Here’s the Latest Evidence Torture Doesn’t Keep Us Safe

[joG]

Exactly.
Just like, as you said above, a ten year old. Are we ready to have a fourth grader in charge?

We have something similar now and it is bad. Another round would be potentially catastrophic.

 

[joG]

Which handbook are you referring to? A specific version of the Army Field Manual?

Let's look at what the US has actually done:
• Rectal feeding (not based on medical need)
• Rectal rehydration (not based on medical need)
• Confinement to a box, to restrict movement
• Detainee was stripped, wrapped in plastic, and submerged in cold water
• Induced hypothermia (this killed Gul Rahman, an Afghan militant, in 2002)
• sleep deprivation
• auditory overload
• total isolation
• stripping and shackling detainees
• Waterboarding: "strapping the individual to a tilted board, with legs above their head, placing a cloth over their face, covering their nose and mouth. Water is then poured continuously over the cloth to prevent breathing, simulate drowning and induce panic... for 40 seconds," up to a dozen times a day (i.e. simulated drowning)
• beatings, such as "facial holds" and "insult slaps;" one detainee described getting his head banged into a pillar repeatedly
• slamming detainees into walls
• threats of sexual violence to detainees and their family members
How the CIA tortured its detainees | US news | The Guardian

To say this does not amount to torture is, to put it mildly, an abuse of semantics. There is little doubt that these are examples of inducing suffering in order to force the individual to confess and/or divulge information.

I mean, really. How else is this supposed to work? Do you think simulated drowning works because it's fun for the detainee?



So does ruling out a method of torture, basically only because it was used by the United States government.

There is also no dignity in torture.



You mean like this?

Waterboarding the Brain – The Neural Effects of Enhanced Interrogation Techniques | Brain Blogger
https://metinbasoglu.wordpress.com/2012/12/25/waterboarding-is-severe-torture-research-findings/
https://www.cgu.edu/pdffiles/sbos/costanzo_effects_of_interrogation.pdf

It also sounds like you, and other torture supporters, aren't interested in even a cursory look at the reams of data which indicate that torture doesn't work. And if you're still going to be fussy about the semantics: EIT doesn't work either.



Funny, that's what I'd like to ask you.

You might not like these methods and it would most probably have been better to approach interrogation differently. And you will most certainly find that there are a lot of propagandists and malevolent populists around that will write the script for your opinion and applaud it, when they see you following their lead. But to call those things torture, at least the ones I have looked at with more precision, is stupid, unless one wants to blur the lines. Unless one is willing to degrade the meaning of the word and be repulsive to those that have been tortured in a real sense for one's own purposes and political agenda. I understand Rt or Putin's people calling waterboarding of the prescribed type torture. But someone without a personal political motive? It is disgustingly negligent.

 

[Dittohead not!]

We have something similar now and it is bad. Another round would be potentially catastrophic.

You don't have to agree with Obama's political ideology to see that he is light years ahead of Donald Trump in the maturity category. It's like a constitutional law professor vs. a fourth grader. There really is no comparison.

 

[bmr528]

I recall the antics of a Chicago radio personality, I think named Mad Cow, who had claimed that waterboarding was NOT torture. Being an honest and open-minded individual it seems, he agreed to be waterboarded and video in the process. He lasted about 5 seconds.

Afterwards he changed his position 180 degrees and said that by any measure it WAS torture.

I bet that "Mad Cow" would have squealed like a pig & giving up any info that they may have wanted to extract from him


djl

 

[Visbek]

You might not like these methods and it would most probably have been better to approach interrogation differently. And you will most certainly find that there are a lot of propagandists and malevolent populists around that will write the script for your opinion and applaud it, when they see you following their lead. But to call those things torture, at least the ones I have looked at with more precision, is stupid, unless one wants to blur the lines. Unless one is willing to degrade the meaning of the word and be repulsive to those that have been tortured in a real sense for one's own purposes and political agenda. I understand Rt or Putin's people calling waterboarding of the prescribed type torture. But someone without a personal political motive? It is disgustingly negligent.

1) Repetition is not an argument.


2) You are clearly declaring people biased not based on any sort of analysis of the studies, but on the conclusions they drew. Try again.


3) "What I like" is not relevant. The questions are:
a) Does it work?
b) Is it ethical?

The answer to both happens to be "no." If it were practical and unethical, then I'd approach the issue differently.


4) IMO the "disgusting negligence" and "malevolence" is when someone refused to accept that waterboarding, sleep deprivation, and stress positions -- which evidence shows causes suffering and mental distress on both a short-term and long-term basis -- is somehow "not torture." It is obvious that they want to punish people accused of attacking the US without any sort of due process, in flagrant opposition to a key value of the American people.

It's also evident to me that the "propagandists" here are the ones who ignore the evidence, and advocate for torture anyway.


5) By the way, where is your evidence that torture works? Has anyone done an independent systemic analysis of the use of torture/EIT by the United States, and verified that it produced high rates of verifiable and actionable intelligence? No. All we get is officials claiming "it works" without proving anything.


6) It is not "degrading" to note that waterboarding is less physically damaging than other forms of torture -- because the damage is psychological. It is still a form of suffering; it has short-term and long-term effects.

You are basically saying "the rack caused more pain than thumbscrews, therefore thumbscrews are not torture." It's an absurd argument.


7) Again, explain to me: How does waterboarding allegedly force a confession, if not by inducing suffering?

 

[Visbek]

I recall the antics of a Chicago radio personality, I think named Mad Cow, who had claimed that waterboarding was NOT torture. Being an honest and open-minded individual it seems, he agreed to be waterboarded and video in the process. He lasted about 5 seconds.

Afterwards he changed his position 180 degrees and said that by any measure it WAS torture.

Apparently, it was Mancow.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qUkj9pjx3H0

"I do not want to say this, but: Absolutely torture."

I bet that "Mad Cow" would have squealed like a pig & giving up any info that they may have wanted to extract from him.

Or, he would have said whatever he thought they wanted to hear. At that moment, all he wants to do is make it stop. If telling a lie will do that, he'll do it.

 

[joG]

You don't have to agree with Obama's political ideology to see that he is light years ahead of Donald Trump in the maturity category. It's like a constitutional law professor vs. a fourth grader. There really is no comparison.

It doesn't seem to help that Obama is a law professor. As a matter of fact, I have the feeling that that has made his tenure worse. But the major problem is in the international field, where he has been a disappointment at the very best. TTIP is not in place and a new world order is further away than it was, when Bush left office. It is really bad.
That Trump would be no better and possibly worse is quite true.

 

[joG]

1) Repetition is not an argument.


2) You are clearly declaring people biased not based on any sort of analysis of the studies, but on the conclusions they drew. Try again.


3) "What I like" is not relevant. The questions are:
a) Does it work?
b) Is it ethical?

The answer to both happens to be "no." If it were practical and unethical, then I'd approach the issue differently.


4) IMO the "disgusting negligence" and "malevolence" is when someone refused to accept that waterboarding, sleep deprivation, and stress positions -- which evidence shows causes suffering and mental distress on both a short-term and long-term basis -- is somehow "not torture." It is obvious that they want to punish people accused of attacking the US without any sort of due process, in flagrant opposition to a key value of the American people.

It's also evident to me that the "propagandists" here are the ones who ignore the evidence, and advocate for torture anyway.


5) By the way, where is your evidence that torture works? Has anyone done an independent systemic analysis of the use of torture/EIT by the United States, and verified that it produced high rates of verifiable and actionable intelligence? No. All we get is officials claiming "it works" without proving anything.


6) It is not "degrading" to note that waterboarding is less physically damaging than other forms of torture -- because the damage is psychological. It is still a form of suffering; it has short-term and long-term effects.

You are basically saying "the rack caused more pain than thumbscrews, therefore thumbscrews are not torture." It's an absurd argument.


7) Again, explain to me: How does waterboarding allegedly force a confession, if not by inducing suffering?

Do enhanced methods improve information flow? They can. Using studies like the one at the beginning of the thread to show otherwise only demonstrates that one has never thought about the matter nor read very much at all.

And as I told someone else here. Try having yourself waterboarded as prescribed for enhanced interrogation. I have done so. If someone calls that torture she is lying or naive.

 

[Dittohead not!]

It doesn't seem to help that Obama is a law professor. As a matter of fact, I have the feeling that that has made his tenure worse. But the major problem is in the international field, where he has been a disappointment at the very best. TTIP is not in place and a new world order is further away than it was, when Bush left office. It is really bad.
That Trump would be no better and possibly worse is quite true.

Almost certainly worse. Obama is respected abroad. The Scots voted to ban Trump from their country.

A new world order being further away is a good thing. Beware of people who talk of a "new world order" imposed by force of arms.

 

[RetiredNSmilin]

No "stressor" is better than a Fairbain-Sykes dagger up the pee hole.

or the hollow glass tube up the pee hole and then threaten to smash it.

The Iraqis like to make people eat their own turds.

The Russians are fond of sleep deprivation and burying you in gravel up to your neck in winter.

The Americans enjoy water boarding and the old crank generator on the balls.

The Nicaraguans like the small coke bottle up the ass that develops a suction so the only way it is removed is by breaking it.

The Vietnamese prefer their tiger cages and split bamboo beat sticks that tear and cut with every stroke.

The Koreans like to double tap you with two on either side with radiator belts and beat you till your ass and back are hamburger.

Yes, the whole world if full of lovely people, each beautiful in their own special way.

 

[joG]

Almost certainly worse. Obama is respected abroad. The Scots voted to ban Trump from their country.

A new world order being further away is a good thing. Beware of people who talk of a "new world order" imposed by force of arms.

You don't have to impress on me that Trump is not the person we need at the helm. He is close to as bad as we could do. But it is not so important, that the world likes the American President. They hated Reagan who won the Cold War and loved Obama.

Beware of people that don't realize that a new world order is existentially important, that the window of opportunity is closing rapidly and might have already been lost by Obama's lack of experience. We didn't need, you see, a lawyerly social worker, but person with a firm grasp of international security, history and policy.

PS: Trump is disliked abroad and nobody takes Obama serious anymore. At this moment the US looks increasingly unreliable as an ally, planlessly naive and incapable of strategic constancy. The man with the red lines has really done a job on the respect we had.

 

[Dittohead not!]

You don't have to impress on me that Trump is not the person we need at the helm. He is close to as bad as we could do. But it is not so important, that the world likes the American President. They hated Reagan who won the Cold War and loved Obama.

Beware of people that don't realize that a new world order is existentially important, that the window of opportunity is closing rapidly and might have already been lost by Obama's lack of experience. We didn't need, you see, a lawyerly social worker, but person with a firm grasp of international security, history and policy.

PS: Trump is disliked abroad and nobody takes Obama serious anymore. At this moment the US looks increasingly unreliable as an ally, planlessly naive and incapable of strategic constancy. The man with the red lines has really done a job on the respect we had.

This despite the decline of ISIS under his leadership?

His "red line in the sand" was a bad idea, no question, but then nothing he has done comes even close to the decision to invade Iraq.

 

[joG]

This despite the decline of ISIS under his leadership?

His "red line in the sand" was a bad idea, no question, but then nothing he has done comes even close to the decision to invade Iraq.

It might appear that way and I do not think that the invasion is the point right now. But one thing that the invasion did do was to make a large number of countries understand the necessity of a new world order and willing to pitch in creating it. Pity is, that Obama wasted the opportunity and has helped major old fashioned adversaries of a supranational order gain ground and power.

 

[Dittohead not!]

It might appear that way and I do not think that the invasion is the point right now. But one thing that the invasion did do was to make a large number of countries understand the necessity of a new world order and willing to pitch in creating it. Pity is, that Obama wasted the opportunity and has helped major old fashioned adversaries of a supranational order gain ground and power.

If what we're seeing today in Iraq and Syria is the "new world order", I'll take the old world order any day.

 

[joG]

If what we're seeing today in Iraq and Syria is the "new world order", I'll take the old world order any day.

Very right. But it isn't. It is the traditional world order.

 

[Thoreau72]

I just listened to the passages, but must have missed that sentence.

You just listened to all the passages of statements made by Trump in the last 6 months? Sorry Charlie, I find that hard to believe.

 

[Dittohead not!]

Very right. But it isn't. It is the traditional world order.

Right. The new world order would see a lot more US troops in Iraq and Syria getting shot and coming home to live on the streets. We might have invaded yet another country by now, maybe Iran.

 

[joG]

You just listened to all the passages of statements made by Trump in the last 6 months? Sorry Charlie, I find that hard to believe.

Nope. Probably not. Only the ones that Google turned up concerning this topic.

 

[joG]

Right. The new world order would see a lot more US troops in Iraq and Syria getting shot and coming home to live on the streets. We might have invaded yet another country by now, maybe Iran.

Not at all. It would see a supranationally organized force doing security and r2p.

 

[Dittohead not!]

Not at all. It would see a supranationally organized force doing security and r2p.

Really?
Who would organize this supranational force?

 

[joG]

Really?
Who would organize this supranational force?

That is exactly the challenge that we have avoided for the past 7 years.

 

[Dittohead not!]

That is exactly the challenge that we have avoided for the past 7 years.

It must be longer than that.
The only supranational force we've seen is the UN in Iraq, and that went away back in '03.

 

[joG]

It must be longer than that.
The only supranational force we've seen is the UN in Iraq, and that went away back in '03.

At that time, the US was actually preparing to do something about a new world order and had started pushing for r2p, albeit missed by most in the public.

 

[Thoreau72]

Nope. Probably not. Only the ones that Google turned up concerning this topic.

Yep, if it ain't on Google, it didn't happen. :doh

 

[joG]

Yep, if it ain't on Google, it didn't happen. :doh

I find going to the library a little too more than this question calls for. But since you did the bad mouthing, you probably want to do the underlying.