home

Torture Does Not Work: Part 3

Matthew Alexander, former senior military interrogator in Iraq:

I don’t torture because it doesn’t work. I don’t torture, because it’s immoral, and it’s against the law, and it’s inconsistent with my oath of office, in which I swore to defend the Constitution of the United States. And it’s also inconsistent with American principles [. . .]

< Wednesday Night Open Thread | The Killing Of bin Laden, Torture And The Laws Of War >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Does anybody (5.00 / 4) (#1)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu May 05, 2011 at 11:08:44 AM EST
    else find it sad that we're even having this discussion?

    This is the inevitable result (5.00 / 2) (#8)
    by Towanda on Thu May 05, 2011 at 12:17:52 PM EST
    of not prosecuting those who ordered torture.  So we never came to a legal clarification (or national consensus) that torture is against our laws, principles, etc.

    And another inevitable result, possibly intentional on the part of pols, is that torture can continue, because it remains "debatable."

    Parent

    Time and time again, the depth of Republican... (none / 0) (#4)
    by magster on Thu May 05, 2011 at 11:56:56 AM EST
    ...moral depravity, and that at least 45% of the country votes for them, has me clinically depressed.

    And, not mentioned in Alexander's examples of the efficacy of standard interrogation methods is the success of law enforcement in obtaining confessions, even after Miranda warnings.  

    Parent

    Yes (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu May 05, 2011 at 12:02:08 PM EST
    that is why when you have a chance to put a boot on their neck, you go with it.

    Parent
    You know BTD, I really almost salivate (5.00 / 2) (#2)
    by andgarden on Thu May 05, 2011 at 11:18:16 AM EST
    at getting the "torture works" people to "prove" it by admitting that they have the Inquisition in mind.

    I'm at it now at the Orange Place (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu May 05, 2011 at 11:35:07 AM EST
    What does that mean? (none / 0) (#5)
    by magster on Thu May 05, 2011 at 12:00:04 PM EST
    Are you collaborating on a post with Kos FP'ers?

    Parent
    My Theory On Torture Supporters (5.00 / 3) (#10)
    by ScottW714 on Thu May 05, 2011 at 01:30:24 PM EST
    I think people that support torture imagine that they themselves would succumb fairly quickly, so they project their own insecurities onto the detainees.

    Not explained well, but similar to the anti-gay men who end-up getting busted on their knees blowing some dude in public restroom.  

    In both cases, self hatred is the driving force.

    I suspect a after a couple of minutes of weatherboarding and Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Yoo would be signing like canaries.  I think the mere mention of torture would have Yoo s****ing his pants.  They know that about themselves and hate it, so to prove they aren't any weaker, they torture others in hopes that they can broken, like they could be broken.

    Just a theory.  And for the record, I don't feel like Bush would fit this mold.  I think he was bamboozled into it, and although he has a lot of faults, I don't believe this is one of them.

    But (none / 0) (#6)
    by lilburro on Thu May 05, 2011 at 12:00:22 PM EST
    the guy who destroyed the interrogation videos said that torture practices (well, a week later) allowed him to learn that we shouldn't get bin Laden.  And that's how we got bin Laden!!

    This is all just beyond ridiculous.

    Interesting (none / 0) (#9)
    by lilburro on Thu May 05, 2011 at 12:35:47 PM EST
    consensus seems to be emerging that Hassan Ghul gave the most important initial tidbit (LA Times).  The tidbit that was denied by al-Libbi and KSM.  "Shockingly," this is contrary to what Jose Rodriguez was trying to present yesterday.

    The LA Times details (about Ghul):

    At first, his interrogators sought authorization to use "attention grasp, walling [slamming a detainee against a wall], facial hold, facial slap, wall standing, stress positions and sleep deprivation," according to the memo.

    But the interrogators concluded that Ghul had steeled himself to resist physical pressure, the memo continues, so they switched to "more subtle interrogation measures designed to weaken [his] physical ability and mental desire to resist interrogation."

    Those measures included "dietary manipulation, nudity, water dousing and abdominal slap." The team believed "those techniques would be especially helpful because he appeared to have a particular weakness for food and also seemed especially modest," the memo says.

    A U.S. official who has been briefed on Ghul's role in providing Bin Laden information noted that "just because something was approved doesn't mean all of them were used," but he did not dispute that force was used.

    "Ghul became relatively cooperative relatively quickly," the official said.

    So.  1.  Still didn't provide any "ticking time bomb information."  2.  The most arguably terrifying techniques were not used because they were deemed ineffective.  3.  They relied mostly upon psychological manipulation, which appears to be the whole point of standard interrogation procedure.

    Another aspect of this that interests me is that there are clearly people who know what happened and are willing to talk to the media.  This leads me to believe even more strongly that if there was evidence that torture worked it would have come out already.  The only argument that anyone has been able to summon re: torture is that "it happened.  Now bin Laden is dead.  So there!"  Well duh.  I can't argue that it took place.  It did.  But absolutely no one is willing to tell me how it "worked."  No one is willing to stand up for the policy.

    From the cited LA Times article: (2.00 / 1) (#11)
    by Green26 on Thu May 05, 2011 at 07:41:56 PM EST
    "Two other CIA prisoners -- Al Qaeda operations chief Khalid Shaikh Mohammed and his successor, Abu Faraj Libbi -- gave their interrogators false information about the courier. ....
    Those lies also played a role in the decade-long manhunt, however. Over time, they were viewed as evidence by CIA analysts that Bin Laden's top deputies were trying to shield a figure who might be a link to the Al Qaeda leader's hide-out, according to U.S. officials briefed on the analysis. "The fact that they were covering it up suggested he was important," a U.S. official said."

    Gull had enchanced techniques used against him. As mentioned above, "'Ghul became relatively cooperative relatively quickly,' the official said."

    Isn't an indication that the enhanced techniques caused Gull to become cooperative?

    I'm not to justify tortue or even severe enhanced techniques, but I don't think all of the evidence supports the view the tortue doesn't work.

    Parent

    I think they tiptoe (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by lilburro on Fri May 06, 2011 at 07:57:52 AM EST
    as everyone else does, around whether or not it "worked."  Clearly, it does not work in "ticking time bomb situations."  And I don't think you can prove that it necessarily works to induce "compliance" as the Bush Administration has nicely tried to put it in the past few days.  Whereas it is clearer that on KSM and al-Libbi it was actually ineffective, and counterproductive.

    If there is a stronger argument to made for the efficacy of torture, you would think someone out there would be making it.  But it's all tiptoeing.

    Parent