The Senate Torture Report

[maxparrish]

...

e) So feeding by anal injection isn't torture, chaining to floor until dead isn't torture, hard and repeated take downs, what DI's used to call 'throwing your shirt at the wall with you in it' tactics isn't torture? It was legal by shopping. It was not legal by considered and universal understanding. and text. Further one should not contract places for out of the country holding of captured people other than where they were captured or to where thosewho hold them in custody reside.

Most of your reply was nothing more than unsupported characterizations and hand waving. Moreover, you last rant (quoted above) is illustrative of exactly what is wrong with the Senate report's one sided claims. The CIA has acknowledged its actions in the early days after 9/11, but has also refuted many of the claims made by the committees witch hunters:

... Rectal Rehydration: The Study alleges that that CIA used rectal rehydration techniques for reasons other than medical necessity. The record clearly shows that CIA medical personnel on scene during enhanced technique interrogations carefully monitored detainees' hydration and food intake to ensure HVD's were physically fit and also to ensure they did not harm themselves. Dehydration was relatively easy to assess and was considered a very serious condition. Medical personnel who administered rectal rehydration did not do so as an interrogation technique or as a means to degrade a detainee but, instead, utilized the wellacknowledged medical technique to address pressing health issues. A single flippant, inappropriate comment by one CIA officer concerning the technique, quoted in the Study, is not evidence to the contrary.

• (S//OE/~JF) The technique was deemed safer than using IV needles with noncompliant detainees and was considered more efficient than a naso-gastric tube.

• (Sf/OEf~JF) With respect to Majid Khan, in contrast to the StudyJs account, our records indicate Khan removed his naso-gastric tube, which posed the risk of injury and other complications. Given this dangerous behavior, rectal rehydration was considered the most appropriate means of addressing the potential harm Khan might inflict on himself.

A nutritious enema is hardly a cause of hysteria.

https://www.cia.gov/library/reports...ormer_Detention_and_Interrogation_Program.pdf

 

[Ford]

A nutritious enema is hardly a cause of hysteria.

If it had come to the point where it was "medically necessary" to shove food and fluids up a detainee's ass, then the "nutritious enema" itself is hardly the problem.

 

[Bronzeage]

A nutritious enema is hardly a cause of hysteria.

If it had come to the point where it was "medically necessary" to shove food and fluids up a detainee's ass, then the "nutritious enema" itself is hardly the problem.

• (Sf/OEf~JF) With respect to Majid Khan, in contrast to the StudyJs account, our records indicate Khan removed his naso-gastric tube, which posed the risk of injury and other complications. Given this dangerous behavior, rectal rehydration was considered the most appropriate means of addressing the potential harm Khan might inflict on himself.

Okay, he pulled a tube out of his nose, but can't pull one out of his ass. Got it, now.

 

[Bronzeage]

The only plausible defense of the use of torture is that it is a fast and efficient way to obtain vital information. If anyone has any other defense, I haven't seen it.

For this defense to be valid, we must rely on the word of the torturers, who operate in secret environment, from which they release what information which pleases them. There is no way to verify what was learned, or when it was learned. The evidence which justifies their actions, or condemns it, is completely in their control. Nothing they say can be trusted.

Is there anybody who is really so stupid, they can't see this.

 

[Underseer]

The only plausible defense of the use of torture is that it is a fast and efficient way to obtain vital information. If anyone has any other defense, I haven't seen it.

For this defense to be valid, we must rely on the word of the torturers, who operate in secret environment, from which they release what information which pleases them. There is no way to verify what was learned, or when it was learned. The evidence which justifies their actions, or condemns it, is completely in their control. Nothing they say can be trusted.

Is there anybody who is really so stupid, they can't see this.

It doesn't work.

America has a tradition of opposing torture that goes back to before we were a country. Sometimes we slip up and do it anyway. Because of this, we are in a unique position to know how well it works by comparing our non-torture techniques to the results of information obtained through torture (whether by ourselves or by other nations). Either the information produced is unreliable, or so much information is produced that valuable intelligence resources have to be wasted verifying each (often conflicting) claim produced by torture.

The only valid reason to torture is not to gain information, but to cow a population into submission. This is why the School of the Americas has spent decades and countless taxpayer dollars teaching torture techniques to people from brutal regimes around the planet.

Do you really think Stalin used it for the information he got out of it?

 

[untermensche]

....The only valid reason to torture is not to gain information, but to cow a population into submission. This is why the School of the Americas has spent decades and countless taxpayer dollars teaching torture techniques to people from brutal regimes around the planet.

Do you really think Stalin used it for the information he got out of it?

It's not a valid reason but it is the reason so many were abused in places like Abu Ghraib.

So much emphasis is on whether or not this abuse of prisoners amounts to torture and that is just a waste of time.

We deliberately humiliated people we had attacked and captured, in the most despicable ways. We caused them deliberate pain. We terrorized them and made them fear for their lives and the lives of their families.

Some we killed, some we allowed to die of the elements.

And we gained so little for our sadism beyond hatred from the whole world.

It was a sick experiment to see if it was possible to quickly make a defenseless population submit to occupation and foreign interference.

And people should be in jail for ordering it. And people should be ashamed for defending it.

 

[Bronzeage]

The only plausible defense of the use of torture is that it is a fast and efficient way to obtain vital information. If anyone has any other defense, I haven't seen it.

For this defense to be valid, we must rely on the word of the torturers, who operate in secret environment, from which they release what information which pleases them. There is no way to verify what was learned, or when it was learned. The evidence which justifies their actions, or condemns it, is completely in their control. Nothing they say can be trusted.

Is there anybody who is really so stupid, they can't see this.

It doesn't work.

America has a tradition of opposing torture that goes back to before we were a country. Sometimes we slip up and do it anyway. Because of this, we are in a unique position to know how well it works by comparing our non-torture techniques to the results of information obtained through torture (whether by ourselves or by other nations). Either the information produced is unreliable, or so much information is produced that valuable intelligence resources have to be wasted verifying each (often conflicting) claim produced by torture.

The only valid reason to torture is not to gain information, but to cow a population into submission. This is why the School of the Americas has spent decades and countless taxpayer dollars teaching torture techniques to people from brutal regimes around the planet.

Do you really think Stalin used it for the information he got out of it?

Read carefully. If extraction of vital information is the only valid reason for torture, and the information cannot be trusted, it is not valid. Thus, there is no valid reason for torture. This does not limit the number of invalid reasons.

 

[Nexus]

The only plausible defense of the use of torture is that it is a fast and efficient way to obtain vital information. If anyone has any other defense, I haven't seen it.

For this defense to be valid, we must rely on the word of the torturers, who operate in secret environment, from which they release what information which pleases them. There is no way to verify what was learned, or when it was learned. The evidence which justifies their actions, or condemns it, is completely in their control. Nothing they say can be trusted.

Is there anybody who is really so stupid, they can't see this.

I would add that for torture to be even plausibility defensible it would need to be the only means of getting vital information not simply the fastest or most efficient.

 

[Underseer]

The only plausible defense of the use of torture is that it is a fast and efficient way to obtain vital information. If anyone has any other defense, I haven't seen it.

For this defense to be valid, we must rely on the word of the torturers, who operate in secret environment, from which they release what information which pleases them. There is no way to verify what was learned, or when it was learned. The evidence which justifies their actions, or condemns it, is completely in their control. Nothing they say can be trusted.

Is there anybody who is really so stupid, they can't see this.

I would add that for torture to be even plausibility defensible it would need to be the only means of getting vital information not simply the fastest or most efficient.

Right. Because the information it produces is unreliable, one must use other means to verify the information. But if you have other resources to verify the information, why torture in the first place?

Of course, regardless of the immorality and ineffectiveness of torture, being American should be reason enough to not torture. Not torturing has been part of our military heritage and military tradition since before we were a nation. Once again, the rightists have determined that the founding fathers were wrong and are determined to correct their "mistake."

 

[dystopian]

Not torturing has been part of our military heritage and military tradition since before we were a nation.

This statement is, unfortunately, very wrong. The use of torture by the US military and intelligence community, physical and otherwise, is hardly a recent thing. It's not that America has a tradition/heritage of not torturing, it's that it has a history of pretending it does, helped along by the fact and/or perception that its traditional adversaries are doing a lot more of it. Which is arguably why it's been allowed to continue for as long as it has. Easier to sweep the unpleasantness under the rug than face up to the facts.

 

[arkirk]

The only plausible defense of the use of torture is that it is a fast and efficient way to obtain vital information. If anyone has any other defense, I haven't seen it.

For this defense to be valid, we must rely on the word of the torturers, who operate in secret environment, from which they release what information which pleases them. There is no way to verify what was learned, or when it was learned. The evidence which justifies their actions, or condemns it, is completely in their control. Nothing they say can be trusted.

Is there anybody who is really so stupid, they can't see this.

Kind of like the inquisition eh? It "worked" okay in the middle ages. According the Cheney, why not now?

 

[marc]

Kind of like the inquisition eh? It "worked" okay in the middle ages. According the Cheney, why not now?

Dunking/waterboarding proved very effective in rooting out witches. Why shouldn't we use the same techniques to find terrorists?

 

[KeepTalking]

Prosecutorial? When no one has been, or will be prosecuted over it? Hardly. On the other hand you are font of knowledge when it comes to the partisan, as every post you pen simply reeks of partisanship.

We are speaking of the prosecutoral tone of the report, no one is saying it will be used for a prosecution

Who is this we? You best buds with Dick Cheney, or are you writing posts by committee? If it's the latter, that has to be one terrifying committee.

Who was the "select target"?

The CIA

The CIA is not a single monolithic entity. This report takes to task those in the CIA who enacted the torture, and the administration that condoned it. Epic fail, Max.

No dancing needed, it drives home the fact that that the W administration endorsed torture. Only a few select members of Congress were informed on any aspects of the torture program.

You mean like the House and Senate Democratic party and related oversight committees?

No, I mean those who you reference just a few posts later:

For the most part, nothing the agency did was done without the knowledge of the administration, the Justice Department, key Congressional leaders of both parties, and their respective oversight committees.

"Key Congressional leaders" does not equal "the House and Senate Democratic party". Try to keep your pathetic story straight, Max.

The numbers don't matter, who it was that we tortured does not matter. If the administration condoned the torture of only one person, who was the most vile human on earth, and the CIA enacted that torture, both are guilty of violating human rights.

Sentimental nonsense. Numbers always matter. A few illegal killing by an armed force, for example, is not the same as the genocide of 6,000,000 in a concentration camp.

A human rights violation is, however, a human rights violation. Whether you only violate one person's human rights, 39 people, or 6 million, you are on the hook for the crime(s).

And which any objective person can clearly see falls under the definition of torture.

"Objective" like you?

Objective, as in covered by the United Nations Convention against Torture

Torture is well defined, and although most of the things you mention are torture, there are many other things that are torture as well. The administration and the CIA condoned and carried out torture under the world wide definition of torture. I will note, however, that beheading is not torture, it is either murder or execution.

Prove that it was well defined at the time of the enhanced interrogation "misdeeds"

The United States signed the United Nations Convention against Torture on 21 October 1994. Prior to this, from 1946-1948, we actually executed seven Japanese soldiers for committing torture during WWII, including the use of warterboarding.

Every time, in the real world, that you compromise your values by stooping to the level of your enemies who use reprehensible tactics like torture, you become more like those enemies, and you lose the right to call yourself the good guy. You mean like trying to kill the other guy because he is trying to kill you?

No, that would be self-defense. I mean like stooping to reprehensible tactics like torture, as explicitly stated in the comment to which you refer.

 

[Horatio Parker]

The only valid reason to torture is not to gain information, but to cow a population into submission. This is why the School of the Americas has spent decades and countless taxpayer dollars teaching torture techniques to people from brutal regimes around the planet.

Do you really think Stalin used it for the information he got out of it?

It's fear. Fear among the authoritarian types that the terrorists are stronger than they are. Torture then becomes an expression of purpose, commitment, and strength.

Besides its ethical problems, it misses entirely the war over the hearts and minds of those on the sidelines. Every oppressive move by the U.S. creates more terrorist recruits.

 

[Bronzeage]

The only plausible defense of the use of torture is that it is a fast and efficient way to obtain vital information. If anyone has any other defense, I haven't seen it.

For this defense to be valid, we must rely on the word of the torturers, who operate in secret environment, from which they release what information which pleases them. There is no way to verify what was learned, or when it was learned. The evidence which justifies their actions, or condemns it, is completely in their control. Nothing they say can be trusted.

Is there anybody who is really so stupid, they can't see this.

I would add that for torture to be even plausibility defensible it would need to be the only means of getting vital information not simply the fastest or most efficient.

And what if the information cannot be trusted? How do we get around that paradox? The torture stops, not when the truth is revealed, but when we are satisfied with the answer.

 

[Valjean]

Keep Talking
The United States signed the United Nations Convention against Torture on 21 October 1994. Prior to this, from 1946-1948, we actually executed seven Japanese soldiers for committing torture during WWII, including the use of warterboarding.

Not just Japanese soldiers. American soldiers have been convicted for doing it.
How about the US soldiers court martialled during the Phillipine War for applying the 'water cure' ("Nothing can justify its use." - Theodore Roosevelt), or the American soldier court martialled for waterboarding a Vietnamese after that photo on the Jan. 21, '68 edition of the Washington Post?

"Legality" is a red herring, as is the definition of "torture." Why even bring them up?
Laws and legal definitions have always been tailored to support whatever those in power want supported. They're changed with every shift of the political wind.

 

[ZiprHead]

A nutritious enema is hardly a cause of hysteria.

If it had come to the point where it was "medically necessary" to shove food and fluids up a detainee's ass, then the "nutritious enema" itself is hardly the problem.

I heard a doctor on the radio say last week that it doesn't work that way. You can't shove food up someone's ass and have them get nutrition from it.

 

[Ford]

If it had come to the point where it was "medically necessary" to shove food and fluids up a detainee's ass, then the "nutritious enema" itself is hardly the problem.

I heard a doctor on the radio say last week that it doesn't work that way. You can't shove food up someone's ass and have them get nutrition from it.

Clearly this "doctor" hates America and wants the terrorists to win.

 

[Valjean]

Not much, though. Most of the nutrients are absorbed by the small bowel. The colon mainly absorbs the water from the liquid intestinal contents, to form a semisolid stool.

 

[Bronzeage]

If it had come to the point where it was "medically necessary" to shove food and fluids up a detainee's ass, then the "nutritious enema" itself is hardly the problem.

I heard a doctor on the radio say last week that it doesn't work that way. You can't shove food up someone's ass and have them get nutrition from it.

The only therapeutic use of an enema, beyond relieving constipation, with which I am familiar, is to treat hypothermia. Warm water raises body core temperature keeps the victim from going into shock. If dehydration is the problem, a saline IV is much more effective than a enema. As I said in an earlier post, nothing released by the CIA can be trusted. We have a couple hundred people who are scared to death they will soon be in court, explaining their actions.