http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/08/AR2007120801664.html?hpid=topnews
How disgusting. At least four representatives, including Nancy Pelosi, were taken on tours of detention facilities and given graphic descriptions of interrogation techniques. None objected.
Their defense: We were caught up in the atmosphere of 9-11.
What kind of leader do you claim to be when you lose sight of your principles because of catastrophe. During crisis is when you need to stand strong. What a meek excuse.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
23 comments:
It's very good that Pelosi recognized that natural security was more important than being kind to enemies. It would be distressing if she held -- when it counted -- the opposite position, opposing the taking of life or inflicting of pain on our enemies for instrumental reasons.
Besides the fact that most people held in Guantanamo are eventually found to have zero ties to any terrorist activity there is a substanatial amount of evidence suggesting that torture is not an effective tool for getting information from people who actually have information. And of course there's the moral argument as well as the harm it does to America's image globally.
I think we can both agree that it is shameful that she now pretends as if she's been a steadfast opponent of torture. Oh politicians.
Besides the fact that most people held in Guantanamo are eventually found to have zero ties to any terrorist activity there is a substanatial amount of evidence suggesting that torture is not an effective tool for getting information from people who actually have information.
I was unaware of this. Refernce?
More broadly, false positives and false negatives exist in any activity, and such false reports that lead to injury exist in any war.
According to a lecture given at Hendrix College by Major Tom Fleener, a military defense lawyer in Guantanamo, 94% of detainees in Guantanamo were detaineed without any prior evidence of terrorist links. Essentially, house cleaning and angry neighbors lead to an inordinate amount of detainees spending years in detention facilities.
Here are two specific examples - http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4504292.stm and http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A3868-2005Mar26
"No good intelligence is going to come from abusive practices. I think that history tells us that. I think empirical evidence of the last five years tells us that." - Deputy Chief of Staff for Intelligence Lt. General Kimmons.
According to Julian Barnes in the Los Angelas Times in 2006 - Torture is an "innefective means of extracting information." And it is the military consensus that that is a fact.
According to a lecture given at Hendrix College by Major Tom Fleener, a military defense lawyer in Guantanamo, 94% of detainees in Guantanamo were detaineed without any prior evidence of terrorist links. Essentially, house cleaning and angry neighbors lead to an inordinate amount of detainees spending years in detention facilities.
Here are two specific examples - http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4504292.stm and http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A3868-2005Mar26
"No good intelligence is going to come from abusive practices. I think that history tells us that. I think empirical evidence of the last five years tells us that." - Deputy Chief of Staff for Intelligence Lt. General Kimmons.
According to Julian Barnes in the Los Angelas Times in 2006 - Torture is an "innefective means of extracting information." And it is the military consensus that that is a fact.
J,
Aside from citing a lecture as an authoritative source, you didn't provide a reference to what I asked. I asked for a reference to the claim that "most people held in G-mo are eventually found to have zero ties to any terrorist activity," and you provide source claiming that most of those people "were detained without any prior evidence of terrorist links."
Well, obviously. Most murderers who are arrested do not have previous links to murder.
According to Julian Barnes in the Los Angelas Times in 2006 - Torture is an "innefective means of extracting information." And it is the military consensus that that is a fact.
If such a consensus exist, isn't this an academic argument -- after all, there is a military consensus that muskets are an ineffective weapon, so the military does not use muskets.
Are you seriously suggesting that because information is given in a lecture that it isn't as valid as an article or wikipedia? Sorry for attending a lecutre given by an expert on the detainees at Guantanamo. Someone who has access to classified material and someone who actually talks to the detainees and the interrogaters. If that's not authoratative then what is.
I think it's obvious that there's a huge problem if 94% of the suspects are brought in without any US evidence relating them to terror. But, since that as well as the two links with specific examples of people isn't enough here's some more information - http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15361740/
"Out of roughly 775 detainees who have come to Guantanamo, former leaders of the Pentagon's Criminal Investigation Task Force said they were able to develop credible criminal cases against only about 100." That seems like an awful lot who had not credible links. Of those only "10 have been certified by the president to face trial." When only 10-100 detainees have credible links to terror it becomes clear then that most don't.
If any are convicted here's something about how credible the convictions are - http://www.wsws.org/articles/2004/jan2004/mori-j30.shtml
In regards to the previous links to murder comment - But these suspects are arrested and held based off of information collected - something that isn't a reality for 94% of Guantanamo suspects.
Military Consensus - With regards to the Deputy Chief of Staff for Intellegence Lt. Gen. Kimmons comment that I mentioned earlier I think it becomes apparent what the Intelligence community thinks of torture's effectiveness.
Arresting or temporarily detaining murder suspects that turn out to be innocent is vastly different than indefinitely detaining and sometimes torturing innocent terrorist suspects. It is not a good idea to torture any of the approximately 600 detainees that did not have any terrorist links. Besides the moral dilemna that seems to be avoided here, we do not need innocents who were tortured going back home filled with resentment. Do you support torturing innocents?
"
I think it's obvious that there's a huge problem if 94% of the suspects are brought in without any US evidence relating them to terror."
It would be, but you haven't demonstrated that. You've demonstrated the majority are brought any without any prior evidence relating them to terror.
"In regards to the previous links to murder comment - But these suspects are arrested and held based off of information collected - something that isn't a reality for 94% of Guantanamo suspects."
"Military Consensus - With regards to the Deputy Chief of Staff for Intellegence Lt. Gen. Kimmons comment that I mentioned earlier I think it becomes apparent what the Intelligence community thinks of torture's effectiveness."
As I argued before:
If such a consensus exist, isn't this an academic argument -- after all, there is a military consensus that muskets are an ineffective weapon, so the military does not use muskets.
If such a consensus actually exists against torture, then there would not be torture at any apprecable rate.
"Besides the moral dilemna that seems to be avoided here, we do not need innocents who were tortured going back home filled with resentment"
Indeed, and besides the moral dilemma that resutls from US bombing campaigns, we do not need innocents being burried by family members filled with resentment.
"Do you support torturing innocents?"
No. And I do not support bombing innocents, either.
I think the consensus does exist. The CIA hasn't used waterboarding since 2003. Much of the abuse and torture seems to be coming from prison guards rather than interrogators. I think we can agree that the guards shouldn't be torturing detainees. When interrogators themselves are questioning the tacticts we should probably listen to them instead of the President.
J,
Your most recent comment does not defend the points you made in the post. In the post you refer to "graphic descriptions of interrogation techniques." However, in your most recent comment you criticize torture as a tool for prison guards.
"If such a consensus actually exists against torture, then there would not be torture at any apprecable rate."
I responded by mentioning that water bording has not been used by interrogators since 2003.
Then I mentioned that a lot of the torture going on is done by prison guards. It was just a side reference to who carries out torture. But I still answered your orignal point.
To let me reorient: you are arguing that torture is unacceptable as an interrogation method even in rare circumstances? (I ask this because you appear to grant that it is not used as a regular or common method.)
It may not be a regular practice anymore, but that doesn't mean it still doesn't happen unnecessarily.
In the rarest of incidents, if somehow it could prevent a major attack, then torture should be considered with the gravest of thought. But, the rarity of the instance is up for opinion, leading to possible abuse. It really needs to be monitered better, and destroying tapes certainly isn't the way to do it. I have problems when detainees are tortured without some impending doom about to occur. Hopefully, that practice has been curtailed recently. It looks like it has with so many intillegence agents coming out of the woodwork.
J,
"but that doesn't mean it still doesn't happen unnecessarily."
Such is true for al things.
"In the rarest of incidents, if somehow it could prevent a major attack, then torture should be considered with the gravest of thought."
I think this is the important part: torture is part of the interragator's toolkit.
Once the absolute moral argument is exploded, we get into the realm of technical appropriateness.
"But, the rarity of the instance is up for opinion, leading to possible abuse. "
Indeed. The same goes for any rules of engagement.
"It really needs to be monitered better, and destroying tapes certainly isn't the way to do it."
Perhaps, though having worked with documentation destruction enough, I know it may serve a valuable purpose.
"I have problems when detainees are tortured without some impending doom about to occur."
Certainly the harm of any American or American interest is "some impending doom."
What rational do you give for the destruction of the CIA tapes?
I don't think a single American life possibly being affected warrants torture.. If someone was witnessed putting a dirty bomb down, then torture may be considered. Taking an insurgent off a battlefield in Iraq and torturing him isn't what I had in mind.
"What rational do you give for the destruction of the CIA tapes?
I didn't give any. I said documentation destruction can be a wise policy.
"I don't think a single American life possibly being affected warrants torture.."
This sounds like a fundamental policy disagreement: how much do you value an American life? How much do you value not hurting someone captured in a warzone?
There are questions of responsibility and mercy going both ways.
"If someone was witnessed putting a dirty bomb down, then torture may be considered. Taking an insurgent off a battlefield in Iraq and torturing him isn't what I had in mind.""
Again, the important thing (and what I have been arguing) is there is no valid universalist arguments against torture. As you get down in technique -- or even general questions of policy, such as a value of American lives v. enemy fighter pain -- you get either into questions that non-experts are not equipped to handle, or do not have simple answers.
Writing "documenation destruction can be a wise policy" seems like a defense of CIA tape destruction. Just a miscommunication I suppose.
You wrote:
"It really needs to be monitered better, and destroying tapes certainly isn't the way to do it. "
My response was against this absolutist criticism of document destruction.
are you of the opinion that destroying the cia tapes somehow increased monitering capability of the cia's actions?
"are you of the opinion that destroying the cia tapes somehow increased monitoring capability of the cia's actions?"
I don't know.
Again, you're making an absolutist claim, and I'm not sure how you can defend that claim.
I'm not sure how you can defend the idea that destroying a video tape that was supposed to be reviewed increases monitering.
"I'm not sure how you can defend the idea that destroying a video tape that was supposed to be reviewed increases monitering."
I'm not. You're making a positive claim, not me.
Post a Comment