sbj: The “trigger word” triggered the right damned idea.
get over it
When we get hit again it will be Cheney’s and his cohorts fault. His unjustified war without benefit, his torture policies and his arrogance have increased the amount of terrorists in this world 100 fold.
He will be to blame.
Baby Hogo: “donnabella, and weren’t you scandalized when the Speaker of the House and the Senate Majority Leader called people unAmerica for opposing Obamacare? You commies are laughable – and traitors”
Surely you know that Pelosi didn’t say that. She said that those who used town meetings to prevent a discussion were unamerican.
If you’re going to make an argument, try starting with the truth next time. Thank you for playing.
http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/nation-world/bal-pelosi-health-care-0810,0,4780894.story
“We believe it is healthy for such a historic effort to be subject to so much scrutiny and debate,” Pelosi (D-Calif.) and Hoyer (D-Md.) write in an Op-Ed essay published byUSA Today.
“However, it is now evident that an ugly campaign is underway not merely to misrepresent the health insurance reform legislation, but to disrupt public meetings and prevent members of Congress and constituents from conducting a civil dialogue,” the two leaders write . “These disruptions are occurring because opponents are afraid not just of differing views — but of the facts themselves. Drowning out opposing views is simply un-American.”
Sorry, “Hogo” was a typo in my prior post. My apologies. I try not to engage in personal invective.
EIT is torture SBJ. If not, I’ve got a plank and a bucket of water at my house if you’re up for it??
That must be why you suck so bad at it dsimon. Next time don’t bother playing, and she did so say that protest was unAmerican.
I just finished reading the IG Report. So much of it is blacked out that it’s hard to make any firm conclusions about it, but a couple of things are clear. Many people within the CIA were concerned that “EITs” were illegal. There is nothing in the unredacted portions of the report that states that a specific “EIT” produced a specific useful piece of intelligence. There is also nothing to show that intelligence could not have been obtained through other (legal) means.
My gut feeling is that lots of people knew the whole thing was a criminal enterprise. That’s why they destroyed the 92 videotapes.
So if the arugments supporting torture, such as “it worked” and “it saved lives”, are sufficient, then by all means let’s start torturing drug dealers. Drugs take far more lives than terrorism. And then let’s torture murderers, or even suspected murderers. And gang members, while we are at it. Let’s torture ANYONE and EVERYONE suspected of taking the life of an American, or who has infomation which might save the life of an innocent American. If “saving lives” is a sufficient argument, why should one form of death be dealt with any different than another? I’m more concerned about being killed by drug dealers, murderers or gang members than by a terrorist. So I vote to torture the lot. Maybe we should extend torture to Madoff and those on Wall Street who steal from us too…
Greg, you are just embarassing yourself at this point, and you have all these brainless lefty sychophant commenters following your lead, falling over themselves to try to keep your big lie afloat. Just give it up.
You lefties had to vent your hate and do whatever you could to tear down Dick Cheney and George Bush, so you made up a stupid article of faith that said whatever EITs were used were torture and of course all smart people know torture never “works.” All of you self-appointed lefty watchdogs acted like you had some expertise in interrogation and intelligence when you in fact your knowing declarations of which techniques yield “actionable information” and which “don’t” are patent nonsense. You traded that piece of nonsense back and forth in your lunatic fringe echo chamber and felt all smart and superior about it.
But are you really so stupid as to believe that increasing degrees of pressure do not yield increasing levels of information? If so, why don’t we just ask these mass murderers a few friendly questions over tea in a pleasant garden setting and let it go at that? Whatever they know, they’ll tell us. No need to get rough or ugly with them. You think that is silly? Yes, it is, just as silly as the nonsense you are peddling. It IS the nonsense you are peddling.
Your fantasy has been blown out of the water by reports that document that EITs worked, just as your boogey-man Dick Cheney said they would. You lost. You went out on a rhetorical limb, and it was sawed off. You look ridiculous trying to pretend otherwise. Just admit you were wrong; you will feel better, and your self-brainwashing can start to wind down.
It is also your only hope for self-preservation. Your party and administration are self-destructing. The Obama-Holder witch hunt is just going to keep blowing up in their faces, because most of the American people just don’t by the hogwash they and you are throwing on them. Holder is revealing himself to be the lawless, unprincipled, partisan hatchet man many of us knew he was, and Obama can’t insulate himself from the damage he is doing. They are willing to damage the security and standing of the country for partisan revenge or “reckoning,” as Holder called it, and they are doing just that. Your party will pay the price. The only question is whether it will be too late for the country when we throw you out.
Those behind the so-called EIT .. need to be jailed.
But – so do those that continue to authorize the murder of innocents in Afghanistan & Iraq. Much worse than EIT is happening there.. right now.. each and every day.
Our young men & women need to come home, not tomorrow – but today.
re: bat
Is that like in batshit crazy? Ever since slimy Cliff and the docile supreme court in 1947 created their fraudulent “national security” fable over US military aircraft falling out of the blue due to defective design of said aircraft, pukes like bat have been apologizing, assassinating, and spewing drivel to cover for the illegal acts of their aristocrat and boogeyman du jour.
When do these freaks get their sodden diapers changed?
If imbeciles can continue to apologize for other’s heinous acts, one can only imagine it’s already “too late for the country”.
Probably an xian also. Why don’t they go back to their own planet already?
All of you self-appointed lefty watchdogs acted like you had some expertise in interrogation and intelligence when you in fact your knowing declarations of which techniques yield “actionable information” and which “don’t” are patent nonsense.
Okay, go and find some career military investigators who agree that it’s patent nonsense that torture doesn’t work. Cite your sources.
(Hint, good luck with that…)
Until then all you’ve done is rant in your angry ignorance.
Savage: You should lay off the sauce and get counseling for your anger. Your rant isn’t even comprehensible and has nothing to do with my comment.
oddjob: I wonder why you distorted what I said rather than face what I actually said. Oh well. I understand that there is no way to reason with or present any evidence that could persuade people like you who believe that blowing cigar smoke or placing an insect in a chamber with a detainee are torture and war crimes, and apparently believe as an article of faith that no information elicited under such “torture” could be useful. Since you deny what is in black and white in the reports themselves, you are plainly impervious to reason or proof. But take off the blinders and read the reports. I won’t waste more time on you.
Cheney has no credibility left on these issues or any others, I might add. I believe Cheney acted and continues to act out of a deep seated fear but not for himself. After having failed to protect the country on his watch during 9/11 (justified or not) he resorted to harsher and harsher techniques in order to attempt to control the fear of further failure to the country. I don’t agree with his methods since he believes the ends justify the means and if that means breaking the law, so be it. I think he is evil like Machiavelli was evil; it is not for self gain but it is out of believing the cause is just and necessary. “Necessity justifies all.”
Bat..wow, you do spew, don’t you? Holder is “lawless, unprincipled and partisaned?” So, what facts do you have to support any of that? That he is following the law? So, what did you think of Alberto Gonzales? Great AJ?, right? Man, read something and stop watching Faux “news”.
I applaud that so many are so for justice and the ideals that made our country great. But what about the continuing wars, the countless civilians killed daily? – the hellfire missiles launched by armchair sitting generals 1000’s of miles away?
The war in Iraq is illegal and must be stopped. The war in Afghanistan will never end – ever – 8yrs is too long! End it – bring them home. The body count rises daily! End the wars!
The people on the receiving end care not about Bush & Cheney – because now it is Obama & Biden doing the killing – end them and bring the boys home.
Hey babyHugo. Here’s the actual quote ” Drowning out opposing views is simply un-American”. I have thus invalidated your insightful “nuh-uh” argument.
Tehelms: Yeah, whatever, I can see you are super-sophisticated and informed from reading trash like Mr. Sargent’s posts.
Why is Holder an unprincipled partisan hack? The witch hunt he is mounting should chill every American to the bone. It is completely partisan and unprincipled and threatens the fabric of the country. You are aware, I suppose, that the interrogations he is said to have asked to be investigated were reportedly already investigated by career lawyers who determined in all but one case that no prosecution was warranted? And this is the same person who found no reason for a prosecutor when Al Gore unequivocally violated federal law by fundraising from government offices, because, despite a crystal clear statutory prohibition there was not yet a court decision interpreting it. How about the Marc Rich pardon? Do you see any faithfulness to principle by Holder here? You are aware that Holder’s department illegally leaked information about the threatened and outrageously politicized referrals of Bush Admin attorneys for disciplinary investigation, for the obvious purposes of damaging them personally and professionally and appeasing the left? And that he recently had the charges against Black Panther thugs who intimidated voters with clubs dismissed, overruling career DOJ lawyers? All this from a guy who sickeningly talks about the Bush DOJ having been “politicized.” Pot, kettle?
@bat, likewise there’s no arguing with someone who believes 24 is fact, not fiction.
Enjoy your fairy tales, but leave those of us in the reality based world alone, thanks.
The witch hunt he is mounting should chill every American to the bone.
The embrace of torture that you advocate is the actual end of this country’s democracy.
You cravenly want us to be Russia. Rather than us becoming that I suggest you move there. You’ll be safe, so you’ll be happy!
Baby Hugo: “That must be why you suck so bad at it dsimon. Next time don’t bother playing,”
Yeah, that attitude will change a lot of minds. Why bother arguing like that? What does it achieve, other than venting?
“and she did so say that protest was unAmerican.”
Please provide a cite, with context. I did. I don’t think she ever said opposing “Obamacare” (whatever that is) is “unamerican,” as you claim. In fact, the quote I provided says the exact opposite. But if you choose to ignore what people actually say, then there’s noting anyone can do to prevent you from believing whatever you want to believe regardless of the facts.
bat: “All of you self-appointed lefty watchdogs acted like you had some expertise in interrogation and intelligence when you in fact your knowing declarations of which techniques yield ‘actionable information’ and which ‘don’t’ are patent nonsense.”
No, our statements come from expert interrogators in the field. Maybe if you watched the recent congressional hearings on the matter, you’d realize that we’re not making assumptions; we’re listening to those who actually conduct the interrogations.
“But are you really so stupid as to believe that increasing degrees of pressure do not yield increasing levels of information?”
We’re smart enough to believe that increasing degrees of pressure yield what the detainee thinks the interrogators want to hear, regardless of the truth. See, for example, those who were tortured in the aftermath of the recent Iranian protests (whose standards of treatment we now seem to embrace).
A detainee (al-Libi) was tortured in Egypt and claimed a link between Saddam and al-Quada, which the Bush administration used to bolster its case for invading Iraq. Did torture help us or hurt us in that instance? And how much?
“Your fantasy has been blown out of the water by reports that document that EITs worked”
Sigh. The reports don’t say that. In fact, prior reports say that detainees like Zubaydah gave information before the EITs started and then shut up afterward. The reports just released don’t say that the EITs caused the disclosure of information because we don’t know at what point they were applied; there is no cause-effect assertion here.
Also, it’s clear that several people were tortured to death. And innocent people were tortured. And guilty people with no further information. What’s your position: torture everyone we think might possibly have information? (The man who murdered the abortion doctor in Kansas said there were more killings on the way; should he have been tortured for more information?) What if they were members of your family? After all, we can’t know that they don’t have information, and failure to torture them could make us less safe.
So, to wrap up: 1. The claims that torture doesn’t work comes from experts, not “lefties.” 2. The “information” we do get can be and often is false, and relying on it (because we want to believe it) can lead to disastrous results and so must be balanced against what little good information might be obtained. 3. Even if it “worked” and got more good information than bad, it’s still illegal. The right procedure would be to change the law, not abrogate it in a fit of unchecked executive power (I believe we fought a revolution against that, no?). 4. If we changed the law, it would be a sad say for this nation. I’d rather live at some marginally greater risk in a country that stands for something than live in perfect security that stands for nothing except self-preservation. Some principles are worth putting lives on the line for. At least that’s what Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Madison, Franklin, and others thought. They could have lived under far greater security under the British, but they thought their nation should stand for something. Too bad that seems to be turning into a minority view.
Oh, and 5. losing our moral authority on the issue creates more terrorists, because we confirm the worst of what our enemies say about us. If you want to win this battle, you’d better start thinking long term instead of just about tomorrow.
Thanks for the talking points, dsimon.
“We’re smart enough to believe that increasing degrees of pressure yield what the detainee thinks the interrogators want to hear, regardless of the truth.”
So you have two choices if you believe this. Either you apply no pressure to get only the truth — just ask some friendly questions, I guess — or you draw a line somewhere, based on judgment of complex moral and other factors. I gather you take the latter view, but you like other liberals declare anyone whose judgment a different a criminal, moral monster, and tyrant. Got it.
You are being willfully obtuse in denying that the documents show that EIT produced valuable information. You are demanding preposterous levels of “proof” and doing logical somersaults to stay in denial. What “proof” have you to the contrary? What “proof” have you that ordinary interrogation alone produced all the useful information? I get it. You all declared Cheney a lying war criminal long ago; now, standing discredited, you are never going to admit it. You are no less discredited.
“Also, it’s clear that several people were tortured to death.” Prove it, and give specifics. Who, what, when, where. Were they tortured to death by cigar smoke? Insect exposure? Slapping? Gun or drill threats?
Your point 1: No, that is your spin on what some experts have said, including some “experts” who have proven to be been untruthful. In addition, there you go again, assuming that this is a discussion about “torture.” It seems impossible for liberals to have an honest debate, because you always assume your result. Your argument is circular, dsimon.
Your point 2: All interrogation and intelligence gathering produces good and bad information. So your point is no point at all.
Your point 3: You are obviously ignorant of the law. Otherwise, prove your accusation. Cite chapter and verse, and specific evidence and facts proving each element of each crime you say was committed. Yeah, I can see that happening. The “fit of unchecked executive power” happened only in your imagination. We know by now, you hate Bush, you hate Cheney, and you so desperately wish them ill. Sorry, that doesn’t make them criminals or tyrants.
Your point 4: Since you aren’t specific about the law we might change, a direct response would be speculative. But I and most Americans definitely do not share your view that the lives of Americans are not worth the temporary discomfort of terrorists who have killed and seek to kill again. In fact, that is just plain nuts. I marvel at how you twist the founders and the Revolution to your purpose. So, because the founders fought a war for independence from a tyrant, we should be willing to put our families and friends at greater risk of being murdered by terrorists so as to ensure that the terrorists are not slapped and do not endure the shock of cigar smoke or insects or threats or, Heaven forbid, being waterboarded. I can’t fathom how anyone can think like this. And yet, while you are willing to be less safe, you are probably one of those “outraged” when Dick Cheney questions whether Obama’s approach makes us less safe.
Oh and your point 5: We didn’t lose our moral authority by interrogating terrorists. It is liberals like you who are smearing our moral authority. And your proof EIT “creates more terrorists” is? None, because you have none. You have a DNC talking point Islamic terrorists have been at war with us for many years.
The right, conservatives or whatever they like to be called, live in a vacumn. It’s pretty simple logic. They make things up things out of thin air to support the most ridiculous arguments and then really really believe them. Torture can’t be illegal because the law was changed to make it legal or appear legal. That’s the conservative line of thinking. That and FOX News, Rush, 24 and anything that deals with military, jingoism, Anglo American Christian supremacy,etc-we can go on and on. Any smart rational person doesn’t even have to put in 2 seconds of thought knows that it doesn’t work. If you twist my arm enough I’ll tap out. Waterboard me, mock burials, take away my sleep and I’ll tell you anything that want to hear. It’s pretty simple logic, even top military interrogators who typically lean conservative politically will tell you that it doesn’t work. Jesus and Reagan can come down and say that totrture is illegal, free markets are bad and conservatives will lash out against them, it’s silly because they just stand for something no matter how wrong it is.
Tubalcain, please enlighten us by identifying which specific EITs were torture and thus by definition incapable of eliciting information of value. Also please cite the specific legal basis.
A couple points are in order regarding waterboarding detainees.
First, waterboarding is used on US servicemen during training, specifically at SERES school and BUDS. While it creates the sensation of drowning and induces panic, it does not cause permanent harm. I know people who have been through waterboarding and they are not permanently harmed.
Second, intel gleaned by EITs is cross-referenced with other sources of intel to determine its accuracy. It also is used to identify other targets for our intel services to watch. Based on arguments I have read against EITs it is clear that some people equate intel garnered using EITs and confessions to a crime obtained using torture. This is comparing apples and oranges.
Third, the people being interrogated are not regular soldiers wearing uniforms and complying themselves with the Geneva convention. They are zealots who fight in civilian clothing, target unarmed civilians and hide behind civilians. Their past attacks in the US and Europe have targeted city centers where they would achieve the greatest shock value and greatest number of civilian casualties.
Would it be ok if I linked to this blog? could you also please the correct rss feed link as I can’t get it to display. Great blog BTW!
Suck my ****!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1
Thanks, ha! Where’s the subscribe button?
I agree with everything that was posted in this article, I
Agreed!