U.S. Senate Report On C.I.A. Interrogations.

icebreaker

icebreaker

At the Start
Joined
Jun 12, 2005
Messages
2,957
It's a long report of 1000 pages, and a fairly damning one.

But, I would like the opinion of members if whether there is ever an occasion when torture IS justified?
(Say, there is a "dirty bomb" hidden and primed somewhere in London which could cause 20,000 innocent deaths. But you have the terrorist responsible for planting it in custody; if torture is the only means of discovering the location, do you use torture?)
 
I would say yes, if you knew you could count on the information you were going to get.

But one of the points about torture is that it is not a reliable means of getting the truth. People confess to things whether true or not in order to make the torture stop.
 
Last edited:
I don't have a problem with it. What I have a problem with is telling the world you're doing it.

I accept two wrongs will never make a right but how many of the groups/states that would wish to do us harm wouldn't resort to torture? They would never heed the Geneva Convention, which, seemingly, only applies to certain countries.

I don't like when the news tells us all about missions our people are involved in. If they're telling us they're telling them. Maybe tell us when it's over or maybe put out misinformation via the news but if I had a family member serving in a dangerous place I wouldn't want the news to be telling everybody where they are and what they're doing.
 
Last edited:
Grey said:
But one of the points about torture is that it is not a reliable means of getting the truth. People confess to things whether true or not in order to make the torture stop.
Click to expand...
Yes, that's very true; I hadn't thought of that.
And so it is demonstrated also in the Senate report -- all that torture led to no new discovery of plots or intelligence.
 
To be fair, I'd be for torturing IS members just for shits and giggles. They are counter-evolutionary, represent a threat to the species, and they should be wiped-out like the vermin they are.
 
Grey said:
I would say yes, if you knew you could count on the information you were going to get.

But one of the points about torture is that it is not a reliable means of getting the truth. People confess to things whether true or not in order to make the torture stop.
Click to expand...

Hate to say it, but i agree with this

But its the ultimate dilemma. You have an AQ operative who you are sure knows about an attack (and intelligence services will have these situations) Do you read the Guardian for advice or fry his bollocks? If its going to save lives a choice has to be made

Alternatively you could make him read the wimmins page in Guardian and he would fess up everything immediately
 
Last edited:
clivex said:
Hate to say it, but i agree with this

But its the ultimate dilemma. You have an AQ operative who you are sure knows about an attack (and intelligence services will have these situations) Do you read the Guardian for advice or fry his bollocks? If its going to save lives a choice has to be made

Alternatively you could make him read the wimmins page in Guardian and he would fess up everything immediately
Click to expand...

Tell me, if you are out with friends talking about something random, do you bring the Guardian into every sentence?
 
Last edited:
Grasshopper said:
To be fair, I'd be for torturing IS members just for shits and giggles. They are counter-evolutionary, represent a threat to the species, and they should be wiped-out like the vermin they are.
Click to expand...

I share your opinion (not torture) on ISIS but they are no better or worse than some in the US for me, and to date, even if their intention will be to mimic/surpass the US, have killed many, many less.

The US have no moral authority whatsoever to be preaching about ISIS..
 
Last edited:
I look forward to isis producing a public report condemning their fighters beheading and crucifying children
 
You're wrong, Hamm. In fact, you're so wrong, you've almost arrived back at 'right'.

I'm no apologist for US foreign policy, but there is a world of a difference between what America prosecutes in what it believes is its best-interest (misguided or otherwise), and the indiscriminate bloodlust of IS, where they will kill you, just because you're not like them. If you genuinely can't see the distinction, then it's perhaps your own moral-compass that is slightly askew.
 
Last edited:
Grasshopper said:
You're wrong, Hamm. In fact, you're so wrong, you've almost arrived back at 'right'.

I'm no apologist for US foreign policy, but there is a world of a difference between what America prosecutes in what it believes is its best-interest (misguided or otherwise), and the indiscriminate bloodlust of IS, where they will kill you, just because you're not like them. If you genuinely can't see the distinction, then it's perhaps your own moral-compass that is slightly askew.
Click to expand...

I never said they are the same but that they are equally as bad in different ways.

2400 civilian deaths from drones..

How many dead in Iraq from an illegal invasion..
 
Grey said:
I would say yes, if you knew you could count on the information you were going to get.

But one of the points about torture is that it is not a reliable means of getting the truth. People confess to things whether true or not in order to make the torture stop.
Click to expand...

Spot on, which is why my instinctive reaction was that the OP was asking the wrong question. The smart detainee not only says anything to prevent the on going torture, but also gives out names of known symptahisers or names that lead back to a known sympathiser (tends to work best in a paranoid country obsessed by double agents - as the clear objective is for captors to start executing their own). I suspect there was an element of good old-fashioned sadism involved too as Grasshopper admits to, the type of people who'd put in on pay per view if they could - actually it's the type of people who'd pay to view who perhaps you'd be more worried about; 'The Torture Channel' - you could even introduce a bit of medievalism to give it some historical interlude during quiet periods, and you wouldn't need a test card to play whitenoise all night

The question that seems to have been ducked however is why the likes of George Bush aren't being held to account for this.

It's also documented that one of the clients in these so-called 'dark locations' was Gadaffi. He got executed himself for killing people who were trying to overthrow him. Where do you draw the line?

I do like the American defensive position however which is incredibly limp.

They've actually said that this shows how confident they are that they own up to these things etc I'm tempted to ask if a Republican Whitehouse would have released the same report given that the likes of Mitch McConnell are actually trying to tell us that the tourtue programme stopped attacks and are defending it. They also say they'll learn from their mistakes. Urm..... this happened after Abu Graid didn't it. It seems to indicate they learnt nothing. Finally I've heard another one suggest that they owned up like they did My Lai!!! Err no.... that involved years of denial and cover ups (Colin Powell) before journalists finally succeeded in extracting the truth.
 
Last edited:
You can accuse the Americans of being limp but they've done it and made public. Not aht many other states would do the same, including some in the west I would guess.


Can't imagine gadafi having had a public enquiry into his treatment of dissidents somehow
 
Can't imagine America having a public enquiry either Clive. In fact this report took 6 million pages of documents and a vast majority of which is still under wraps (Chiclott anyone?)

Not sure Gadaffi ever presented himself as the moral guardian of humanity that America does mind you, and it needs to be remembered that Gaddafi was an American enforcer in this programme (one of the 'dark locations') the same country who said they had nothing to do with him. No wonder he used to laugh at their duplicity

I was also trying to work out what the implications of the plea would be legally incidentally if 'admission' was used as an excuse. I'd like to see that one try and stand up in court.

"Yes I did murder the victim, but I've made an enquiry of myself, and decided now that it's a sign of my confidence that I can admit to this, furthermore I intend to learn from my errors and recognise that my temper got the better of me. Can I be acquitted now?"
 
So, the general concensus on here and elsewhere does seem to be that torture of Al Qaeda detainees was/is justified -- as a means to an end.
Which, seems to me, to be a bit of a seachange from years ago. There was a time when torture would be considered completely unacceptable by the broader population.
But, I think, the horrors perpetrated by ISIS and Boko and others have changed our attitude. ISIS have succeeded in making us all that lttle bit colder of heart. They have robbed the world of some of its compassion and humanity by their acts. We seem to be becoming more desensitised -- seeing beheading videos on Youtube has that effect, I suppose.


Not saying that I don't disagree with C.I.A.interrogation methods of terrorists, mind .........................
 
So, the general concensus on here and elsewhere does seem to be that torture of Al Qaeda detainees was/is justified -- as a means to an end.
Click to expand...

That's not what I said.
 
Also there is a slow (very slow and still not there in some quarters) that many Islamists consider the mere existence of "non believers" to be enough to justify their death. Aside from tribal wars in Africa, this is probably the first instance of this mind set since the nazi party (which is admired by many). It is a different world.

what is not appreciated is that 9/11 was intended to be just the start.

We should also never forget that Shia Muslims have been the biggest victims of Sunni militancy although boot has been on other foot too.
 
If they are genuinely aq or isis members I couldn't care less what happens to them. They want to kill every single one of us so why care? The only doubt I have is about the results.
 
icebreaker said:
I'm sorry, Grey, if I misunderstood you or picked you up wrong. My apologies.


But, my reading of led me to believe that you agreed with torture in some circumstances.
Click to expand...

If torture was a means of obtaining reliable information, then in the extreme circumstances you mentioned at the start of this thread I would admit that it is justifiable. But I thought we had agreed it is a very big if.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top