Waterboarding for Dummies - CIA Guidelines on Torture

[ShadowDragon8685]

Nothing justifies behaving like animals. Nothing.

I love that line, I really do. It's an awesome way to show faux-outrage, and to show your moral bankruptcy, in that there's nothing you're willing to go to lengths to defend.

Fuck you!

[Formless]

Nothing justifies behaving like animals. Nothing.

I love that line, I really do. It's an awesome way to show faux-outrage, and to show your moral bankruptcy, in that there's nothing you're willing to go to lengths to defend.

Fuck you!

No no no, see, it doesn't work unless you link the hell out of it so they can't accuse you of just spamming no content bile (observe). A "fuck you" that lacks a link is just a "fuck you".

[MKSheppard]

Who gives a shit who they are?

They're a bit higher up than the normal "joe schmoe" we keep hearing about.

It doesn't give us useful intelligence

It took Waterboarding KSM 183 times in one month, but we managed to turn him, to the point where he began to brief CIA agents on various methods, the internal structure of Al Q, etc etc.

and it just pisses off a lot of potential allies.

The kind of allies we're going to have in this war don't give a damn. You think the Saudi intelligence service or the Pakistani ISI care?

Yeah, both can create enemies, shit-for-brains

Back to that point, I like how waterboarding less than a dozen people creates ruthless hoards of enemies around the world; but killing 400 civilians (out of 1,200 people) in Pakistan between 2004 and 2010 in drone strikes doesn't have the same level of effect of 'enemy creation'.

[Samuel]

Because we are arguing against all forms of torture and not just waterboarding? The first category holds a bit more than "a dozen people".

[Akhlut]

Who gives a shit who they are?

They're a bit higher up than the normal "joe schmoe" we keep hearing about.

And that is relevant how, precisely?

It doesn't give us useful intelligence

It took Waterboarding KSM 183 times in one month, but we managed to turn him, to the point where he began to brief CIA agents on various methods, the internal structure of Al Q, etc etc.

And pretty much every professional says torture doesn't work.

Does. Not. Work.

and it just pisses off a lot of potential allies.

The kind of allies we're going to have in this war don't give a damn. You think the Saudi intelligence service or the Pakistani ISI care?

Oh boy! Just the allies I want! I'm sure their heavy-handed approaches and occasional ties to our enemies are just what we need to actually accomplish worthwhile goals!

Yeah, both can create enemies, shit-for-brains

Back to that point, I like how waterboarding less than a dozen people creates ruthless hoards of enemies around the world; but killing 400 civilians (out of 1,200 people) in Pakistan between 2004 and 2010 in drone strikes doesn't have the same level of effect of 'enemy creation'.[/quote]

Not just waterboarding, shit-for-brains, but issues like Abu Ghraib and other potential abuses at Gitmo, in addition to the fact that people not directly affected by a stray bomb or misidentified truck are going to be a lot more forgiving then people not directly affected by torture.

But, hey, whatever, we need all the enemies we can get, right?

[loomer]

It took Waterboarding KSM 183 times in one month, but we managed to turn him, to the point where he began to brief CIA agents on various methods, the internal structure of Al Q, etc etc.

If you waterboarded me 183 times in a month I'd probably start spilling the beans on ASIS's internal structure, involvement in 9/11, and secret cloning labs. Shep, it doesn't work. Even the US Army has found evidence of that.

[eion]

For those that haven't seen it, this is Radio-host and former waterboarding supporter Man-cow being waterboarded. This happened 22 May 2009. Note that this is a sanitized demonstration, but still proves a good demonstration of the abstract vs. practical knowledge of this method of torture.



Shep's defense is going to be, "See, he caved! It works!" but he would have said anything to get them to stop. ANYTHING. true, false, unverifiable, anything to make them stop drowning him.

Torture is designed to break the will of the victim, not to extract truthful and useful information.

When Shep comes back and says he's been waterboarded and honestly did not feel his life was in danger at any point, then we can talk about whether this gross violation of multiple international treaties and federal laws is in any way justifiable.

[Thanas]

It is funny that the most famous and most efficient interrogator in history did not even once use torture and got better results.

Even Nazis knew better.

[ShadowDragon8685]

I love that line, I really do. It's an awesome way to show faux-outrage, and to show your moral bankruptcy, in that there's nothing you're willing to go to lengths to defend.

Fuck you!

No no no, see, it doesn't work unless you link the hell out of it so they can't accuse you of just spamming no content bile (observe). A "fuck you" that lacks a link is just a "fuck you".

I didn't feel any particularly need to justify my outrage at Shep's accusing me of being the morally bankrupt person with anything more than a bolded pair of words.



@Thanas: But that's just it. Shep doesn't care about getting information, he just wants to masturbate while watching Jack Bauer shove towels down people's throats and pretend it was him doing it because he's a petty-minded little sadist with violent fantasies he doesn't dare act upon lest he go to prison - which is why he wants to be a Jack Bauer, so he can hurt people "legally".

I hope every mother-fucker responsible for this shit gets their asses hauled in front of a court and sentanced to life without parole - up to and uncluding Chimpus Ceaser.

[UnderAGreySky]

I love that line, I really do. It's an awesome way to show faux-outrage, and to show your moral bankruptcy, in that there's nothing you're willing to go to lengths to defend.

Ah, (implied) patriotism, the last refuge of the scoundrel.

Violating your own principles to defend.... your own principles?

Amusing.

[Thanas]

@Thanas: But that's just it. Shep doesn't care about getting information, he just wants to masturbate while watching Jack Bauer shove towels down people's throats and pretend it was him doing it because he's a petty-minded little sadist with violent fantasies he doesn't dare act upon lest he go to prison - which is why he wants to be a Jack Bauer, so he can hurt people "legally".

You are wrong, Shep is man things but a sadist he is not.

He just has an extreme black/white worldview.

[Elfdart]

Actually, torture does work:

1) If you want someone to swear to something that they know isn't true, and you know it isn't true, and they know that you know that they know it isn't true, then torture works like a charm. Let's say you want an old granny to "confess" to turning her neighbor into a newt, summoning a hailstorm and flying on her broomstick. You know it's bullshit. She knows it's bullshit -and she knows that you know it. Dunking her head first into a trough or barrel filled with water until she's gasping for air will work just fine -or in colonial Virginia, throw her into the Lynnhaven River and tell her if she floats, she'll be hanged as a witch. The old crone will then do her best to stay underwater until her feeble old lungs give out, at which point she's condemned as a witch anyway. In either case, her property is confiscated -the reason she was called a witch in the first place.

In a more recent example, one mentally diseased individual (George W. Bush -AKA The Crawford Caligula) ordered the torture of another retard (Abu Zubaydah) in order to get him to swear that Iraq and Al Qaeda were allies so he (The Crawford Caligula) could justify invading Iraq -the reason the second retard was tortured. In other words, the torture worked.

2) If you are a sadist who has fantasies about harming and killing others because you have never kissed a girl (and are unlikely to do so anytime soon), or you're a failure and taking out your frustration on someone tied to a chair (or masturbating at the thought of others doing it) is the best you can do, or if you are a pervert who can't get an erection with the normal stimuli; then torture "works" for you, too.

[Elfdart]

It is funny that the most famous and most efficient interrogator in history did not even once use torture and got better results.

Even Nazis knew better.

That's because the Nazis didn't have TV, so they couldn't watch 24.

[loomer]

Hey now, don't bring us perverts into this. A majority of the BDSM community don't support non-consensual torture acts, and those that do do so more out of political leanings than anything. If anything, we might just recognize how incredibly severe the impact of such an act might be - any good 'practicioner' is also a decent counsellor because we have to be for aftercare.

[Elfdart]

Hey now, don't bring us perverts into this. A majority of the BDSM community don't support non-consensual torture acts, and those that do do so more out of political leanings than anything. If anything, we might just recognize how incredibly severe the impact of such an act might be - any good 'practicioner' is also a decent counsellor because we have to be for aftercare.

BDSM-types actually get laid. Apples and oranges.

[K. A. Pital]

The question that one should ask is not "how many people were waterboarded", but how many were tortured overall. I think it's hardly just these three that were personally selected for CIA torture - there has been torture in CIA prisons abroad, torture in Iraq and Afghanistan detainment centers, torture in prisons, etc.

The problem of torture is two-fold - you can't sign international laws prohibiting torture and at the same time claim you're going to employ torture. You should withdraw from anti-torture conventions if you want to legalize torture.

Such an act would constitute colossal moral and public failure for the USA. So it prefers to make the moral failure quiet while maintaining a "good face" for the outside world by formally "adhering" to all the anti-torture laws.

[Elfdart]

So far, over a hundred people have been killed in US custody, such as Dilawar, the man tortured to death at Bagram.

The ACLU has a list of victims. I'm surprised at just how many the US government itself lists as homicides.

[Edi]

It's telling when an official US DoD investigation concluded that the US committed war crimes in Abu Ghraib and that the only question was whether the people responsible would be brought to justice (not just a few low level scapegoats) and what General McCaffrey said about the US armed forces having murdered people (ref the deaths in custody) that there are still people who deny any of it is true.

[PeZook]

Such an act would constitute colossal moral and public failure for the USA. So it prefers to make the moral failure quiet while maintaining a "good face" for the outside world by formally "adhering" to all the anti-torture laws.

That. It even goes to extreme lenghts of publishing a yearly Report On Human Rights, country by country. I mean, just read the blurb on their website:

The protection of fundamental human rights was a foundation stone in the establishment of the United States over 200 years ago. Since then, a central goal of U.S. foreign policy has been the promotion of respect for human rights, as embodied in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The United States understands that the existence of human rights helps secure the peace, deter aggression, promote the rule of law, combat crime and corruption, strengthen democracies, and prevent humanitarian crises.

Because the promotion of human rights is an important national interest, the United States seeks to:

* Hold governments accountable to their obligations under universal human rights norms and international human rights instruments;
* Promote greater respect for human rights, including freedom from torture, freedom of expression, press freedom, women's rights, children's rights, and the protection of minorities;
* Promote the rule of law, seek accountability, and change cultures of impunity;
* Assist efforts to reform and strengthen the institutional capacity of the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights and the UN Commission on Human Rights; and
* Coordinate human rights activities with important allies, including the EU, and regional organizations.

(bolding mine)

It really comes off as incredibly sleazy when on one hand, your country claims all those high-minded ideals and acknowledges that promoting human rights is good for everybody and helps America realize its foreign policy goals, then goes and establishes secret prisons and publishes torture manuals and holds people without trial etc.

Then you go and scold other countries yearly for doing the same fucking things! Why is that the US can do it, and your enemies can't? Because your enemies do more of it?

[Stark]

The answer is undoubtably because nobody can stop the US from doing it, so they all have to live with it.

Yes, people believe this AND get angry when people hate them enough to fight to the death. They're really that stupid.

[Flagg]

From my POV at the time, the people who weren't psychopathicly masturbating with glee over the Abu Graib pictures were well and truly pissed off. Not at the fact that this shit was going on, but that the media had published the pictures and was quote "Shoving it in our faces trying to make us feel bad." This was almost universal where I worked and in the LTTE in my local paper at the time, as well as the talk radio I listened to. Think about that. People in this country were more outraged at having their noses rubbed in it than they were about the steaming pile of shit the people they put in charge had made for their faces to be rubbed into.

I know this is probably going to be fodder for some cunt waving 'Godwins Law' around like a glittered dick at the most homoerotic of ecstasy fueled raves, but I can't help but wonder if the Germans who were forced to march through and witness the concentration camps firsthand and the others who had to view the published pictures felt.

[PeZook]

It's a natural defensive reaction. You defend your paradigm and beliefs and tribe instinctively, which is why I understand where it's coming from: the Abu Ghraib pictures challenge core beliefs of many people. Nobody wants to admit they're partly responsible for their government being massive cunts, after all.

Of course, it's funny how these same Americans don't seem to understand why the same applies to citizens of any other country being scolded by a massively hypocritical government like yours

[Thanas]

I know this is probably going to be fodder for some cunt waving 'Godwins Law' around like a glittered dick at the most homoerotic of ecstasy fueled raves,

Why? It is a valid comparison.

but I can't help but wonder if the Germans who were forced to march through and witness the concentration camps firsthand and the others who had to view the published pictures felt.

Humiliated, shocked (while I am certain everybody heard rumors about what was going on, it is another thing to see it firsthand), angry and ashamed. It was quite a healthy catharsis in the end, notice how easily the "there were no gassed jews" fraction got marginalized after that and the thorough reeducation. Because while there were squibblings about the scale of the slaughter, it is kinda hard to deny any slaughter happened at all when you saw the dead with your own eyes.

That said, it did not stop the populace from almost blindly reintegrating Nazis. A lot was not as vigorously prosecuted as it could have been. However, anybody who went up there and tried to defent the slaughter was quickly removed. There was, according to my perception, a sort of unsaid pact - we do not look to hard and you stop spouting that racist BS.

Hey, maybe what the americans need is a collective walk through Abu Gharaib while being forced to do so by gun-toting Iraqis.

[Shroom Man 777]

I wonder what kind of emotional reaction can be elicited by creating a youtube music video composed of clips and pictures of people being simulatedly drowned and dead Iraqis and Vietnamese kids with napalm sticking to them, with the occasional face shot of George W. Bush or something, playing to the background music of The Star Spangled Banner. After all those drowning people and dead children, you could have the final tunes playing to a slow-motion video of an airplane crashing into a skyscraper or something. The youtube comments would be glourious.

[MKSheppard]

The youtube comments would be glourious.

Just for that reason alone, I'd actually volunteer the computer time; to see how insane we can get the comments.