[J m HofMarN]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30302830/

So, basically, after torturing him some and confirming that he probably didnt know anything else, the CIA decided to keep torturing this guy for no particular reason. I continue to support my old remedy of trials and firing squads for shit like this. Obama's promise not to prosecute just emboldens these scum. The death penalty should be applied to everyone engaged in torture, and especially to everyone who had a part in ordering it.

I will say on a side note that the fact that Cuba will now be readmitted to the OAS and looks to have a good shot and breaking the embargo, is one of the few positives I can see from Obama's presidency, aside from the appearance of a good bit of information that, god willing, will one day be useful to revolutionary courts.

The Times article, based on information from former intelligence officers who spoke on condition of anonymity, said Abu Zubaydah had revealed a great deal of information before harsh methods were used and after his captors stripped him of clothes, kept him in a cold cell and kept him awake at night. The article said interrogators at the secret prison in Thailand believed he had given up all the information he had, but officials at headquarters ordered them to use waterboarding.

He revealed no new information after being waterboarded, the article said, a conclusion that appears to be supported by a footnote to a 2005 Justice Department memo saying the use of the harshest methods appeared to have been “unnecessary” in his case.

[Gobbler]

Nonsense. You don't call upon midwives to do the necessary dirty work, you call upon the guys who can do it and then you have to live with the side-effect of them being likely to develop a little bit too much enthusiasm. Sure it's wrong, but they weren't in violation of their own laws. Sure that's still wrong, seen from the basic human rights point of view, but you can't hold it against people who have been hired because of their tendencies. Sure that's still wrong, but that's how it's done, in any country. Sadly.

Obama has to take a careful route because he's dealing with a nation that is heavily influenced by its own military status, if he starts to turn on them and push the blame around, he'll be in a lot of problems in a very short amount of time. He has to take a progressive route, starting with the "It can only get better from here on." thought.

Edit: Oh wait, just saw the stuff about killing everyone who ever tortured someone. Fell for the troll, you got me.

This post has been edited by Gobbler: 20 April 2009 - 01:11 PM

[civilian_number_two]

Torture can't ever in any case reveal any information more relevant than what is determined by diplomacy and spy satellites. The guys you capture will never know anything useful. If by chance those captured do indeed know anything useful, it will have changed by the time the questioning is over. Despite fictional treatments of the pastime, torture is worthless. Everyone employing it knows this, yet they carry on. The interesting question in all of this is why? And the interesting answer is: terror. Ta-da! The US army wants soldiers of foreign nations to fear capture by US troops, to fear the knowledge that they will have the bejesus tortured right out of them. Because we want to introduce Democracy and decency and Capitalism and Freedom to the third world.

On threat of torture.

[J m HofMarN]

Gobbler- I kinda have to disagree here. Not every country mounts an active, systematic campaign of torture. Yes, people in every country probably torture people. Sometimes their overzealous in their jobs, or sometimes they're serial killers. But to actually create an organized system for the purposes of committing a war crime, is definately crossing the line.

I do agree that Obama is in a bad spot, which is why I'm hoping the Senate can get some stuff done with their own investigation. Being as he's in the executive he's way too close to these guys. The blame shouldnt fall first upon the foot soldiers (they can be second against the wall) but rather on those who erected this system's legal and funding framework.

Civ-
And here I was kind of suggesting that the motive in this case was to try to lure young Skywalkah to Cloud City. Like, seriously, I fail to see the logic behind any act of torture, but this one is a particular stretch. "torture session number 1-87: subject still does not confess anything new, screams a lot. I am, however, confident that, once we hit that sweet spot around session 180, actionable intelligence will magically appear!"

[barend]

Torture is fun. That's why people do it.

[Deucaon]

civilian_number_two, on 21 April 2009 - 04:41 AM, said:

Torture can't ever in any case reveal any information more relevant than what is determined by diplomacy and spy satellites. The guys you capture will never know anything useful. If by chance those captured do indeed know anything useful, it will have changed by the time the questioning is over. Despite fictional treatments of the pastime, torture is worthless.

Torture isn't bullshit, they're just doing it wrong. You're not supposed to be torturing some redneck militiamen like the USA has been doing. (Since they're all intentionally kept out of the loop by their supposed superiors.) So in the case of torturing for the sake of finding out information on terrorist cells and future terrorist trikes, it's practically unfeasible. Unless they start torturing American Muslims. That's assuming that Yanks want to stop Islamic terrorism, not wield it, like they have been trying to do since Afghanistan got a USSR friendly government.
Anyway, torture is best suited for "counter-insurgencies." How torture is meant to work is that you grab somebody off the street in a hostile neighbourhood, torture him until he gives you a list of names, then grab everybody on that list and torture them until they give you a list of names. Keep repeating until all your enemies are dead or scared shitless. Torturing guys from Afghanistan/Pakistan is useless since America doesn't have full control of Afghanistan/Pakistan and doesn't have the operational capacity to get "everybody on that list."

[J m HofMarN]

....So torture is an insane pyramid scheme?

[Deucaon]

J m HofMarN, on 05 April 2010 - 02:01 PM, said:

....So torture is an insane pyramid scheme?

Pretty much. Though I'm not entirely sure what you mean by "insane."

[J m HofMarN]

You know god damn well what I mean by insane. Evil would also apply. And, AS USUAL, in your quest to act like a hard ass Machiavellian, youve failed because your idea doesnt function even in purely utilitarian terms. How would massive and ridiculous pyramid torture schemes help achieve your goals? Random slaughter would be cheaper and less time consuming. What's the pay off?

This post has been edited by J m HofMarN: 05 April 2010 - 03:56 AM

[Deucaon]

J m HofMarN, on 05 April 2010 - 06:54 PM, said:

You know god damn well what I mean by insane. Evil would also apply. And, AS USUAL, in your quest to act like a hard ass Machiavellian, youve failed because your idea doesnt function even in purely utilitarian terms. How would massive and ridiculous pyramid torture schemes help achieve your goals? Random slaughter would be cheaper and less time consuming. What's the pay off?

You keep the general population intact for exploitation. I'm not the one who came up with this idea, I'm just explaining it to you. Governments, especially governments of the Stalin and Tito variety, have been doing it for centuries. I know it doesn't make sense to you because you live in some fantasy world where history need not apply.

[J m HofMarN]

Both of the governments you mentioned as using torture "correctly" fell rather swiftly. Therefore perhaps my theory that torture is not a panacea similar to assault rifles or the flat tax rate, holds some water.

[civilian_number_two]

Yeah, and those governments gained much more from mass slaughter than they gained from torture. Torture is ineffective.

[Deucaon]

civilian_number_two, on 07 April 2010 - 01:53 PM, said:

Yeah, and those governments gained much more from mass slaughter than they gained from torture. Torture is ineffective.

Instilling fear and obedience is ineffective? I mean both governments lasted while the measures introduced were in place. It's not the measures which are ineffective, it's having a coercive system which tries to be soft that's ineffective.

[Gobbler]

What you're going on about is state-terrorism, so torture would indeed be ineffective if you only want to use it to gain information, but can come in quite handy when all you really want to do is... well, just torture people for threatening purposes. Of course, that only really really works if you're doing it right. And if you're doing it that right, then you're doing everything else wrong since your populace will be quite... let's say, unfit for work and progress in the long run.

So no, there's no real way to do torture right. Consider it a cute little pastime but don't try to lean on it when addressing the state of the union.

[Deucaon]

Gobbler, on 07 April 2010 - 10:14 PM, said:

What you're going on about is state-terrorism, so torture would indeed be ineffective if you only want to use it to gain information, but can come in quite handy when all you really want to do is... well, just torture people for threatening purposes. Of course, that only really really works if you're doing it right. And if you're doing it that right, then you're doing everything else wrong since your populace will be quite... let's say, unfit for work and progress in the long run.

Of course. This type of system doesn't exactly encourage "initiative" but it's not designed to.

Gobbler, on 07 April 2010 - 10:14 PM, said:

So no, there's no real way to do torture right. Consider it a cute little pastime but don't try to lean on it when addressing the state of the union.

"Information" is a fickle thing. A guy who was pinpointed might not have had anything to do with a group that targets you or your allies but can still be a dissenter who's planning something. Regardless, when you start jailing the people who were pinpointed then the dissenters will think they're cover is compromised and go into hiding. If they haven't been caught already. When they're driven completely underground it's much harder for them to do anything. And if they haven't gone underground, they'd be too paranoid to try anything.