Why does America need Secret Prisons?

[Undertoad]

Not sure I'm in favor of it, but it does appear to actually work and work well, violating the Cellar's notion that torture is ineffective.
The Case for Waterboarding

Take, for instance, the case of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed captured in Pakistan in March of 2003. One of the masterminds of 9/11 and al-Qaeda’s operational leader at the time, he possessed a wide-ranging knowledge of the network’s plans, logistics and personnel. Unwilling to share it voluntarily, he was subjected to forced interrogation. As resilient as he was and defiant, he held out until the interrogators decided to proceed with waterboarding. Two and a half minutes into the procedure, a broken Mohammed begged for relief. Stunned and shaken, his extensive confession amounted to nothing less than a treasure trove of priceless intelligence.

This case is unusual not in how quickly the waterboarding worked, but how long Mohammed was able to withstand it. Two and a half minutes is by all accounts a record of sorts, as most subjects usually break down inside a minute. CIA agents who undergo this procedure as part of their training rarely last more than 40 seconds. This despite the fact that they are in a friendly environment and know that death is not an option.

Although waterboarding is normally employed as the last resort and the frequency of its use kept secret, it has been made known that so far it has worked every time it has been tried. Thanks to its extraordinary efficacy, we have been able to obtain a great amount of critical intelligence that would have otherwise remained inaccessible. With the help of this information we have captured al-Qaeda operatives, stopped deadly plots, and saved many innocent lives. One of the fruits of Mohammed’s confession, to give one example, was the thwarting of a conspiracy to fly an airliner into the Library Tower, the tallest building in Los Angeles.

Given these facts, it is almost incomprehensible that there are some people in this country who insist that we relinquish this life-saving tool. Resting their objections on ethical grounds, they try to convince us that the procedure is morally unacceptable. But theirs is a misguided stance, since careful consideration shows that waterboarding is in fact one of the least injurious among interrogation techniques.

[xoxoxoBruce]

If waterboarding leaves no discernible damage, it can't be proven it was used.
How does anyone know they haven't passed legislation to improve national image and still use it behind closed doors?
There doesn't seem to be a lot of equipment, space or personnel needed, so denial is plausible.

Just saying, ya know.

[richlevy]

Of course what happens when you use waterboarding on someone who really doesn't know anything, and at what point do you believe them and stop it?

I think a lot of people who travel abroad in countries with below par civil rights have at some point thought about what would happen if they were falsely accused of a serious crime there. Movies from Midnight Express to Red Square have played up this scenario (yes in Midnight Express the guy was guility). We have already executed Mexican citizens in the US without allowing them to contact their consulate.

If we allow waterboarding of prisoners, we are stating that for certain heinous crimes it is allowable. We might limit it to unlawful combatants, but by allowing it we are declaring it a legitimate interrogation tool.

[tw]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

Not sure I'm in favor of it, but it does appear to actually work and work well,

What they forget to mention (lies by telling half truths) is that he told so many myths and lies as to make the intelligence useless. All those Orange alerts did what? Nothing but prove how much useless information comes from torture.

Why was Nasir Abbas so useful? He told accurate facts. He was not tortured. As professionals note, when they are not tortured, then they immediately suspect their 'leaders' were lying. After all, only satanists torture. Americans that do not torture? How can this be when our glorious leader told us Americans always torture? Notice what professionals have been saying in direct contradiction to a lying wacko president. George Jr said torture is good? That alone raises red flags everywhere.

It amazes me how many 'big dics' in the auto industry insisted more crappy products out an assembly line is also good. Did not matter how poor it was just as long as product flowed. Same 'big dic' reasoning applied to intelligence. More talk is important - usefulness is somebody else’s problem. As professional interrogators state - and what 'big dics' hope a head between legs does not learn - quality and accuracy of that intelligence saves lives. That head between legs does not care 'why'. It only cares about feelings - reality be damned. Torture is justified only by feelings.

'Big dics' repeatedly insist that lives are saved by getting them to talk. Same mentality justified more crap from assembly lines. No difference. Quality is Job #1 - if we want to save lives. Those who have anti-American and wacko extremist politics advocate torture only because they 'feel' that it must work. Reality and logic be damned.

Torture is advocated by same who strongly insisted Saddam had WMDs - even long after the lies had been exposed. A damming coincidence, or a question about political agendas replacing logic? Many who advocate torture also were quick to believe lies about Saddam and WMDs. Obvious and scary is why this statement is more than a Monty Python joke: "Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition".

Call it morality if you like. I call it using intelligence – first learning from professionals. Torture is advocated in direct contradiction to facts. Extremist hope you don't learn how useless the intelligence was from torture. Are lessons from Abu Ghriad that quickly forgotten? Is the threat of Nazism (or Christian extremism) so real in America that some would even approve of torture? Torture only saves lives when 'big dic' rationalizations (ie Saddam's WMDs) are quickly accepted as fact. No different than what promoted Hitler to power. Hitler needed only those who never ask embarrassing questions (Brown Shirts) - and who also believed in torture. I've just ask another embarrassing question. Why are those who believed George Jr lies about WMDs also advocating torture? Why has America become this scary? 85% of all problems are directly traceable to top management - and to people we will vote for on 7 November.

[headsplice]

UT:
The point of the bans on torture is NOT that it may or may not be effective. In most cases, it is not. People will tell you anything you want to hear so that the torture will end. The point of banning torture is so we maintain moral high ground (that whole 'Hearts and Minds' campaign that we are still losing). We will get more support from our allies and relatively-independents if we say, as a national position, "We don't do this. Ever."
Also, I'm going to call shenanigans on using FrontPage.com as a source as they're factuality is suspect (specifically: the very first article link I clicked on)

[Undertoad]

I realize that FrontPage is biased, but I'd never before seen a specific example that waterboarding was effective.

I remain unconvinced that it is effective or ineffective. The notion that someone will tell you "anything" in order to stop being waterboarded, seems to me to be proof it's useful. If enough people tell you "anything" you can clearly put their various "anythings" together to figure out which anythings are true and which are not. Perhaps the orange alerts are because there weren't enough people being waterboarded. I guess we will never know.

I severely doubt that the CIA set up the means to do this sort of thing to 14-16 individuals if it doesn't work. I bet they know a lot better about whether it is effective than we do. I do not believe they would set up such an infrastructure for the simple joy of torturing bad guys.

I share the basic lack of trust of the government and the entire situation and am as appalled as anyone that this happens. On the other hand, if there was another attack in the US more effective than 9/11, this debate would be immediately over, and our resolve would be to do whatever it takes with the certain knowledge that we are the good guys.

[Griff]

Should effectiveness even be part of the calculus? If we operate like bad guys aren't we by definition bad guys. It doesn't matter what we are reacting to. I think folks who see themselves as the good guys are capable of at least as much evil as those who recognize they've crossed moral boundaries. During the Crusades folks knew they were in the right so they got comfortable doing evil. In WWII cities were bombed and burned by the good guys and we still defend it. Bin Laden knows he's a good guy...

[Flint]

Originally Posted by Griff

I think folks who see themselves as the good guys are capable of at least as much evil as those who recognize they've crossed moral boundaries.

Originally Posted by Flint

Look at the history of mankind. Every culture, even ones that commit horrible atrocities, consider themselves to be the "good guys" - nobody ever thinks they are in the wrong. Nobody. This can't possibly be accurate. Every culture tries to define "evil" and fails because of their own skewed persepctive. Occam's Razor dictates that our culture is no different. On the basis of pure logic, I can't possibly believe that right now, in the country where I live, in the century that I live in, we have finally, after all of history, achieved the one true knowledge of good and evil, and can now point our finger in any direction and say, with 100% accuracy "this is evil" or "this isn't evil" . . .

[Undertoad]

That's why we need this debate.

Let's suppose you personally know that a 100 megaton nuclear weapon is located in Central Park and is going to go off in 24 hours. You can't search the entire park, as it is over 800 acres. You have as prisoner, a man who knows where the bomb is because he placed it. He is not responding to feather tickling the bottom of his feet.

If the bomb detonates it will kill 5M and sicken another 5M. It will also put the economy of the US and the entire world into immediate economic depression, thus leading to the indirect killing of millions of other people. Moreover, it threatens all of world-wide civilization and, militarily, absolutely requires a nuclear response so that some semblance of Mutually Assured Destruction remains a preventative threat.

What would be appropriate? Would you, personally, waterboard this gentleman just to see what comes out of him?

Would you do it even if you knew it might not work?

Would you do it if you knew you might be prosecuted?

Would you still wonder who was the bad guy?

[glatt]

We sit here in the light of day, with our wits about us, without anyone shooting at us, and we are discussing if torture is wrong. Of course it is. If we want to pretend that we are the good guys, then we need to outlaw torture. This should be self evident.

But the reality is that torture is just fine in a situation like the one UT describes, but only if it's secret. Only if nobody finds out. We have bad guys working for our country to fight the bad guys working for the enemy. But we need to keep our hands clean. We need to be able to deny that we are associated with our bad guys. We need to be able to prosecute them if they mess up and get caught torturing someone.

Torture is wrong. I am absolutely against torture. I don't want us to torture anyone. But war is also wrong, and we are at war. Terrorism is wrong, and we are the target of terrorists. It's messy out there. Once you unleash the dogs of war, you need to do what it takes to win, and you can't have a weak stomach about it.

But if the discussion is about the "rules," then clearly you can't allow torture as part of the rules. Only bad guys torture, and we aren't the bad guys.

[Spexxvet]

Originally Posted by glatt

... It's messy out there. Once you unleash the dogs of war, you need to do what it takes to win, and you can't have a weak stomach about it.
...

The first thing is to be a nation that doesn't get into wars. We should be fair and honest when dealing with other nations - after all, we're the good guys.

In the case of Iraq, "doing what it takes" meant that we should have had 450,000 troops on the ground. What we've done is not what it takes.

I don't think we should have invaded Iraq at all. But managing the aftermath is showing a weak stomach. It's allowing our troops to be killed and costing us too much, while we undo what our troops accomplished during the invasion. It also sends the message that you can get your country modernized by the Americans by insinuating that you have WMD. You'd think the supposed hard-asses in this administration would be tougher than that.

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by glatt

We need to be able to prosecute them if they mess up and get caught torturing someone.

If torture is considered a minor infraction, it becomes routine. If torture is legalized, it becomes routine. If torture is championed by leadership as a good and effective tool against terrorism, it becomes rampant. Abu Ghraib and the Stanford Prison Experiments prove this. Torture should be considered a major crime, with extreme penalties, and that should figure into Jack Bauer's decision process whenever he ends up in UT's example situation. You can come up with extreme examples to justify breaking any law, and you should have to for this one.

[Flint]

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

You can come up with extreme examples to justify breaking any law, and you should have to for this one.

What about high gasoline prices? I can't afford to spend as much on beef jerky and grape soda at the gas station anymore...

[Griff]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

Let's suppose you personally know that a 100 megaton nuclear weapon is located in Central Park and is going to go off in 24 hours. You can't search the entire park, as it is over 800 acres. You have as prisoner, a man who knows where the bomb is because he placed it. He is not responding to feather tickling the bottom of his feet.

As a number of folks have mentioned, in this extremely unlikely case someone will have to break the law to get the job done. This is not, however, the day to day WOT and sounds a little too tv to me. We need to be seen grinding this out day by day following rule of law because that is what we claim we want for them. Compromising principles seems to be the touch-stone of this "adult" administration.

um sorry Flint but I did say it more efficiently

[Flint]

Originally Posted by Griff

um sorry Flint but I did say it more efficiently

(I was quoting myself from an unrelated thread on the philospohy board from several months ago... Don't you know: more syllables = more righter?)