so, this is cool:http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1766790

 

In his paper he finds that retaliatory violence is less common after the removal of Tier 1 leaders than Midlevel Tier 3 Leaders.

I don't understand this because it doesn't feed the narrative.

that doesn't clarify whether the detainees had waterboarding done to them or whether the info came thru waterboarding. Nonetheless the idea that this guys name came after torture and we showed up on its doorstep is stupid.

 

LEON PANETTA:

"you know, they used these enhanced interrogation techniques against some of these detainees..."

 

BRIAN WILLIAMS:

So finer point, one final time, enhanced interrogation techniques... That includes water boarding?

 

LEON PANETTA:

That's correct.

 

That's not clear enough for you?

 

Also, no one is saying the waterboarding led directly to Bin Laden, so I dunno who you're referring to there.

Personally, I have nothing against advanced techniques in interviewing that can lead to critical information. I love when Jack Bauer shoots terrorists in the leg.

 

But seriously, if it's vital information that is needed, tough words aren't going to make a f***ing difference.

I don't understand this because it doesn't feed the narrative.

 

lol, this is an awesome post.

WTF is wrong with Virginia's Attorney General?!?

 

I don't get it. What does that even mean? Dude wants to be dead?

That's not clear enough for you?

 

Also, no one is saying the waterboarding led directly to Bin Laden, so I dunno who you're referring to there.

 

No, because here are two examples, that dictate two different things:

 

We got the information from the detainees thru waterboarding.

 

The detainees who gave us the information had been waterboarded.

 

Just because they might have been waterboarded, does not dictate that the information came from that means.

Personally, I have nothing against advanced techniques in interviewing that can lead to critical information. I love when Jack Bauer shoots terrorists in the leg.

 

But seriously, if it's vital information that is needed, tough words aren't going to make a f***ing difference.

 

Well, neither is tough force, many studies indicate. The "ticking time bomb" narrative we feed on is not something to base policy on. There's no evidence it works any better than normal interrogations, but does make it incredibly difficult to prosecute them, because any civilized country knows that evidence obtained during torture is usually s***. See: Chicago, 1980 police dept.

Also, no one is saying the waterboarding led directly to Bin Laden, so I dunno who you're referring to there.

 

I don't understand your point then. They were waterboarded. We KNOW the US tortured people. Whether or not that was a means to effectively gaining information, or whether or not that even matters, is a different point. I'm against torture whether it's useful or not. It's a disgusting stain on this country.

The Unwelcome Return Of the Torture Debate

It is entirely possible that some valuable intelligence information about bin Laden's couriers was gleaned from long-ago waterboarding. And it is possible that some of this information was part of what Attorney General Eric Holder Tuesday called a "mosaic" of information that led to bin Laden's demise. But it is beyond doubt that the United States was able to track and then kill its arch enemy in Abbottabad based upon regular old gumshoe detective work, both traditional and innovative, that occurred years and years after the detainees in question were reportedly tortured. How exactly does that suffice to restore credibility to the pro-torture argument?

 

In any event, even such generalities tend to steer us right back into the thicket of a debate the time for which has passed. So if our nation's torture apologists still really want to right this fight again they should do so for real and not via the media. Instead of offering up cheesy post-hoc torture rationalizations on op-ed pages or via anonmous leaks, instead of hopping on the bin Laden Bandwagon now that he's been wiped off the face of the Earth, they should publicly beg President Obama and his Holder to appoint a Truth Commission on Torture.

 

So here is the question of the day... Should Obama have used intell gathered by torture to go after Bin Laden?

This thread is slowing down precipitously and that makes me sad.

I dont believe that there should a "fruit of the poisonous" tree rule when it comes to actually trying to capture a known terrorist. Its not like the waterboarding was what lead to the information that he was a criminal in the first place.

 

That being said, no one will ever be sure what psychological techniques will work the best. You can argue that had they not been waterboarded they would never have given the information, that it was the fear of it happening again. You could argue that being waterboarded made them less likely to talk as once they realized they wouldnt die, they had nothing to fear.

 

Hard to tell.

No, because here are two examples, that dictate two different things:

 

We got the information from the detainees thru waterboarding.

 

The detainees who gave us the information had been waterboarded.

 

Just because they might have been waterboarded, does not dictate that the information came from that means.

 

Both of these statements are accurate given what Panetta said. The question is of degree. We dunno how much or how important that information was, but he confirmed that SOME kind of intel leading to Bin Laden was produced as a result of interrogation techniques that included waterboarding.

 

I'm agreeing with you that we don't know what part it played, i'm just saying it clearly played a part.

Well, neither is tough force, many studies indicate. The "ticking time bomb" narrative we feed on is not something to base policy on. There's no evidence it works any better than normal interrogations, but does make it incredibly difficult to prosecute them, because any civilized country knows that evidence obtained during torture is usually s***. See: Chicago, 1980 police dept.

 

WE'RE OUT OF TIME

Neither of those statements are contradicted by what Panetta said, but only one of them is supported by it.

Both of these statements are accurate given what Panetta said.

 

No, they aren't.

Neither of those statements are contradicted by what Panetta said, but only one of them is supported by it.

 

I'd argue he infers the second, otherwise he would have just said "no."

 

Edit: Sorry, I meant the first statements bmags makes.

 

The second is supported since he affirms that they were waterboarded (among other things). I think he infers the first though, otherwise he could have just said no, waterboarding didn't give us anything useful.

Edited May 4, 201114 yr by Jenksismybitch

I'd argue he infers the second, otherwise he would have just said "no."

 

The second statement is the one that's supported. The first isn't contradicted by what he said, but it isn't confirmed, either.

Maybe. But it's a strange way of going about that. But like I said, I'm not sure it matters. The bulk of the reason we got OBL had nothing to do with torture, and I will not be convinced that we needed waterboarding to acquire this info.

So here is the question of the day... Should Obama have used intell gathered by torture to go after Bin Laden?

 

If intell gathered by torture tells you the exact time/date/place/method of a terrorist attack, should you not do everything you can to prevent it?

Maybe. But it's a strange way of going about that. But like I said, I'm not sure it matters. The bulk of the reason we got OBL had nothing to do with torture, and I will not be convinced that we needed waterboarding to acquire this info.

 

Is this opinion or fact? Because my entire point is that we don't know what role it played. Waterboarding might have been the spark to start the whole operation. Maybe that's where we first got the nick name of the courier. We'll probably never know though.

Maybe. But it's a strange way of going about that. But like I said, I'm not sure it matters. The bulk of the reason we got OBL had nothing to do with torture, and I will not be convinced that we needed waterboarding to acquire this info.

 

If this is true, the tip that led them down the right path did come from this. They wouldn't have gotten the chance to get down that road without the name of the courier.

If this is true, the tip that led them down the right path did come from this. They wouldn't have gotten the chance to get down that road without the name of the courier.

From what I've read they got the name of the Courier thru phone tapping and other means.

The timeline is the key here.

 

KSM and the other guy were heavily tortured in 2002 as we were trying to find an excuse to invade Iraq. That's when the 180 waterboardings in a month happened.

 

The Torture program was, as far as we know, stopped by early 2003-2004, because it had served its purpose (giving us an excuse to go into Iraq).

 

By all accounts, the name of this courier was not learned until somewhere in the range 2005-2007.

 

If it had been obtained via torture, it would have been learned in 2002 when the intense torture happened. In other words, the torture itself, 180 waterboardings in a month, were totally ineffective at obtaining the name of this courier.

 

The statement that the intel was obtained from people who had been tortured is probably correct, but there are only a couple possibilities. Either the torturers in 2002 were only interested in Iraq and simply never wanted to hear anything about Bin Laden's network, or the detainees being tortured held out and did not give up that name until years after the intense torture had passed. Neither one of them builds a strong case for torture.

The timeline is the key here.

 

KSM and the other guy were heavily tortured in 2002 as we were trying to find an excuse to invade Iraq. That's when the 180 waterboardings in a month happened.

 

The Torture program was, as far as we know, stopped by early 2003-2004, because it had served its purpose (giving us an excuse to go into Iraq).

 

By all accounts, the name of this courier was not learned until somewhere in the range 2005-2007.

 

If it had been obtained via torture, it would have been learned in 2002 when the intense torture happened. In other words, the torture itself, 180 waterboardings in a month, were totally ineffective at obtaining the name of this courier.

 

The statement that the intel was obtained from people who had been tortured is probably correct, but there are only a couple possibilities. Either the torturers in 2002 were only interested in Iraq and simply never wanted to hear anything about Bin Laden's network, or the detainees being tortured held out and did not give up that name until years after the intense torture had passed. Neither one of them builds a strong case for torture.

 

While this makes sense, it doesn't jive with what Panetta just admitted. So there's a disconnect somewhere. If waterboarding played absolutely no part in this, why didn't he just say so? It's clearly not a politically acceptable method, so there's no reason (but every incentive) to just say that it played no part. He was asked a direct question about it from multiple angles and yet he still didn't close that door.

 

Maybe they got the name of the courier from someone else, but maybe some of the information they got from waterboarding made it credible? Who knows. At this point it's all speculation. But you guys seem to be of the opinion that the door should be closed on the issue even though the Panetta clearly opened it back up.