Ex-CIA agent: Waterboarding 'saved lives'

[pardus]

Have to make sure thats not offensive first!

 

[car]

I hate to even think of it.

If it must happen again perhaps I could write up the target list for the bad guys....

NY Times, LA Times, CNN HQ, etc..etc..

Just joking, please no one get their panties in a twist!

Dude, I've got a list........just can't figure out who to give it to

 

[Paddlefoot]

Most legal scholars say that even under a future administration, the Justice Department would not seek charges against CIA officers for actions the department itself had approved.

There's a strange circular logic at work here.

 

[rv808]

I don't give two fucks about Al-Qaeda trash. The only reason we should keep them alive is for Intel.

 

[MADMIKE175]

Dude, I've got a list........just can't figure out who to give it to

BAHAHAHA - NICE!

 

[QC]

There's a strange circular logic at work here.

I think that if a person can give you intel that will prevent the deaths of say, 100,000 in a terrorist event, it is justified. This seems to be the case. Fucking muppet probably need a good wash anyway...

 

[Paddlefoot]

I think that if a person can give you intel that will prevent the deaths of say, 100,000 in a terrorist event, it is justified. This seems to be the case. Fucking muppet probably need a good wash anyway...

Not sure I follow you.

How many prisoners do you have to work your way through until you get to "the one" that has that proverbial ticking time bomb info that is guaranteed (I use that term loosely) to prevent 100,000 deaths in a terrorist event. And how will you know for sure that person is the guy that's going to help you crack it?

The huge numbers always get thrown out there as justification, as does this idea that the info he gives you is going to be about some earth shaking event just over the horizon.

Again, and I've said it before, interrogation is not about trying to hit the home run. People at the top, who are as clueless about the intelligence cycle as just about any folks I've ever seen, seem to get that fictional 24 bug up their ass. That shit works on TV shows, in reality it is not as a reliable a method.

Treat interrogation like it is, one asset, one method to help put the big picture together, not the brush and the paint and the easel that's going to put the whole thing down on canvas. Many times, your source may not even know he's got decent info you can exploit, and you may never know either. Not if you're focused in on hitting the long ball, under pressure from superiors who only want "results" (even when they're not sure what those results are), and they want them yesterday.

 

[pardus]

Paddle I know your views on this.
Do you guys ignore the possibility of the '24' scenario when you get a prisoner?

I would like to hear your thoughts on the French actions in Algeirs where torture was the tool that allowed the effective destruction of the terror network in the city.

 

[QC]

Thats constructive paddle and to an extent, I agree. It's not a blunt force tool. Would you then apply a method on someone who you knew for certain had information and was reluctant to speak?

 

[Scotth]

I will probably be in the minority on this issue with select others.

For me I am reluctant to believe just because someone get up and says torture saved live that it actually did that. I'm reluctant because there is no evidence to support the claim. We have had 1000's of people in custody and at one point after Abu Ghraib there was 30-40 active murder investigation for people who died in custody. We have actively shipped people off to other countries were the only reasonable conclusion can be to keep the blood off our hands. Of the 100's and maybe 1000's of prisoners that filtered thru Gitmo, the government says there is less than 5 people that they will charge with any offense some time in the future. We have been holding many of those people 6 or more years.

After WWII we executed Japanese soldiers that took part in the torture of American troops. I also tend to give a lot of credence to people like John McCain who actually have lived thru such an ordeal that certainly has incites that hopefully I or any of us will ever have. The bottom line for me is very simple. If you want to be the good guy you have to act like the good guy. It's not easy and it maybe costly but being right isn't necessarily the easiest road. Should there be an exception to the rule, probably in an extreme case, but that was not what we had or have today.

 

[pardus]

Where do I start..... ?

I will probably be in the minority on this issue with select others.

For me I am reluctant to believe just because someone get up and says torture saved live that it actually did that. I'm reluctant because there is no evidence to support the claim.

Where do you get this no evidence claim from?

We have had 1000's of people in custody and at one point after Abu Ghraib there was 30-40 active murder investigation for people who died in custody.

Please cite a source for this info, I want to see some proof of this and to know how many convictions for murder there were.

We have actively shipped people off to other countries were the only reasonable conclusion can be to keep the blood off our hands.

Resonable? You are talking shit you know nothing about.

Of the 100's and maybe 1000's of prisoners that filtered thru Gitmo, the government says there is less than 5 people that they will charge with any offense some time in the future. We have been holding many of those people 6 or more years.

So what? We are at war, they stay locked up.

After WWII we executed Japanese soldiers that took part in the torture of American troops.

I want to see evidence of this, I think this claim is bullshit.

I also tend to give a lot of credence to people like John McCain who actually have lived thru such an ordeal that certainly has incites that hopefully I or any of us will ever have. The bottom line for me is very simple. If you want to be the good guy you have to act like the good guy. It's not easy and it maybe costly but being right isn't necessarily the easiest road. Should there be an exception to the rule, probably in an extreme case, but that was not what we had or have today.

So don't do it but be allowed to do it? :uhh:

Why be pussies? it's either yay or nay to authorising the use of it in certain circumstances, your way will have troops prosecuted for obeying orders.

I hate it when people dont have the balls to do something but want the option in extreme circumstances, basicly "I'm a pussy who won't sign off on this because it repulses me but I want nasty people (i.e. Military, intel agencies etc...) to do it without my knowledge to save me when needed but If I find out about it i'll be outraged and demand an investigation and the ruination of someones career/life as a result!"

This pisses me off!

 

[Scotth]

I will do what I can to reproduce link to items I have read but that will take some time. Most of what I said was expressing my personal opinion.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Scotth
I will probably be in the minority on this issue with select others.

For me I am reluctant to believe just because someone get up and says torture saved live that it actually did that. I'm reluctant because there is no evidence to support the claim.

Where do you get this no evidence claim from?

Like I said I was reluctant, I didn't call them liars. I guess I would turn this around towards you and say show me the example were tortured intel saved lives? I haven't seen it myself. It doesn't mean it didn't or couldn't. It means that I haven't seen it.

Please cite a source for this info, I want to see some proof of this and to know how many convictions for murder there were.

I will work on link from were I read this, but like I said it was a while ago. I have never read anything about any convictions from the investigation.

Resonable? You are talking shit you know nothing about.

Vary well maybe the case, then please explain to me what I don't know.

So don't do it but be allowed to do it?

Why be pussies? it's either yay or nay to authorising the use of it in certain circumstances, your way will have troops prosecuted for obeying orders.

I hate it when people dont have the balls to do something but want the option in extreme circumstances, basicly "I'm a pussy who won't sign off on this because it repulses me but I want nasty people (i.e. Military, intel agencies etc...) to do it without my knowledge to save me when needed but If I find out about it i'll be outraged and demand an investigation and the ruination of someones career/life as a result!"

This pisses me off!

Seldom things are black and white. That's why you need options. Yes you are right. I want someone, especially the President, to step up and have the balls to sign off of this crap. If it's that important they say so. As normal we have things like Abu Garaib go on and who got the blame? The E-3 thru E-6 take all the blame and nobody of any consequence stands up and take responsibility. I want the responsibility and accountability to happen. If they believe it was right then say so. Instead it's all done in secret and when it heads south it's let the little guy take the fall.

 

[Scotth]

Here are a few links that I found on a Google search:

I post this one because it has references to a lot of other articles:

http://www.hrw.org/reports/2006/ct0406/appendixb.pdf

Other links I found:

http://www.feedsfarm.com/article/4bd110c11cf2ed3d7466b408036f43cbb1bd4fe5.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/afghanistan/story/0,1284,909294,00.html

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10950946/

These were found through a Google search. The point I made was an article I read during the whole Abu Garaib that they were investigating 30-40 cases. I don't think its right that these troops are getting hung out to dry. I believe people in leadership want this information no matter the cost but are unwillingly to stand up and say this is what we asked of these people.

I'm not here trying to piss anyone off. I'm expressing my opionion. We may not aggree and that Ok. I'm not a perfect person and I'm not right all the time. But I do like to discuss issue to expand my persception and hopefully find a point of view that I may not have thought of.

 

[pardus]

I will do what I can to reproduce link to items I have read but that will take some time. Most of what I said was expressing my personal opinion.



Like I said I was reluctant, I didn't call them liars. I guess I would turn this around towards you and say show me the example were tortured intel saved lives? I haven't seen it myself. It doesn't mean it didn't or couldn't. It means that I haven't seen it.



I will work on link from were I read this, but like I said it was a while ago. I have never read anything about any convictions from the investigation.



Vary well maybe the case, then please explain to me what I don't know.



Seldom things are black and white. That's why you need options. Yes you are right. I want someone, especially the President, to step up and have the balls to sign off of this crap. If it's that important they say so. As normal we have things like Abu Garaib go on and who got the blame? The E-3 thru E-6 take all the blame and nobody of any consequence stands up and take responsibility. I want the responsibility and accountability to happen. If they believe it was right then say so. Instead it's all done in secret and when it heads south it's let the little guy take the fall.

Im OK with this all being behind closed doors, in fact I think it should be hidden, that said it should be down in writing so there is no BS come back when things get public.

Explain to you what you don't know? lol do your own reasearch, until then don't make claims you cant back up that harm our forces and aid our enemy.

I'm not here trying to piss anyone off. I'm expressing my opionion. We may not aggree and that Ok. I'm not a perfect person and I'm not right all the time. But I do like to discuss issue to expand my persception and hopefully find a point of view that I may not have thought of.

Understood, no worries.

 

[QC]

It's good to debate what is a thorny issue. But what are the wider implications if officially recognized? The 'ticking bomb' scenario may glean quality information but can lead to widespread misuse. So how do you limit it? It cannot be legalized as that encourages. There are some interesting outcomes.
The French under General Aussaresses carried out many interrogations in Algeria, which led, they claim, to them winning the battle. This divided the French at home and later led to Algerian independence. Argentina defeated leftist opponents but the junta was toppled. Israel employ harsh techniques, but this has not stopped the suicide bombers.
The Convention Against Torture 1984 "does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in, or incidental to lawful sanctions." With the treatment of suspected IRA prisoners by the British, in 1978 the European Court of Human Rights the majority of judges found that it wasn't torture to be made to stand spread-eagled against a wall for hours, to be hooded, to be deprived of sleep, to be given short rations or to be subject to continuous loud noise. They did find that these practices were "inhuman and degrading" and therefore in breach of the European Convention on Human Rights. What is clearly ruled out is physical pain or the threat of it. It's a hard choice to make and looking in the rear view mirror it may well have been justified. As above, use it sparingly.
Saudi Arabia now has an interesting technique. If a terrorist is captured, they meet with an Imam who talks to them and persuades them that their interpretation of Islam is incorrect. This is done without any coercion. If the prisoner comes to realize that their view is in fact a corrupted one, their sentence is reviewed and they get remissions on their sentence. If however, they are found to be intractable, they are executed.

 

[JBS]

Waterboarding and other measures should have never been put out into the public arena, in my opinion. Allowing the enemy to review political dialog on the subject, along with disclosure of methods, allows them to prepare for it, in the event they are captured- hence potentially reducing the effectiveness of those methods.


If it was an issue of concern, an internal committee should have been dispatched to review it. Things like this don't belong in the public eye. Its amazing to me how many people agree not to disclose things that they have been trusted to keep secure, only to go out and write books and screenplays about them.

If things like waterboarding (or other interrogation techniques) are likely to have ever saved any lives, its my view that we have to trust those who employ those techniques to apply them inside of good judgment, and within the boundaries that have already been set.

 

[Paddlefoot]

Paddle I know your views on this.
Do you guys ignore the possibility of the '24' scenario when you get a prisoner?

I would like to hear your thoughts on the French actions in Algeirs where torture was the tool that allowed the effective destruction of the terror network in the city.

They don't ignore anything, but an interrogator wouldn't go into a session with a preconceived notion that this source was the guy who had info on some event such as the ones portrayed on shows like 24. The most important thing is to keep an open mind. Much of the information that is gleaned, again, won't be of some event that is just about to happen. The "ticking time bomb" scenario is a tired cliche that should be retired, but it seems to be the rationale driving much of these techniques.

As for Algeria, in the end the French withdrew and Algeria gained their independence. I don't think there is much to be learned from the French experience in Algeria, especially when it comes to their methods. This was a colonial power that tried to hold on to its Algerian "assets" long past their sell-by date. Any thing they did during the Algerian war for independence should be taken with a grain of salt. And in the end, they withdrew from the country. What did they gain from the use of torture, exactly?

 

[pardus]

They don't ignore anything, but an interrogator wouldn't go into a session with a preconceived notion that this source was the guy who had info on some event such as the ones portrayed on shows like 24. The most important thing is to keep an open mind. Much of the information that is gleaned, again, won't be of some event that is just about to happen. The "ticking time bomb" scenario is a tired cliche that should be retired, but it seems to be the rationale driving much of these techniques.

OK, cool thanks.

As for Algeria, in the end the French withdrew and Algeria gained their independence. I don't think there is much to be learned from the French experience in Algeria, especially when it comes to their methods. This was a colonial power that tried to hold on to its Algerian "assets" long past their sell-by date. Any thing they did during the Algerian war for independence should be taken with a grain of salt. And in the end, they withdrew from the country. What did they gain from the use of torture, exactly?

They destroyed the terror network within Algeirs, locally it was very successful.
The end of the war is not what I was getting at just the campaign within Algeirs itself.

 

[Paddlefoot]

They destroyed the terror network within Algeirs, locally it was very successful.
The end of the war is not what I was getting at just the campaign within Algeirs itself.

Understood, and there were excesses on both sides. The problem I always had with the French experience in Algeria is that for every 1 person that might have been useful as a source into the Algerian network(s), another 10 with no real ties or info would get swept up and subjected to the same treatment. They were fairly indiscriminate in who they swept up in their dragnets.

That's the main reason I'm not sold on French methods of interrogation during that period. Throwing things against the wall to see what sticks and shaking the bushes and rattling cages is a time honored method for obtaining information. And there are very subtle ways to go about it, in many instances. You start subjecting large segments of the population to these extreme methods of interrogation, torture if you will, you aren't gaining the upper hand. In the end, you wind up losing their proverbial hearts and minds.

And as we saw during the 90s, Algerian terror cells were still alive and well. I'm sure much of the legacy was passed on from the experiences during the 50s and 60s, although within the context of a pure Islamic movement to gain control of the country. Algeria is still what I would call a battleground state for what's going on around the world with the Jihadis, although their agenda might not be exactly the same as the Taliban, or Al Quaeda or any of the other movements currently active.

 

[pardus]

Thank you Paddle, good points.