 |
US General duped over Guantanamo Bay – Telegraph — What amuses me is that observers of torture practices go on and on about how it is not effective for gathering information. Does anyone ever consider the possibility that the officials who approved it think that it is just plain fun or find it personally amusing? Seems likely. |
Mr Sands, a QC and prominent critic of Guantanamo, said Myers was “hoodwinked” by then Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and a legal team headed by White House lawyer Jim Haynes. “As we worked through the list of techniques, Myers became increasingly hesitant and troubled,” Sands writes in Torture Team. “Haynes and Rumsfeld had been able to run rings around him.”
I can see the appeal of the “fun” thing. But there is this one other little-considered possibility. Follow me here for a moment. What if the officials, in fact, do actually get useful info? I mean, they couldn’t break you or me, of course.
RBG
Durn? Didn’t you mean cripes?
>>What if the officials, in fact, do actually
>>get useful info?
That would be something to consider, if it ever happened. Which it does not.
I’m voting with the “fun, fun, fun, til daddy took Gitmo away” crowd. These torturers (or at least their overlords) are just sadistic perverts.
Yeah, they’ve never gotten any information from these techniques. It was waterboarding that broke Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.
But go ahead and keep believing that torture never works. It’s a nice convenient crutch to cling to in order to avoid the real debate. Even McCain has said it, and then he supports using it in extreme ‘ticking time-bomb’ scenarios. Well if it doesn’t work, then why is it OK to use in certain circumstances?
Torture will work on easily verifiable information and nothing more — you must get your subject to fully cooperate with you if you want useful, long-term information. That is to say, asking them where the ticking time bomb is and checking every answer will work. Asking them for a list of people in their terrorist network, though — they might start off listing a few, but if that is all they know, and they fear further torture sessions ahead for failing to provide any more answers, then they’d start making stuff up — which would lead to tons of false information tied together with a little bit of useful intelligence you just got.
On the other hand, if you figure out what would make them feel it’s truly in their best interest cooperate with you, then they’d list out all the people they know — which might be a much smaller list, but the quality of the information would be much better.
>>Well if it doesn’t work, then why is it
>>OK to use in certain circumstances?
It doesn’t work, and it’s not OK to use it under any circumstances.
For the Nazis, maybe it’s OK. For fundamentalist fucktards, maybe it’s OK. But for a nation of allegedly civilized people, it’s not OK. Ever.
Quit reading the CIA spy novels, Mikey. Just because it works for pulp fiction heroes doesn’t mean it works in real life.
Plus, only a barbarian would support its use.
We already know it does work or we wouldn’t even be debating this.
What’s uncivilized is allowing a fellow citizen to die horribly after driving over an IED when its location could have been easily determined.
RBG
I think maybe a definition of “works” may be needed here. If you pick up 10 people at random, and torture them to tell you at least 10 names of people who helped them plan the 9/11 attacks, you will end up with 100 names…so, in that sense, it works. The fact that none of those names is actually likely to be related to anyone who did have anything to do with planning the attacks is what makes the majority of people understand that it doesn’t “work”.
We all know that we’d tell the interrogator anything he wanted to hear, sooner or later. Would I believe anything I heard that was gained by torture..no. So, in general, I have to go with the doesn’t work crowd, maybe with the caveat of “doesn’t work reliably”.
Of course, as postulated, those of you who enjoy the thought of inflicting injury upon members of groups of people you currently disagree with will happily stick with your definition.
>>We already know it does work or we wouldn’t
>>even be debating this.
No son. If it DID work, maybe we’d have something to debate. Even veteran torturers acknowledge that it DOESN’T, so the only reason to torture is for fun.
>>What’s uncivilized is allowing a fellow
>>citizen to die horribly after driving
>>over an IED
Take that up with Dumbya. He’s the one giving the driving instructions. If our “leaders” had an ounce of sense in their heads, no fellow citizens would ever be in that position.
But hey. What would that have done to Halliburton stock??
9. MM So the FBI break after 14 seconds of water boarding but you, and everyone else would still be able to refuse to divulge the location of a safehouse that could be checked.
Does that sound even remotely possible… Dad?
RBG
9 MM. How credible do you think you are when you say you could willfully refuse to divulge a secret location after water boarding? The FBI themselves break after 14 seconds.
RBG
So you claim that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed wasn’t waterboarded, or that he never gave up information?
Sorry for the double post… it just took a while getting there.
RBG
#5, this isn’t a TV show. Of course you could get and likely will get false information. But you just admitted that you’re likely to get true information as well. I doubt the interrogators drop everything, and raid a safehouse that the guy just admitted too, and then have it be empty while the real killers set off their bomb elsewhere, just as the credits start to roll.
My dad is Lt. Col, Air Force-Ret…he told me he doesn’t know anything about Area 51 either…but for some reason I got special access as a child to see things like Harrier jets parked at ANG bases and Arecibo up close…hmmmm.
IT’S THE MILITARY, STUPID!
Was this general duped by the Bush Cabal?
Well, he’d have to be very, very, very, stupid now wouldn’t he?
Its amusing to see each newly appointed general described word for word with the same language: “He’s a very intelligent commander who brings a lot of experience that will change things on the ground.”
Well, they are intelligent enough to get promoted, and that means they are intelligent enough to figure out the Chimp in chief.
Was he duped?===no.
Was he caught between his desire to do the right thing and his desire for another star?===oh yes.
#14
I would assume that the first few tries gets you false information from the one who knows also…so..let’s say you’ve picked up 9 people who don’t know anything along with your 1 who does. First try, 10 bad safehouses, and what makes you think they won’t run out and check them all..you mean they already know the answers? …so let’s run them through the wringer again. How many times do we torture everyone in sight before we get the true answer (or, more likely, the answer we want) from the one who actually does know?
You’re right..this is not a TV show, and in real life, the “good guys” don’t pick up the right person all the time…ie..the guilty one. But that’s ok in your mind isn’t it? Who cares how many innocent people are tortured as long as you get the info you want in the long run? (And, of course, as long as it’s not you.) Just dump ’em in the bay when your done, after all, they must have done something, sometime, to someone..eh? Our spooks wouldn’t have picked them up otherwise, would they? I mean, I’ve never heard of anyone involved in law enforcement ever making a mistake, or acting on a grudge, or picking up someone with the same or similar name, or anything like that, have you?
16. Geez, bobbo. Why do I have to be the one to explain that you shouldn’t be referring to the “Bush Cabal,” “that Nazi Bush,” “The Chimp,” or the Bush anything now. Bush is history and you now must transfer the Aura of Evil to the Republican Party if you’re to get any mileage from this before the election.
RBG
#18–RBG==this article is about Bush duping the General.
When the next President dupes the next general, it will actually get the same analysis.
Things are often more clear than the media or ourselves like to complain. Others just the opposite. Only a few are fairly debatable outside of those with an agenda.
19. No it’s not, even if it looks like it. It’s about getting a Democrat elected in the White House. Now get with it, time’s running out.
This is one of those “The medium is the message” sort of things.
RBG
#20–RBG==it is? But the Dems have all said they would “listen to” the generals, just like Bush.
No–it’s a power thing. Presidents want what they want for a variety of reasons, and they want to be able to blame the generals, and the generals know better and even have names for what rules of war they are violating (Powell Doctrine????), so rather than admit they are craven ass sucking star searching criminals in league with their Presidents, the acceptable out is “I forgot” but Gonzo ruined that one, so now, its “I was duped.”
I’ll put this on the “obvious” side of the ledger. Take your Republican Operative Sunglasses off, and recognize the general perfidy of it all.
21. Tell you what, I’ll recognize that British lawyer and prominent critic of Guantanamo Phillipe Sands needs to sell his book.
BTW, I had no idea Al Qaeda was a signatory to the (Powell Doctrine???). That changes everything.
RBG
#22–RGB==what are you saying==that Phillipe Sands is lying and that the General was fully involved in the torture at Gitmo?
and again, what does Al Qaeda anything got to do with planning a war and not following the hard won lessons of Vietnam?
Gosh, you were going so well there for a few posts. Now, get off the crazy train and wait for the Downtown Bus.
23. Follow the link above and you’ll find that this is all about a guy with a bone to pick, trying to sell his book. We have no idea what the general’s position actually is except as filtered through the liberal operative sunglasses of Sands. Clear enough?
Yeah, especially the lesson about using defoliants. BTW, this is Iraq, not Vietnam. Al Qaeda hangs out there these days. And they signed no agreements. They need no no stinkin’ agreements. It’s almost impossible to have a civilized war these days with mutal understanding of the rules.
RBG
#17, you’re engaging in a legitimate debate. Saying torture never works, never yields good intel, is ducking the debate.