Just How Useful Is Torture?

[skunk]

Torture? It probably killed more Americans than 9/11
A US major reveals the inside story of military interrogation in Iraq.

By Patrick Cockburn, winner of the 2009 Orwell Prize for journalism

Sunday, 26 April 2009

The use of torture by the US has proved so counter-productive that it may have led to the death of as many US soldiers as civilians killed in 9/11, says the leader of a crack US interrogation team in Iraq.

"The reason why foreign fighters joined al-Qa'ida in Iraq was overwhelmingly because of abuses at Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib and not Islamic ideology," says Major Matthew Alexander, who personally conducted 300 interrogations of prisoners in Iraq. It was the team led by Major Alexander [a named assumed for security reasons] that obtained the information that led to the US military being able to locate Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the head of al-Qa'ida in Iraq. Zarqawi was then killed by bombs dropped by two US aircraft on the farm where he was hiding outside Baghdad on 7 June 2006. Major Alexander said that he learnt where Zarqawi was during a six-hour interrogation of a prisoner with whom he established relations of trust.

Major Alexander's attitude to torture by the US is a combination of moral outrage and professional contempt. "It plays into the hands of al-Qa'ida in Iraq because it shows us up as hypocrites when we talk about human rights," he says. An eloquent and highly intelligent man with experience as a criminal investigator within the US military, he says that torture is ineffective, as well as counter-productive. "People will only tell you the minimum to make the pain stop," he says. "They might tell you the location of a house used by insurgents but not that it is booby-trapped."

In his compelling book How to Break a Terrorist, Major Alexander explains that prisoners subjected to abuse usually clam up, say nothing, or provide misleading information. In an interview he was particularly dismissive of the "ticking bomb" argument often used in the justification of torture. This supposes that there is a bomb timed to explode on a bus or in the street which will kill many civilians. The authorities hold a prisoner who knows where the bomb is. Should they not torture him to find out in time where the bomb is before it explodes?

Major Alexander says he faced the "ticking time bomb" every day in Iraq because "we held people who knew about future suicide bombings". Leaving aside the moral arguments, he says torture simply does not work. "It hardens their resolve. They shut up." He points out that the FBI uses normal methods of interrogation to build up trust even when they are investigating a kidnapping and time is of the essence. He would do the same, he says, "even if my mother was on a bus" with a hypothetical ticking bomb on board. It is quite untrue to imagine that torture is the fastest way of obtaining information, he says.

A career officer, Major Alexander spent 14 years in the US air force, beginning by flying helicopters for special operations. He saw combat in Bosnia and Kosovo, was an air force counter-intelligence agent and criminal interrogator, and was stationed in Saudi Arabia, with an anti-terrorist role, during the US invasion of Iraq in 2003. Some years later, the US army was short of interrogators. He wanted to help shape developments in Iraq and volunteered.

Arriving in Iraq in early 2006 he found that the team he was working with were mostly dedicated, but young, men between 18 and 24. "Many of them had never been out of the States before," he recalls. "When they sat down to interrogate somebody it was often the first time they had met a Muslim." In addition to these inexperienced officers, Major Alexander says there was "an old guard" of interrogators using the methods employed at Guantanamo. He could not say exactly what they had been doing for legal reasons, though in the rest of the interview he left little doubt that prisoners were being tortured and abused. The "old guard's" methods, he says, were based on instilling "fear and control" in a prisoner.

He refused to take part in torture and abuse, and forbade the team he commanded to use such methods. Instead, he says, he used normal US police interrogation techniques which are "based on relationship building and a degree of deception". He adds that the deception was often of a simple kind such as saying untruthfully that another prisoner has already told all.

Before he started interrogating insurgent prisoners in Iraq, he had been told that they were highly ideological and committed to establishing an Islamic caliphate in Iraq, Major Alexander says. In the course of the hundreds of interrogations carried out by himself, as well as more than 1,000 that he supervised, he found that the motives of both foreign fighters joining al-Qa'ida in Iraq and Iraqi-born members were very different from the official stereotype.

In the case of foreign fighters – recruited mostly from Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Syria, Yemen and North Africa – the reason cited by the great majority for coming to Iraq was what they had heard of the torture in Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib. These abuses, not fundamentalist Islam, had provoked so many of the foreign fighters volunteering to become suicide bombers.

For Iraqi Sunni Arabs joining al-Qa'ida, the abuses played a role, but more often the reason for their recruitment was political rather than religious. They had taken up arms because the Shia Arabs were taking power; de-Baathification marginalised the Sunni and took away their jobs; they feared an Iranian takeover. Above all, al-Qa'ida was able to provide money and arms to the insurgents. Once, Major Alexander recalls, the top US commander in Iraq, General George Casey, came to visit the prison where he was working. Asking about what motivated the suspected al-Qa'ida prisoners, he was at first given the official story that they were Islamic Jihadi full of religious zeal. Major Alexander intervened to say that this really was not true and there was a much more complicated series of motivations at work. General Casey did not respond.

The objective of Major Alexander's team was to find Zarqawi, the Jordanian born leader of al-Qa'ida who built it into a fearsome organisation. Attempts by US military intelligence to locate him had failed despite three years of trying. Major Alexander was finally able to persuade one of Zarqawi's associates to give away his location because the associate had come to reject his methods, such as the mass slaughter of civilians.

What the major discovered was that many of the Sunni fighters were members of, or allied to, al-Qa'ida through necessity. They did not share its extreme, puritanical Sunni beliefs or hatred of the Shia majority. He says that General Casey had ignored his findings but he was pleased when General David Petraeus became commander in Iraq and began to take account of the real motives of the Sunni fighters. "He peeled back those Sunnis from al-Qa'ida," he says.

In the aftermath of his experience in Iraq, which he left at the end of 2006, Major Alexander came to believe that the battle against the US using torture was more important than the war in Iraq. He sees President Obama's declaration against torture as "a historic victory", though he is concerned about loopholes remaining and the lack of accountability of senior officers. Reflecting on his own interrogations, he says he always monitored his actions by asking himself, "If the enemy was doing this to one of my troops, would I consider it torture?" His overall message is that the American people do not have to make a choice between torture and terror.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/torture-it-probably-killed-more-americans-than-911-1674396.html

Well, I never!

[AP_piano295]

It doesn't take a rocket science if you torture someone they'll tell you anything to make it stop even if they dont' know a thing....

[iPhoneNYC]

Not useful at all. Never.

[Eraserhead]

Not useful at all. Never.

Is that serious or sarcastic?

[Desertrat]

Major "Alexander" is certainly correct insofar as his big picture view. No doubt. What's not said is whether or not torture was effective on a case by case basis for getting information which was useful. Anybody can eventually be broken; that's been demonstrated worldwide for eons.

In this case, aside from the inhumanitarian aspect, the unintended consequence was a form of Hydra. The unanticipated result was the creation of more hostility and opposition.

[skunk]

Anybody can eventually be broken; that's been demonstrated worldwide for eons.Well, actually it has not.

[magamo]

Torture may be a quick method to get information, but it will eventually come back on you. You torment enemies, and you get another bunch of enemies. It seems to me that the current situation the US is in proves it doesn't pay off.

I'm skeptical that relationship building is any better than torture when it comes to ferreting out what you want to know right now. But the US shouldn't lose sight of the larger picture.

[dukebound85]

Well, actually it has not.

i know id speak....

[skunk]

You and me both, probably, but there have always been some who did not.

[mkrishnan]

You and me both, probably, but there have always been some who did not.

More to the point, the idea that torture produces lots of erroneous information that wastes time is pretty well established. The information by torture is not systematically reliable -- that's a different thing from saying it's never true, but it's enough to say it's an inefficient mechanism.

Which, one would think, would be enough for sensible people to not use it. But then again, the argument that capital punishment has no ROI is also well established and seems to convince almost no one....

[iJohnHenry]

But then again, the argument that capital punishment has no ROI is also well established and seems to convince almost no one....

<aside>

Capital punishment, as currently handled, does not pay a ROI.

</aside>

[skunk]

But then again, the argument that capital punishment has no ROI is also well established and seems to convince almost no one....Almost everyone in the civilised world can see that... ;)

[obeygiant]

In the case of foreign fighters – recruited mostly from Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Syria, Yemen and North Africa – the reason cited by the great majority for coming to Iraq was what they had heard of the torture in Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib. These abuses, not fundamentalist Islam, had provoked so many of the foreign fighters volunteering to become suicide bombers.

Pardon me if I don't totally buy into this.

"oh, my buddy was tortured in Iraq? Well let me go over there and blow myself up! That should help."

I think its safe to say that Fundamentalist Islam had something to do with recruitment of suicide bombers. This style of attack notoriously kills more civilians than soldiers so what could these recruiters possibly be telling these folks to make them think it would help. Praying on desperate, idle, young men, with a promise of a few thousand dollars to sustain their families? "Allah will bless your descendants for 100 years!"

Torture may work, it may not, either way its bad. These articles seem to be more interested in where the buck stops and finding someone to blame than actually solving a problem.

[mkrishnan]

Almost everyone in the civilised world can see that... ;)

Well, as one was talking about Americans torturing people, one was talking about Americans accepting capital punishment as well. Although, incidentally, my place of birth (Michigan) was the first English-speaking governance in the world to abolish capital punishment.

[Burnsey]

Pardon me if I don't totally buy into this.

"oh, my buddy was tortured in Iraq? Well let me go over there and blow myself up! That should help."

I think its safe to say that Fundamentalist Islam had something to do with recruitment of suicide bombers. This style of attack notoriously kills more civilians than soldiers so what could these recruiters possibly be telling these folks to make them think it would help. Praying on desperate, idle, young men, with a promise of a few thousand dollars to sustain their families? "Allah will bless your descendants for 100 years!"

Torture may work, it may not, either way its bad. These articles seem to be more interested in where the buck stops and finding someone to blame than actually solving a problem.

People who join these groups, if they do it out of religious fanaticism, do it because they believe they are fighting for some cause. "Allah will bless your descendents for 100 years if you fight against..."

So yes, torturing does play a major role, because it plays into the cause. Of course in the context of Iraq it is the US that is at fault, because the war was pointless and lie based. To assume anyone who interferes with an illegal and lie based war as a terrorist is first assuming that the US can do no wrong and that it is superior. How dare anyone interfere with our illegal occupation of a foreign country!

[Eraserhead]

I think its safe to say that Fundamentalist Islam had something to do with recruitment of suicide bombers.

But people are more likely to become fundamentalist Muslims if the Americans aren't playing fair and torturing their friends/family/countrymen over in the US.

[bruinsrme]

But people are more likely to become fundamentalist Muslims if the Americans aren't playing fair and torturing their friends/family/countrymen over in the US.

which strikes me as odd.

What are the odds allied forces captured in iraq weren't tortured?

Effectiveness of torture? No idea i have never been tortured but i have been married.

[yg17]

You and me both, probably, but there have always been some who did not.

As would I. I would give them some false info and hope they would stop.

[bruinsrme]

As would I. I would give them some false info and hope they would stop.

After being tortured do you think an american that provides false information has a better chance of not being killed than an Iraqi prisoner that does the same?

[Ryan1524]

People hold information. Sometimes the information is very important to a larger number of people than said individual. The needs of the many almost always outweighs the few. Therefore, if torture can extract that info, it's justifiable. And torture doesn't always have to be physical pain.

^And I'm pretty sure most torturers are never going to let you go before they confirm your usefulness. Or if you ever get into such situation, it's highly unlikely you'll come out alive.

[mkrishnan]

^And I'm pretty sure most torturers are never going to let you go before they confirm your usefulness. Or if you ever get into such situation, it's highly unlikely you'll come out alive.

So... since the basis of this article is the statements of a military officer who was in charge of an interrogation program for several years, who found through his work and experiences that he did not find torture to be efficacious (which is also what psychologists had been saying for decades now), pray tell, what is your experiential basis to make this conclusion?

[skunk]

People hold information. Sometimes the information is very important to a larger number of people than said individual. The needs of the many almost always outweighs the few. Therefore, if torture can extract that info, it's justifiable.So the ends justify the means? Even if the means used disqualify you from claiming that you are defending any worthwhile principle? Even if the means are of such proven unreliability that you are entirely unsure whether you are simply inflicting gratuitous pain for no good purpose? Even if the use of torture is liable to corrupt the torturers? Even if torturing someone requires you to view them as subhuman?

[Iscariot]

What are the odds allied forces captured in iraq weren't tortured?

Well, how many Americans joined the armed forces after 9/11? Radical Islam represents the armed forces in Iraq.

[Eraserhead]

which strikes me as odd.

Why? The americans aren't a direct threat to the people in these countries, playing badly just makes them look bad.

People hold information. Sometimes the information is very important to a larger number of people than said individual. The needs of the many almost always outweighs the few. Therefore, if torture can extract that info, it's justifiable. And torture doesn't always have to be physical pain.

^And I'm pretty sure most torturers are never going to let you go before they confirm your usefulness. Or if you ever get into such situation, it's highly unlikely you'll come out alive.

The problem with this is that torturing is unreliable.

[Ugg]

The needs of the many almost always outweighs the few.

That's probably the biggest perversion of western democratic thought, I've ever heard.

[Desertrat]

Originally Posted by Ryan1524:
"The needs of the many almost always outweighs the few."

So Ugg responds, "That's probably the biggest perversion of western democratic thought, I've ever heard."

But, Ugg! That's the justification for all manner of federal law! And it's certainly the basis for "Tax the rich!"

:D:D:D

'Rat

[Ryan1524]

So the ends justify the means? Even if the means used disqualify you from claiming that you are defending any worthwhile principle? Even if the means are of such proven unreliability that you are entirely unsure whether you are simply inflicting gratuitous pain for no good purpose? Even if the use of torture is liable to corrupt the torturers? Even if torturing someone requires you to view them as subhuman?


This is actually an interesting discussion. So I'll try and defend my original statement, but I'm very open to being proven wrong - when I am. So please keep this in mind. I'm not just being obnoxiously evil.

My answer would be yes. The ends almost always justifies the means. Even if it violates everything the primary goal was based on. In a group or society, there will always be people who cannot live under the same standards as others. There will always be people who need to go above (or below) the rules in order to maintain the existence of that very system. As much as I'd like there to be one, there's no such thing as an absolute truth. Nothing can be correct at all times in all possible situations.

The unreliability of the method is an entire matter altogether, I think. It is still a 'means' to an end, but the means aren't always effective. Antibiotics aren't always effective, why do we still use it?

Obviously there are 'good' ways to conduct torture and 'bad' ones. By that I mean the torturer needs to know and be sensitive to whether or not the technique is actually working. If you're torturing a lackey for high level info, obviously you're not going to get anything. In this case, what I'm trying to say is that torture is justified if applied correctly and produces results.

[Ryan1524]

That's probably the biggest perversion of western democratic thought, I've ever heard.

You're right. as soon as I typed this, I already notice a problem with it. As much as I think we need to preserve the greater good, etc. Often times, the small group may have a better sense on how to 'run' things than the masses. I've said this many times before to other people, democracy no longer works. Or needs a dash of dictatorship in it to function better. There has to be a guy at the top who can command the respect of the people. So far, Democracy seems to be falling into a pattern where people are just following the motions.

This is why I have such high hopes for that Obama person. But this is a different thread altogether. ;)

[Don't panic]

Major "Alexander" is certainly correct insofar as his big picture view. No doubt. What's not said is whether or not torture was effective on a case by case basis for getting information which was useful. Anybody can eventually be broken; that's been demonstrated worldwide for eons.

In this case, aside from the inhumanitarian aspect, the unintended consequence was a form of Hydra. The unanticipated result was the creation of more hostility and opposition.

on the other hand, so predictable to be, in fact, guaranteed.

[Don't panic]

i know id speak....

so, if you were captured today, knowing what you know, you would pinpoint the position of every US nuclear submarine and give them the 'codes' for US nuclear control?

[solvs]

Another story the people who need to read most won't:

‘We Could Have Done This the Right Way’ (http://www.newsweek.com/id/195089/page/1)
"How Ali Soufan, an FBI agent, got Abu Zubaydah to talk without torture."


Soufan became a teacher for other interrogators. McFadden says that in early 2002, Soufan flew to Guantánamo to conduct a training course. He gave a powerful talk, preaching the virtues of the FBI's traditional rapport-building techniques. Not only were such methods the most effective, Soufan explained that day, they were critical to maintaining America's image in the Middle East. "The whole world is watching what we do here," Soufan said. "We're going to win or lose this war depending on how we do this." As he made these comments, about half the interrogators in the room—those from the FBI and other law-enforcement agencies—were "nodding their heads" in agreement, recalls McFadden. But the other half— military intelligence officers—sat there "with blank stares. It's like they were thinking, This is bullcrap. Their attitude was, 'You guys are cops; we don't have time for this'."
-
One day Soufan entered Abu Zubadyah's room and saw that he had been stripped naked; he covered him with a towel.

The confrontations began. "I asked [the contractor] if he'd ever interrogated anyone, and he said no," Soufan says. But that didn't matter, the contractor shot back: "Science is science. This is a behavioral issue." The contractor suggested Soufan was the inexperienced one. "He told me he's a psychologist and he knows how the human mind works."

Even if torture worked, and IT DOESN'T, it's against everything we're supposed to stand for, hurts our standing in the world with both our allies and our enemies, giving them fodder for their hatred of us (as seen in the OP), is against our own laws and international laws we helped create, which is why we've prosecuted people in the past for doing the exact things we've authorized, and... do I really need to list any more things. It's awful, no matter who we do it on, and IT DOESN'T WORK!!! What more do you people need!?!

Prosecute anyone involved... anyone:

Democratic complicity and what "politicizing justice" really means (http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/04/24/democrats/)

It's the only way to preserve our rule of law, our liberty against tyranny, and prove we actually are the good guys we claim to be.

[hulugu]

Torture may be a quick method to get information, but it will eventually come back on you....

This of course, assumes that torture is actually a quick method, even this is under some doubt.

i know id speak....

Yes, but the trouble is, a person under pain and stress will say *anything* to make it stop, so unless you're asked exactly the right questions, you're just as likely to run your interrogators down the wrong road.

....I think its safe to say that Fundamentalist Islam had something to do with recruitment of suicide bombers. This style of attack notoriously kills more civilians than soldiers so what could these recruiters possibly be telling these folks to make them think it would help. Praying on desperate, idle, young men, with a promise of a few thousand dollars to sustain their families? "Allah will bless your descendants for 100 years!".....

But, you have to admit that torture plays into the idea that by killing yourself you are "saving Islam" from the monstrous westerners. It becomes a fantastic recruiting tool and makes it that much easier to demonize westerners and those Iraqis who work with them.

....The ends almost always justifies the means. Even if it violates everything the primary goal was based on.....

Wait. What? How can you violate the primary goal, and yet qualify everything based on the end? This is a mutual incompatible structure.

[Eraserhead]

@ solvs, that is pretty damning.

[mactastic]

Anybody can eventually be broken; that's been demonstrated worldwide for eons.
And, of course, it's entirely possible to "break" someone without getting any useful information out of them.

Therefore, if torture can extract that info, it's justifiable. And torture doesn't always have to be physical pain.

Would you have this same attitude if it came to light that the Iranian government was torturing the captured Iranian-American reporter they currently hold?

so, if you were captured today, knowing what you know, you would pinpoint the position of every US nuclear submarine and give them the 'codes' for US nuclear control?
Or, more to the point, would you tell your captors about the nefarious nexus between the Zionist conspiracy and the US government that they seem so strangely intent on repeatedly inquiring about?

[Zombie Acorn]

This whole crusade is going to blow up in democrat's faces, not only do they open the flood gates to be investigated along with all of their republican colleagues (don't feed me ******** that they didn't know about our "methods" post 9/11, we were only worried about preventing another attack back then), but if an attack does hit the US in the next few years they might as well pack it up.

[mactastic]

This whole crusade is going to blow up in democrat's faces, not only do they open the flood gates to be investigated along with all of their republican colleagues (don't feed me ******** that they didn't know about our "methods" post 9/11, we were only worried about preventing another attack back then), but if an attack does hit the US in the next few years they might as well pack it up.
Yeah, nothing bad will happen to the GOP if a torture investigation goes forward. The only people who will face any consequences will be Democrats, right?

[Zombie Acorn]

Yeah, nothing bad will happen to the GOP if a torture investigation goes forward. The only people who will face any consequences will be Democrats, right?

Perhaps you missed the part where I said "along with".

Personally I wouldn't care if the whole slate was wiped, GOP candidates that are worth anything are few and far between, same with the democrats.

[NT1440]

This whole crusade is going to blow up in democrat's faces, not only do they open the flood gates to be investigated along with all of their republican colleagues (don't feed me ******** that they didn't know about our "methods" post 9/11, we were only worried about preventing another attack back then), but if an attack does hit the US in the next few years they might as well pack it up.

ANYONE involved in making these policies should be brought to justice, i dont give a damn what party. Do you really think the American people will respond to another terrorist attack with "IF ONLY WE TORTURED!!!!"?

[hulugu]

Yeah, nothing bad will happen to the GOP if a torture investigation goes forward. The only people who will face any consequences will be Democrats, right?

I think it's a sad critique of our political state if doing the right thing also means losing. Democrats must be able to make their case on this issue for voters to feel comfortable about it's necessity. Part of me fears they won't be able to articulate it.

[Zombie Acorn]

ANYONE involved in making these policies should be brought to justice, i dont give a damn what party. Do you really think the American people will respond to another terrorist attack with "IF ONLY WE TORTURED!!!!"?

Run a poll asking Americans if they would waterboard one terrorist to prevent 9/11 from happening and you will have your answer.

[mactastic]

Perhaps you missed the part where I said "along with".
Your concern for the well-being of the Democratic party is duly noted.

Personally I wouldn't care if the whole slate was wiped, GOP candidates that are worth anything are few and far between, same with the democrats.
Nor would I. Are you suggesting; however, that every Democratic member of Congress was briefed by the Bush administration as to the extent of their actions regarding torture?

[Zombie Acorn]

Your concern for the well-being of the Democratic party is duly noted.


Nor would I. Are you suggesting; however, that every Democratic member of Congress was briefed by the Bush administration as to the extent of their actions regarding torture?

I don't believe that all democrats were officially briefed by the Bush administration, but I am willing to bet a good majority of both sides knew what was going on and didn't care because we were preventing the next 9/11.

[rhett7660]

Nor would I. Are you suggesting; however, that every Democratic member of Congress was briefed by the Bush administration as to the extent of their actions regarding torture?

Do you think every republican was?

[mactastic]

I don't believe that all democrats were officially briefed by the Bush administration, but I am willing to bet a good majority of both sides knew what was going on and didn't care because we were preventing the next 9/11.
So you think the Bush administration briefed more than half (necessary for a "majority") of Democratic members of Congress on the extent of torture? I've not heard more than a handful of names. Perhaps you could provide a link that shows the names of those beyond Reid, Pelosi, and Harman that the Bush administration trusted with some of the most sensitive information they had?

Do you think every republican was?
Of course not. But I'm not the one claiming that "a good majority" of those in Congress were briefed on what we were doing, and were OK with it.

[takao]

i can't believe this thread is still going

edit: it's bizarre beyond everything

[imac/cheese]

I think torture is useful in applying severe pain, distress, torment, anguish, agony, misery, and possibly insanity to the one that is tortured. I also think it is useful in applying distress, torment, anguish, agony, misery, and possibility insanity to those that conduct it. I don't see it as useful in any other manner.

[hulugu]

Run a poll asking Americans if they would waterboard one terrorist to prevent 9/11 from happening and you will have your answer.

This would be a dishonest poll because it relies on a false choice. Furthermore, using opinion polls—especially obviously strapped chickens such as the above—would be tantamount of mob rule. We cannot allow our fear to guide our policies.

This actually, I think, illustrates the problems in Congress wherein many abdicated their responsibilities to the Bush administration because they were afraid they would be marked as unpatriotic if they refused items like the Patriot Act.

I don't believe that all democrats were officially briefed by the Bush administration, but I am willing to bet a good majority of both sides knew what was going on and didn't care because we were preventing the next 9/11.

Nonetheless. I'm far more interested in going after the lawyers from the OLC who twisted the law to fit their client's request and tried to legalize a policy they knew was illegal. I'm also interested in going after those who ordered such manipulations. I am not interested in going after those who were only briefed on the subject, including Congressional members and CIA agents.

It's not that they are innocent, but rather their actions are, IMHO, ancillary to make the main group of the Executive branch who sought to subvert the law to their whims. They're the dangerous ones, many of the rest are cowards or fools.

I'm especially loathe to follow the Abu Gharib model, wherein a small number of frontline meatballs are tried and convicted while their COs all the way up the line are able to escape. If the intelligent agents at Gitmo and Baghram are tried and men like Libby, Cheney, Gonzalez, and Yoo are allowed to stay on the lecture circuit well then, TANJ.

[skunk]

This actually, I think, illustrates the problems in Congress wherein many abdicated their responsibilities to the Bush administration because they were afraid they would be marked as unpatriotic if they refused items like the Patriot Act. Whoever came up with the acronym for Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism knew exactly what they were doing.

[hulugu]

Whoever came up with the acronym for Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism knew exactly what they were doing.

Absolutely, no one in Congress wanted to vote against the USA PATRIOT act.

I believe only Russ Feingold (D-WI) voted against the act in the Senate, and only 66 representatives voted against it in the House, although a few more abstained.

[solvs]

@ solvs, that is pretty damning.
Thank you. Part of what prompted me to drop back in. Unfortunately, as noted, it seems to be being ignored by those who need to read it most. Such as:

This whole crusade is going to blow up in democrat's faces, not only do they open the flood gates to be investigated along with all of their republican colleagues (don't feed me ******** that they didn't know about our "methods" post 9/11, we were only worried about preventing another attack back then), but if an attack does hit the US in the next few years they might as well pack it up.
First of all, any Dem who did know what was going on should be right up there with the rest, but the blame still goes mostly to those who ordered it in the first place, and most of the Dems are claiming ignorance on the details. Given the distortions and half-truths of the last administration, can't blame them. But I hear no one defending any of them if they were involved, even through a simple act of NOT doing something. So specious reasoning there.

Second, it probably will be a nice talking point that will work. On people like you. And if people can't get the word out that there are other reasons this might happen, that torture won't be able to stop it, that there is no ticking time bomb/24 scenerio, others might believe incorrectly that the 2 are linked as you seem to. You are wrong though. It doesn't work. It just doesn't. Once you get that, then you will start to see what we mean. All the worse the rest of the horrors of it all.

Run a poll asking Americans if they would waterboard one terrorist to prevent 9/11 from happening and you will have your answer.
False dichotomy, since that is exactly what we're trying to debunk from being an actual possible situation.

24 used to be a good show, but it's not real. I'd rather we use actual police work to find out if a real 9/11-type situation might be coming, like they did to get the memo "Bin Laden Determined To Attack The United States" that was ignored prior to 9/11. So they aren't rushing all around looking into false leads that were given because someone wanted to not be tortured anymore. Or trying to make false info to justify something that isn't true, like the reason the really tortured to make a link between 9/11 and Iraq/Saddam that didn't exist. Because we knew that's why the Chinese tortured in Korea, to get false confessions.

Ask John McCain. After being tortured he admitted to being a pirate. Or the girl who sat on me when I was a little kid and tickled me until I felt like I had to pee until I said she was pretty. She wasn't pretty.

[NT1440]

Run a poll asking Americans if they would waterboard one terrorist to prevent 9/11 from happening and you will have your answer.

Thats not a defense for illegal activity. Public opinion will NEVER be a defense for illegal activity.

[obeygiant]

Run a poll asking Americans if they would waterboard one terrorist to prevent 9/11 from happening and you will have your answer.

Mob rule is unreliable. Probably the reason we are a republic instead of a true democracy.

[hulugu]

Thats not a defense for illegal activity. Public opinion will NEVER be a defense for illegal activity.

Mob rule is unreliable. Probably the reason we are a republic instead of a true democracy.

Thank you.

One of the things most interesting about the whole should we/shouldn't we with regard to torture is the failures before 9/11. Just before 9/11 we had information, albeit scattered among different agencies, that Bin Laden was determined to strike at the United States, that several members of Al Qaeda or those who had visited camps in Afghanistan were inside the United States but couldn't be tracked by the CIA, and that a number of Arabs were scaring flight instructors in Arizona and Florida because they wanted to learn to fly large passenger aircraft but didn't care about landing them. The fact is on 9/10 we had all the pieces of a puzzle, but we failed to put it together in time and had we just arrested one or several members of the group we wouldn't have needed to torture them because just their arrest would have broken up the plot.

People have learned the wrong lesson after 9/11, it's not that we needed to use extra-legal methods, but rather we didn't know how to put together the information we already had. This is one of the most significant problems in intelligence, understanding what you know is far harder and more important than needing more information.