Enhanced Interrogation- from a guy who did it, and saved a lot of lives

[ATM]

The right to torture....

The right to self defense. You are not limited to knives, dueling pistols at 20 paces, karate, etc.
You are allowed a large repertoire, one of which is gun.
I would post that torture is one.
Not one normally used. And an ugly tool. But don't some say the same about guns.

Now, if a loved one of ATM is being brutally beaten/tortured on Internet video, and in front of him is a person that knows where his loved one is, does he ask nicely, and then give up when there is no answer?

ATM would likely do whatever he is willing to pay the just consequences for doing to attempt to gain the information he desires.

Then, he would pay those consequences, not consider himself immune.

 

[jamil]

I would like to read the book.

I don't know what to think, really. It's not like it would be the first time a government commission got the facts horribly wrong. Then again, it also wouldn't be the first time a guy wrote something to get a book deal, or felt the need to lie to make himself look better.

The truth could be either, or, in between, or none of the above.

It's a very interesting read. He claims to have never "tortured" any detainees. But, given the history of it, he would have plenty of reasons to tell a different story than what actually happened. And that's the problem with the whole subject. Everyone has an angle to protect. Everyone has a good reason to lie. Who is telling the truth?

The last few chapters are devoted to the witch hunt the press and Democrats pursued. He eluded to something else I found interesting. He said some CIA guys were busted for using unapproved techniques. Punching them, threatening detainees with guns and worse. But the press, Holder, and congressional democrats, had no interest in them. They were after the waterboarding, which wasn't even as frequently used as other EIT.

A couple of years after Holder closed the investigation--with no charges filed against anyone in the CIA--Feinstein basically doxed Mitchel. The CIA didn't want his name getting out for his own protection--he interrogated KSM for cryin' out loud. Feinstein released a legal brief to the press that, oops, had his name in it.

 

[actaeon277]

ATM would likely do whatever he is willing to pay the just consequences for doing to attempt to gain the information he desires.

Then, he would pay those consequences, not consider himself immune.

And here in Indiana, what consequences? A jury would convict?

 

[ATM]

And here in Indiana, what consequences? A jury would convict?

That would depend upon the nature of my actions, not my victim's knowledge.

 

[Woobie]

It's a very interesting read. He claims to have never "tortured" any detainees. But, given the history of it, he would have plenty of reasons to tell a different story than what actually happened. And that's the problem with the whole subject. Everyone has an angle to protect. Everyone has a good reason to lie. Who is telling the truth?

The last few chapters are devoted to the witch hunt the press and Democrats pursued. He eluded to something else I found interesting. He said some CIA guys were busted for using unapproved techniques. Punching them, threatening detainees with guns and worse. But the press, Holder, and congressional democrats, had no interest in them. They were after the waterboarding, which wasn't even as frequently used as other EIT.

A couple of years after Holder closed the investigation--with no charges filed against anyone in the CIA--Feinstein basically doxed Mitchel. The CIA didn't want his name getting out for his own protection--he interrogated KSM for cryin' out loud. Feinstein released a legal brief to the press that, oops, had his name in it.

So the one thing the book does prove is the thing we already knew: Feinstein is a horrible person.

 

[Jludo]

Frontline did a good documentary on it

Secrets, Politics and Torture | FRONTLINE | PBS

 

[Woobie]

Frontline did a good documentary on it

Secrets, Politics and Torture | FRONTLINE | PBS

For some reason when I got through about 15 minutes it just restarted. Have to try again later. So far I'm not impressed, but I'd like to see the whole thing.

 

[ATM]

Is anyone still planning to defend cruel and unusual techniques of information extraction?

Not just like it or approve of it, actually attempt to defend it.

 

[Jludo]

For some reason when I got through about 15 minutes it just restarted. Have to try again later. So far I'm not impressed, but I'd like to see the whole thing.

I listened to the podcast version so there might be some differences. It was more interesting towards the end hearing about how controversial it was within the CIA and Bush administration's.

 

[Woobie]

I listened to the podcast version so there might be some differences. It was more interesting towards the end hearing about how controversial it was within the CIA and Bush administration's.

They laid out a bit of the controversy in the part I watched. Sounded like there was a lot of angst about the legality, but most of them were looking for a way to save American lives.

 

[Woobie]

Is anyone still planning to defend cruel and unusual techniques of information extraction?

Not just like it or approve of it, actually attempt to defend it.

Are you prepared to defend sitting by and watching innocent people die when you have a means to prevent it?

 

[ATM]

Are you prepared to defend sitting by and watching innocent people die when you have a means to prevent it?

I am.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Are you prepared to defend sitting by and watching innocent people die when you have a means to prevent it?

Woob, this would be a great anti-gunner argument.

 

[Woobie]

Woob, this would be a great anti-gunner argument.

I think it would be a great pro-gun argument, and a great carry argument. "I could have saved my kid's life if I had brought my pistol."

 

[Woobie]

I am.

Then you've already lost.

 

[Kutnupe14]

I think it would be a great pro-gun argument, and a great carry argument. "I could have saved my kid's life if I had brought my pistol."

But it's not being used in that context. It's being used in the "for the safety of everybody, lets restrict individual freedoms" context. As I'm sure you're aware, we don't sacrifice freedom for safety.

 

[Woobie]

But it's not being used in that context. It's being used in the "for the safety of everybody, lets restrict individual freedoms" context. As I'm sure you're aware, we don't sacrifice freedom for safety.

Restricting individual freedoms. OK. I suppose that's true in the same way I'm restricting someone's right to life by shooting them as they are attacking my family. We do restrict specific freedoms for specific safety reasons all the time. Or are you ready to tell me you have a problem with taking a murderer off the streets? We don't throw everyone in jail so they don't kill each other, and we shouldn't restrict everyone's right to exercise their religion, even if specific adherents are violent. We restrict the individual.

This isn't a blanket torture for blanket public safety. I don't fire rounds into the crowd to stop one person who I think looks like they might attack my family. This is targeted to specific individuals involved in the proliferation of specific attacks. Also, I still haven't seen a good argument that this is torture.

 

[jamil]

Are you prepared to defend sitting by and watching innocent people die when you have a means to prevent it?

I am.

Woob, this would be a great anti-gunner argument.

I think it would be a great pro-gun argument, and a great carry argument. "I could have saved my kid's life if I had brought my pistol."

This line of discussion isn't going anywhere. We're talking about subjective things. It's about cost and efficacy. This argument is part emotional appeal, but it also has some logic to it. Is it better to sit back and let things happen when you have the means to stop it? That question does not have a universally applied single answer.

For it to be logical we need more information. What's the cost of the action that will stop things that will happen? How dire are the things that will happen. In other words, what's the cost of doing nothing? And, whatever you think you can do to stop it, is the likelihood of it working worth the cost of doing it? Some of those answers are subjective, but it's all linear stuff. The cost of action becomes less important, at least a little, as the cost of inaction increases. The importance of the cost of action increases as the efficacy of the action decreases. The costs are the subjective parts. Those are moral judgements. And that makes the decision point subjective. But as I said somewhere else, at the fringes it's all black and white, which gives the illusion of being objective.

That's my 2.349 cents worth.

 

[ATM]

Then you've already lost.

Like my God.

 

[Woobie]

This line of discussion isn't going anywhere. We're talking about subjective things. It's about cost and efficacy. This argument is part emotional appeal, but it also has some logic to it. Is it better to sit back and let things happen when you have the means to stop it? That question does not have a universally applied single answer.

For it to be logical we need more information. What's the cost of the action that will stop things that will happen? How dire are the things that will happen. In other words, what's the cost of doing nothing? And, whatever you think you can do to stop it, is the likelihood of it working worth the cost of doing it? Some of those answers are subjective, but it's all linear stuff. The cost of action becomes less important, at least a little, as the cost of inaction increases. The importance of the cost of action increases as the efficacy of the action decreases. The costs are the subjective parts. Those are moral judgements. And that makes the decision point subjective. But as I said somewhere else, at the fringes it's all black and white, which gives the illusion of being objective.

That's my 2.349 cents worth.

I have to agree completely. I'm not here to advocate mass implementation of these things. Mostly I'm interested in the mental disconnect of someone who would shoot another human being, or send others to do it for them, but would not slap someone to bring about the same desired effect.