Senate report on CIA torture techniques released

[Jimbuna]

This matter could well have far reaching consequences over the long term for America on the international stage but it begs the question....how many other countries have and are acting in a similar fashion?

[ikalugin]

Originally Posted by Jimbuna

This matter could well have far reaching consequences over the long term for America on the international stage but it begs the question....how many other countries have and are acting in a similar fashion?

Ie applying torture? Depending on the definition (as some methods of torture leave little if any permanent marks) most countries do to some degree or another.

Certainly a number of US allies does - such as the Gulf States.

[August]

Originally Posted by ikalugin

Ie applying torture? Depending on the definition (as some methods of torture leave little if any permanent marks) most countries do to some degree or another.

Certainly a number of US allies does - such as the Gulf States.

I note that you don't have much to say about your own country. People that live in glass houses and all that...

[Skybird]

This also seems to support my old argument that torture only has a chance to make sense - ignoring all moral aspects here - if the answer obtained could be immediately checked and so valsified or verified. Else the subject will tell just anything to escape the agony. If the subject knows that the truth or lie of its statements will be immediately revealed and so a lie will not mean escape from pain, the situation is a very different one immediately, an dit also immediately limits the situation where torture may provide some usefulness, assuming the severity of the issue it all is about indeed makes it morally defendable to consider torture (which like death "penalty" I consider to be as something that is in no way part of the ordinary tool kit of fighting crime and terrorism). - Report was summarised by media to conclude that there has been little or no useful information being obtained by the CIA in these sessions.

Apropos agony, somebody again questioned that certain things that5 do not leave bleeding scars on the body and see the flesh being snibbled off the bone, would be torture. Imposing agony on the body and soul (waterboarding), or pushing the subject physically beyond breaking point (sleep prevention) IS torture for sure.

As usual, I do not 100% rule out torture under every imaginable circumstance. But I recommend to mostly stay away from it. The dilemma is best described in this movie that I referred to in earlier years already, one of the Dirty Harry movies. The kidnapped girl is in a box somewhere, suffocating, the perpetrator knows where she is, and is in custody. What do you rate higher in this setting? The intererst of the villain laughing in your face while the girl dies - or the right of the girl to live and get freed, at the cost of the villain's rights being violated and pain inflicted on him to make him hand over the information?. In such a clear setting, the choice if as clear for me: victim's interests rule higher than bad guy's interests.

In Germany, there was a crime case some years ago, the kidnapping of a boy whose parents were millionaires. The criminal was caught, to me an clear case of very severe psychopathic personality structure, with zero space for any empathy for others, or emotional life. The responsible police inspector threatened to beat him if he would not tell them where he had hidden his victim. In fact, it did not go beyond the threatening. The subject was successfully intimidated and led them were the boy was held, but it was too late, he was dead. Later the man sued the police inspector over charges of threatening excessive force and even violation of human rights (his own violation of his victim's rights he never lost a word for), if I remember correctly, this bastard went as far as the European Courts. Disciplinary measure also were exceuted by th auhtorities by themselves. The inspector, as far as I remember, was sentenced (a scandal, imo) for a suspended milder penalty. Justice fled from making a clear moral statement here: on behalf of the victims, and against the criminal perpetrators.

These days everything, even good and evil, need to be balanced 50:50 and need to be seen in relation, it seems. Pfui.

[Dread Knot]

Originally Posted by Skybird

In Germany, there was a crime case some years ago, the kidnapping of a boy whose parents were millionaires. The criminal was caught, to me an clear case of very severe psychopathic personality structure, with zero space for any empathy for others, or emotional life. The responsible police inspector threatened to beat him if he would not tell them where he had hidden his victim. In fact, it did not go beyond the threatening. The subject was successfully intimidated and led them were the boy was held, but it was too late, he was dead. Later the man sued the police inspector over charges of threatening excessive force and even violation of human rights (his own violation of his victim's rights he never lost a word for), if I remember correctly, this bastard went as far as the European Courts. Disciplinary measure also were exceuted by th auhtorities by themselves. The inspector, as far as I remember, was sentenced (a scandal, imo) for a suspended milder penalty. Justice fled from making a clear moral statement here: on behalf of the victims, and against the criminal perpetrators.

These days everything, even good and evil, need to be balanced 50:50 and need to be seen in relation, it seems. Pfui.

In the war on terrorism you often heard the argument framed as: "if you knew a nuclear device were going to go off in six hours, would you torture a suspect to find out where it is?"

Such statements are entirely bogus, of course. All of them presuppose that torture works. There's never any argument to the effect that the torture subject will happily feed you a diet of red herrings for a few hours that will actually divert resources away from finding the bomb, deceasing the probability that you will find it in time. It seems to me an interrogation subject in such a situation would be inclined to be a tougher nut to crack than average, because he only has to endure for a few hours to achieve what he would regard as a monumental success and maybe a ticket to paradise. His ultimate payoff. Unlike the kidnapper who motives were only monetary and since he's been caught he's never going to see his payoff at this point.

[ikalugin]

Note - I use word "torture" to cover a wide range of pressuring interrogation techniques (for example popularised sensory deprivation could be seen as mental torture, you could use various drugs and so on), torture though pain (especially though crippling injuries) even though (sadly) it is common is not (a proper, professional) way to go.

As such - those interrogation techniques are effective and were (still are and in the future will be) used by majority of the states in the world (and non state actors), who have a requirement for this. Thus I cannot say that it is uncivilised, provided there is a legal structure to effectively regulate this. This is so because currently a number of punitive measures (such as arrest) are already available before trial and hence any interrogation technique that is aimed at finding out facts (not pressuring the suspect to admit to a crime) and does not cause lasting damage could be conditionally justified.

[Rockstar]

How many people in that report were said to have died from torture?

In every war it is known a number of people fighting it lose their sense of direction and go off the reservation embarrassing their fellow countrymen. These should by all means face the consequences for their actions.

But what blows my mind is the very same names and politicians busting on the CIA for what I believe are a few loose cannons are the same ones who think it their solemn duty to launch drone strikes which have killed more than suspected terrorists.

Obama recently told The New Yorker that he "wrestle[s]" with civilian casualties. But, he said, he has "a solemn duty and responsibility to keep the American people safe. That’s my most important obligation as President and Commander-in-Chief. And there are individuals and groups out there that are intent on killing Americans -- killing American civilians, killing American children, blowing up American planes."

Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International issued a pair of reports in October fiercely criticizing the secrecy that shrouds the administration's drone program, and calling for investigations into the deaths of drone victims with no apparent connection to terrorism. In Pakistan alone, TBIJ estimates, between 416 and 951 civilians, including 168 to 200 children, have been killed.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/0...n_4654825.html


We are in a world of (poop)

[MH]

Originally Posted by Rockstar

How many people in that report were said to have died from torture?

In every war it is known a number of people fighting it lose their sense of direction and go off the reservation embarrassing their fellow countrymen. These should by all means face the consequences for their actions.

But what blows my mind is the very same names and politicians busting on the CIA for what I believe are a few loose cannons are the same ones who think it their solemn duty to launch drone strikes which have killed more than suspected terrorists.



http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/0...n_4654825.html


We are in a world of (poop)

The reason is that this torture issue is very much political issue in USA and not only... and some people need promotions while others don't want to get fired or put on trial.
I believe it is similar case with this report , while it may be correct in the context it was written it is not entirely accurate and objective on the issue.
It very much serves ideology of current administration.
Not that I personally justify mass torture , the USA as it seems lost the proportions a bit.

Such statements are entirely bogus, of course. All of them presuppose that torture works. There's never any argument to the effect that the torture subject will happily feed you a diet of red herrings for a few hours that will actually divert resources away from finding the bomb.....

Again... the issue is about the portability of acquiring information.
I believe that the people who do this kind of stuff are not less smart that you and take certain things into consideration -including goose chase.
What do you mean by wasting resources?

[Rockstar]

Originally Posted by MH

The reason is that this torture issue is very much political issue in USA and not only... and some people need promotions while others don't want to get fired or put on trial.
I believe it is similar case with this report , while it may be correct in the context it was written it is not entirely accurate and objective on the issue.
It very much serves ideology of current administration.
Not that I personally justify mass torture , the USA as it seems lost the proportions a bit.

I read the report and I do understand this is simply political hay at others expense, namely at the expense of an entire agency and country. It's the hypocrisy that on one hand they publically blame an entire agency for the misdeeds of a few. Then turn right around launch a drone against 'suspected' terrorist targets killing them and their wives and children as well. And have the audacity to tell me it was their solemn duty to so.

The report didn't have jack-squat to do with the good of the nation, it wasn't for justice, or for better regulations. It is just simply good ol' fashioned divisiveness.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Dread Knot

In the war on terrorism you often heard the argument framed as: "if you knew a nuclear device were going to go off in six hours, would you torture a suspect to find out where it is?"

Such statements are entirely bogus, of course. All of them presuppose that torture works. There's never any argument to the effect that the torture subject will happily feed you a diet of red herrings for a few hours that will actually divert resources away from finding the bomb, deceasing the probability that you will find it in time. It seems to me an interrogation subject in such a situation would be inclined to be a tougher nut to crack than average, because he only has to endure for a few hours to achieve what he would regard as a monumental success and maybe a ticket to paradise. His ultimate payoff. Unlike the kidnapper who motives were only monetary and since he's been caught he's never going to see his payoff at this point.

Only endure a few hours, you say. Serious...? Then you do not know what you are talking about when talking about torture.

Many years ago, I volunteered in an aid project for torture victims from the Balkans. They were shuttled my a doctor's initiative to several facilities in Germany and think Denmark. I save you the grim detials of some things I learned there, just this: that some of the troths I learned there broke a usually well-hidden corner in my soul, and that it was some of the toughest time IU ever spend on anything.

EVERYBODY has a breaking point. And that point is reached the earlier the more unscrupulous and unrestrained pain is inflicted on him.

"Just enduring a few hours"? You couldn't be more wrong.

People can hold out if they see a meaning in it. "He who has a Why to live for, bears almost every How", Viktor Frankl said (translated from the German), a survivor of the KZs and founder of the so-called Logotherapy. Take away that meaning from them, and they find it so much easier toi collapse early.

A bad guy wanting to play for time, sees a chance to do that when knowing that his lies buys him that time and gives him a timeout from the application of pain. So far you are right, then, it makes little sense to torture him if you cannot evaluate his answers relatively close in time to the situation he is in. Very short time, that is. However, if the xcase is about an informaiton nthat can be verified so quickly that the subject knows that he cannot buy himself any releif time when lying, the situaiton is a completely different one. Needless to say: that difference dramatically reduces the number of situations with circumstances where thus the use of torture could mean to make a difference (assuming that the severity of the case at stake justifies the consideration of torture, which - as I said - I would fall back to only in the fewest of cases. It should never be a routine tool from the ordinary tool box of fighting crime or terror or a war opponent.

However, realistically seen one always has to expect that torture will be used in eras of war and civil wars, on a great scale, and not just to win information, but even often to just wage war against the civil population. Which was the case on the Balkan. That is what at first I struggled to understand: that those people that had the core of their being removed from their souls - were no interrogated or asked questions, but just were tortured, and then released. No questions asked.

When you really think you can endure torture to win time, then you imply that the torturer knows limits and scruples. Talking about limited torture then. When the subject faces a torturer not knowing such scruples - then the universe around collapses for that poor thing.

Bäh. Very ugly and evil things we are speaking about. I stop it here.

[ikalugin]

Originally Posted by Skybird

When you really think you can endure torture to win time, then you imply that the torturer knows limits and scruples. Talking about limited torture then. When the subject faces a torturer not knowing such scruples - then the universe around collapses for that poor thing.

Bäh. Very ugly and evil things we are speaking about. I stop it here.

If you kill the suspect then you gain nothing. So a good interrogator would never pass the line where the suspect can no longer answer. Be that from not using extreme measures or just excellent medical support, he doesn't get the suspect killed (or permanently damaged).

And good interrogator would have said medical support even if there are no damaging techniques (the ones I believe are unethical and pointless anyway) used, as medics can provide both the wealth of information (psychological analysis for example) and aids (such as various drugs) in addition to the good care for the person in question.

[Schroeder]

Originally Posted by ikalugin

And good interrogator would have said medical support even if there are no damaging techniques (the ones I believe are unethical and pointless anyway) used, as medics can provide both the wealth of information (psychological analysis for example) and aids (such as various drugs) in addition to the good care for the person in question.

That sounds just plain disgusting. Sugarcoating of it's best.
They take good care of the subject, nothing wrong going on here, move along...*scream in the background*

[Oberon]

[ikalugin]

Originally Posted by Schroeder

That sounds just plain disgusting. Sugarcoating of it's best.
They take good care of the subject, nothing wrong going on here, move along...*scream in the background*

If torture is permitted (or it has to be not only banned, but that ban uniformly enforced), then I believe that well executed interrogation without permanent damage (and thus without the likelihood of the suspect dying during it), with proper legal process (ie such methods are specifically sanctioned, clear rules exist and they are uniformly enforced, in a way not dissimilar with the arrest), with compensation and rehabilitation should the suspect be found to be not guilty, is the way to go.

Otherwise, without regulation (or uniformly enforced ban), what you get is a dysfunctional (doesn't get the results) and open to misuse (because it is done secretly, without clear cut rules) instrument.

[Bilge_Rat]

Again you have to look at the political context, Feinstein is releasing it now because in january the Republicans take over and she loses the spotlight. I perused both the Democratic main report and the Republican minority report, impossible to read completely since it is close to 1,000 pages, but as usual the Democrats and the Press are sensationalizing the issue.

example:

-main report/Press report that EITs are useless and yielded no useful info, yet the minority report points out several instances where EITs yielded valuable info leading to arrest of top Al Qaida suspects and foiling terrorist plots.

-main report/Press report that the CIA lied to the WH and kept info secret. As the min report points out, the CIA always acted under direct orders from WH and top WH officials were kept fully informed. Even the top Congressional leaders were briefed!

-what is most interesting is that EITs were only used for a short period of time, apparently "waterboarding" was only used for a few months in 2002-03 and only on 3 individuals.