A former CIA officer who participated in the capture and questioning of the first al-Qaeda terrorist suspect to be waterboarded said yesterday that the harsh technique provided an intelligence breakthrough that "probably saved lives," but that he now regards the tactic as torture.
Zayn Abidin Muhammed Hussein abu Zubaida, the first high-ranking al-Qaeda member captured after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, broke in less than a minute after he was subjected to the technique and began providing interrogators with information that led to the disruption of several planned attacks, said John Kiriakou, who served as a CIA interrogator in Pakistan.
The waterboarding lasted about 35 seconds before Abu Zubaida broke down, according to Kiriakou, who said he was given a detailed description of the incident by fellow team members. The next day, Abu Zubaida told his captors he would tell them whatever they wanted, Kiriakou said.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2007/12/11/ST2007121100844.html
I continue to harp on this issue for a couple of reasons:
1.There’s a deeply entrenched and highly influential urban legend that “torture” never works. One of the primary objections which opponents of “torture” typically raise is that torture is ineffective. It yields unreliable information since anyone will say anything under torture.
Now, if the opponents were sincere, then when we can cite cases in which “torture” did, in fact, yield reliable information, they should withdraw their objection. And if that’s their major objection, then they should drop their opposition to “torture.”
But, thus far, I haven’t seen any opponents reevaluate their opposition in light of these examples. They keep repeating the same discredited objection.
2.Is 30 seconds of waterboarding torture? I can see why someone might think that 3 hours of waterboarding is torture (although, if they had to waterboard Abu Zubaida for 3 hours to squeeze the information out of him, that’s fine with me), but to say that 30 seconds of waterboarding is torture trivializes the concept of torture. If that’s torture, then torture is grossly overrated.
First force all your air out then immerse your mouth and nose in water for 35 seconds. Half of your brain cells would be dead and you will be ready to tell your tormentors whatever they wants you to say.
ReplyDelete"Half of your brain cells would be dead"
ReplyDeleteI assume this is hyperbole, but how is that useful in these kinds of discussions? How many brain cells actually die during waterboarding? Do you know?
And your response still avoids the main issue--if the death of a terrorist's brain cells is required to produce life-saving information, is it worth the trade-off?
It's good to see you taking a utilitarian approach to torture - if it works and saves lives, it's morally acceptable. That's the kind of approach this nation needs to beat our enemies back into their hole. We should apply this criteria more widely - surely if we are not able to capture our enemies, we can at least get their families and torture them to reveal their whereabouts. Also, torturing their families - particularly their children - would definitely make them talk, right? I can't understand why anybody would object to this if it would save lives.
ReplyDeleteObstinate said:
ReplyDeleteIt's good to see you taking a utilitarian approach to torture - if it works and saves lives, it's morally acceptable. That's the kind of approach this nation needs to beat our enemies back into their hole. We should apply this criteria more widely - surely if we are not able to capture our enemies, we can at least get their families and torture them to reveal their whereabouts. Also, torturing their families - particularly their children - would definitely make them talk, right? I can't understand why anybody would object to this if it would save lives.
***************************
I see you're too obtuse to interact with what I actually wrote. Nice display of Pavlovian conditioning on your part. How many doggy biscuits did you get for your dutiful performance?
If torture works, I'm for it.
ReplyDeleteIt might still be an urban legend:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/004931.php
FBI does not agree with CIA.
It is interesting to see that a Christian bloggers and commenters seem to agree with torture. Torture is against the international laws the USA has signed.
Would torture be ok to be used torture against US citizen belonging to the minority group? All citizens? Regarding which crimes? Or just foreigners?
Would it be ok to torture US POW in Afganistans and Irak?
What do you think other nations think about US policy?
Peter said:
ReplyDelete---
It is interesting to see that a Christian bloggers and commenters seem to agree with torture.
---
It is interesting to see how poorly some people read when there are posts about waterboarding. There's debate as to whether waterboarding constitutes torture in the first place. I'm not sure how you could miss it when Steve said: "If that’s torture, then torture is grossly overrated."
Peter said:
---
Would torture be ok to be used torture against US citizen belonging to the minority group? All citizens? Regarding which crimes? Or just foreigners?
---
None of those are reasons in and of themselves to use torture, but if you actually read anything on the topic you'd know this already.
Peter said:
---
Would it be ok to torture US POW in Afganistans and Irak?
---
What reason would they be tortured for?
Peter said:
---
What do you think other nations think about US policy?
---
Why should I care what other nations think about US policy?
Peter Pike said:
ReplyDelete"There's debate as to whether waterboarding constitutes torture in the first place"
Torture= "Infliction of severe physical pain as a means of punishment or coercion."
If you are not sure if waterboarding is a torture, you should ask the victims of it.
I'm willing to bet that only people who have not been subject to waterboarding claim that it is not a form torture. How would you discribe waterboarding?
Peter Pike said:
"if you actually read anything on the topic..." "Is 30 seconds of waterboarding torture?"
I'm sure you know that "30 sec waterboarding" is just a tip of the iceberg. Subjects are prisoned and isolated for long period of time with no release date and option of repeated interigation. I implied in my questions where do you stop? Should you be able to torture US citizens (and their familt) and on what grounds?
Peter Pike said:
"What reason would they [US POW] be tortured for?"
And you are claiming that other I have not read anything...
You can get plenty of intel from low ranking solders. Troop amounts, movements, patrol schedules/places, training methods, end of tour times, local rules of engagements, local army commander policies, storage/hospital location... it is an endless list.
All this can be used to minimise your own casulties.
Peter Pike said:
"Why should I care what other nations think about US policy?"
I'll address that on your main blog post
PETER SAID:
ReplyDelete“How would you discribe waterboarding?”
A quick and generally harmless way of extracting information from an uncooperative terrorist who has no right to withhold that information in the first place.
“I'm sure you know that ‘30 sec waterboarding’ is just a tip of the iceberg”
This is a tacit admission on your part that 30 seconds of waterboarding isn’t torture, which is why you have to pad out your initial claim with other examples that do not involve waterboarding.
“Subjects are prisoned and isolated for long period of time with no release date.”
Which doesn’t fit your own definition of torture: “Infliction of severe physical pain as a means of punishment or coercion.”
Why should anyone take your argument seriously when you keep revising your original argument?
“I implied in my questions where do you stop? Should you be able to torture US citizens.”
Illegal combatants don’t enjoy the same legal rights as US citizens.
BTW, you keep using the word “torture.” We don’t concede your framework.
“(And their familt) and on what grounds?”
Only a morally lobotomized individual like you can’t distinguish between interrogating the innocent and interrogating the guilty. The distinction is pretty elementary.
“And you are claiming that other I have not read anything..._You can get plenty of intel from low ranking solders. Troop amounts, movements, patrol schedules/places, training methods, end of tour times, local rules of engagements, local army commander policies, storage/hospital location... it is an endless list.”
I think you’re missing the point of Pike’s question. In your simplemindedness you disregard questions of just cause. Terrorists don’t have the right to interrogate (much less torture) American POWs since the cause of the terrorist is unjust. They have the wrong motives, standards, and goals. But this is another example of your moral blindness.
Peter said:
ReplyDelete"Subjects are prisoned and isolated for long period of time with no release date."
If you have a problem with that, we could subject illegal combatants to summary execution. Would you prefer that alternative?