Former FBI agent calls waterboarding counterproductive

[KSigkid]

Originally Posted by Kevin

This is the United States of America and we don't torture. I don't take the simple view on too many issues, but this is one that (as I've learned more about it) I think should be a very simple analysis.

Originally Posted by KSig RC

Well, I mean, I have absolutely no doubt that waterboarding did indeed reveal pertinent and usable information about threats to national security while in use during the Bush regime, at least at some point . . . Chaney might be a nutjob, but he's not an idiot, and his push is undoubtedly backed by 'facts' of some sort. The sheer amount of torture means they probably got something, even if only by the law of large numbers.

The real issue is whether acquiring this information was worth the rest - the deterioration of core American/Constitutional values, the bad publicity/face toward the radical Muslim world, steeling the resolve of enemy combatants, etc., and much like Kevin, I openly doubt the gains were worth it.

So yeah - I don't think it's nearly as simple as "water is wet", and in that vein it feels counterproductive for this FBI agent to give a ringing dismissal (on what appear to be very valid grounds) while still leaving the door open for Chaney et al. to smash a foot in with specific instances of success. This is really why idiots think that "enemies of America" deserve torture etc. - the spin is better controlled by the other side.

More simply put: "It doesn't work" is an intellectual argument, not an intuitive argument, and for idiots (who are the people we need to actually convince) it is simply rebutted by even a single instance of it "working."

I'm no international law or international human rights expert, but I'm not sure it's even as simple as you guys are making it. The US has been using torture for some time (KUBARK and the "Phoenix Program" are the first instances that comes to mind, although both were pre-Convention Against Torture).

I'm not saying I'm for torture...but, to be perfectly honest, I can understand the arguments for it in certain circumstances, and I know a few reasonably intelligent people (i.e. people who aren't idiots) who feel the same way.

At the end of the day, I don't know. I've never been in the military, never had to extract information from someone, and have never had to make these choices of whether or not to use these tactics. I do, however, suspect that one of the reasons we'll never see anyone from the Bush administration put on trial is because this administration, and future administrations, would endorse some methodology that could qualify as torture.

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by KSigkid

I'm not saying I'm for torture...but, to be perfectly honest, I can understand the arguments for it in certain circumstances, and I know a few reasonably intelligent people (i.e. people who aren't idiots) who feel the same way.

To be very clear, the "idiots" portion was simply in reference to the legion majority of torture proponents who promote it as just punishment for going "against America" in some way. Seriously, read any national paper's comments section on related stories, and you'll see tons of "DID THE TERRORISTS CARE ABOUT 2,000 PEOPLE ON 9/11?"-style justifications.

If reasonable people want to argue its situational effectiveness (which I've ceded) as indicative of its usefulness of a tactic, that's a completely different conversation - but these reasonable people are able to convince the throng very easily if the other side's reasonable arguments deny any situational effectiveness. Which was my main point.

[starang21]

Originally Posted by KSigkid

I'm no international law or international human rights expert, but I'm not sure it's even as simple as you guys are making it. The US has been using torture for some time (KUBARK and the "Phoenix Program" are the first instances that comes to mind, although both were pre-Convention Against Torture).

I'm not saying I'm for torture...but, to be perfectly honest, I can understand the arguments for it in certain circumstances, and I know a few reasonably intelligent people (i.e. people who aren't idiots) who feel the same way.

At the end of the day, I don't know. I've never been in the military, never had to extract information from someone, and have never had to make these choices of whether or not to use these tactics. I do, however, suspect that one of the reasons we'll never see anyone from the Bush administration put on trial is because this administration, and future administrations, would endorse some methodology that could qualify as torture.

i think it should be a last resort. but an option nonetheless. the moral high ground is easy to be on when everyone is playing by the same rules. but they're not playing by the same rules. in this instance, the end DOES justify the means.

a "enemy of the US" whether a country or not will torture and do anything to our people and that doesn't hinge on whether or not we torture.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by starang21

a "enemy of the US" whether a country or not will torture and do anything to our people and that doesn't hinge on whether or not we torture.

In just about every war the U.S. has fought in recent history, we've faced an enemy who didn't feel itself to be constrained by the rules of war, the Geneva Conventions, etc.

In each of those cases until recently, the U.S. has treated its prisoners with relative dignity and care.

Allow an anecdotal example of where this has been experienced (and I think I've shared this before on here). My chapter initiated a kid who was a Japanese student -- President of the school's international student body, etc. He came to the U.S. because his grandfather really loved the United States. This gentleman's grandfather fought in WWII and was caught by U.S. forces. Rather than being subjected to the horrible conditions he expected as a P.O.W., he was placed in a P.O.W. camp in the United States where he was treated extremely well. He came to love the United States, what we stand for (stood for?), etc. He imparted this admiration on his children and grandchildren. Treating P.O.W.s well shows these other countries what the U.S. stands for pays dividends down the road.

[KSigkid]

Originally Posted by Kevin

In just about every war the U.S. has fought in recent history, we've faced an enemy who didn't feel itself to be constrained by the rules of war, the Geneva Conventions, etc.

In each of those cases until recently, the U.S. has treated its prisoners with relative dignity and care.

Allow an anecdotal example of where this has been experienced (and I think I've shared this before on here). My chapter initiated a kid who was a Japanese student -- President of the school's international student body, etc. He came to the U.S. because his grandfather really loved the United States. This gentleman's grandfather fought in WWII and was caught by U.S. forces. Rather than being subjected to the horrible conditions he expected as a P.O.W., he was placed in a P.O.W. camp in the United States where he was treated extremely well. He came to love the United States, what we stand for (stood for?), etc. He imparted this admiration on his children and grandchildren. Treating P.O.W.s well shows these other countries what the U.S. stands for pays dividends down the road.

See, here's the thing - I'm not so sure we know whether or not the actions of the Bush administration (re: torture) were that far out of the norm from previous years. The problem is that we're trying to compare something in the present to something that would have been highly classified in the past, or that wouldn't have been necessarily recorded in any way.

I'm not trying to be a conspiracy theorist or anything, and I'm not trying to defend the Bush administration's tactics, but I just don't think we should be so quick to assume that the last administration was the first one to use those practices. Even the current administration has kept some of the same legal arguments when it comes to detainees...who knows how much the interrogation tacticts have changed.

As to the Japanese POW experience...speaking from personal experience, I've talked to some Japanese-Americans who were POWs, who had very different stories than what you heard from your chapter brother's grandfather. That's not to say that your chapter brothers' grandfather didn't have that experience...I just don't know how it compared to his fellow POWs.

[moe.ron]

Christopher Hitches getting waterboard:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4LPubUCJv58

Matthew "Mancow" Muller getting waterboard:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KOA6LpcceOw

[starang21]

Originally Posted by Kevin

In just about every war the U.S. has fought in recent history, we've faced an enemy who didn't feel itself to be constrained by the rules of war, the Geneva Conventions, etc.

In each of those cases until recently, the U.S. has treated its prisoners with relative dignity and care.

Allow an anecdotal example of where this has been experienced (and I think I've shared this before on here). My chapter initiated a kid who was a Japanese student -- President of the school's international student body, etc. He came to the U.S. because his grandfather really loved the United States. This gentleman's grandfather fought in WWII and was caught by U.S. forces. Rather than being subjected to the horrible conditions he expected as a P.O.W., he was placed in a P.O.W. camp in the United States where he was treated extremely well. He came to love the United States, what we stand for (stood for?), etc. He imparted this admiration on his children and grandchildren. Treating P.O.W.s well shows these other countries what the U.S. stands for pays dividends down the road.

i'm sure there are a litany of stories like the one referenced above, but i'm also sure there are those who feel feel the opposite for the same treatment. like ksigkid said, i'm willing to bet at various times these procedures have been used and have produced results. we just don't know about them because no one ever felt the need to air it out.

i think bush is the worst president in the history of this country, but in this instance.....i'm not going to condemn his methods because i understand the intent. i'm not saying that fingernails need to be pulled out (just an example, people) upon capture, but these methods (ok, not necessarily that one) should be on the repertoire.

this is a harsh reality. hard people need hard lessons and hard methods. it just kills me when people (not you, but in general) seem to think that the agents in our government are a bunch of barbarians who don't think and just want to kill people. if we were in their situations, could we really do any better?