Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » General Comments » Dick Cheney and Valerie Plame

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!    
Author Topic: Dick Cheney and Valerie Plame
BobDylanThomas
Member
Member # 6520

 - posted      Profile for BobDylanThomas   Email BobDylanThomas   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
It is nice to be vindicated. Even if it has taken too many years. Cheney, Libby, and Novak should be in jail.

KE

[ November 03, 2009, 11:42 PM: Message edited by: BobDylanThomas ]

Posts: 211 | Registered: Oct 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
cherrypoptart
Member
Member # 3942

 - posted      Profile for cherrypoptart     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Eh? Still on that? I thought just the opposite and that it was proven that "outing" her wasn't a crime.

If I remember correctly, real CIA agents who engaged in water-boarding and other coercive interrogation techniques that saved American lives had their names, pictures, and addresses put up on the internet. These are real CIA agents who are still on duty and there hasn't been a peep about it by the people complaining about Plame.

And by the way, you'd better be just a little more careful about giving away your own identity there sir. Might want to edit that post and take out the initials, or they'll kick you out of the spies are us guild. [Smile]

Another by the way: I didn't know who you were until just then. Nice to have you back! Woohoo!

Posts: 7675 | Registered: Mar 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
BobDylanThomas
Member
Member # 6520

 - posted      Profile for BobDylanThomas   Email BobDylanThomas   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Oh yeah, it was a crime, IMO.

Quick recap. It was a long time ago.

Cheney told Libby that she was CIA while they were discussing Joe Wilson going to Nigeria and discrediting the reports that Iraq was buying yellow cake uranium. Then Libby discussed it with Rove and then he leaked it to Novak who wrote the story publicly outing her. Libby lied and was convicted of it and though Bush commuted his sentence he refused to pardon him.

In addition to Libby's testimony that Cheney told him about Plame there is now documentation backing him up. Cheney "couldn't remember" 72 times in his interviews with prosecutors. [Smile] They could be charged but being who they are it is more likely that they will just end up losing in civil court.

But the real point here is that Cheney, Libby, and Novak outed a CIA agent in order to punish her for what her husband did. Treason in a just world and a country run by laws and based on equality. Of course that is a joke. Power and money will keep Cheney out of jail. One more nail in their legacy.

I haven't heard about the CIA agents names being put on the Internet. If that happened whoever did it should be in prison, too. However, unless they are the Vice President of the United States and they did it out of political vindictiveness, it isn't an egregious betrayal as what Cheney did. He destroyed her career and risked not only her life but the lives of anyone she every worked with or was seen with. Not to protest torture. He wasn't fighting for a noble cause. He is just an evil bastard.

Thanks Cherry. [Smile] I don't have the Knight Ender name anymore. And a few weeks ago when I came here to lurk I was forced to register and pick a name.

KE

Edited to add: When I first came back and thought it would be better to just stick with BDT I repeatedly had to go back and remove the KE sig. [Smile] Old habits die hard.

[ November 04, 2009, 12:12 AM: Message edited by: BobDylanThomas ]

Posts: 211 | Registered: Oct 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
cherrypoptart
Member
Member # 3942

 - posted      Profile for cherrypoptart     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
My understanding was that the only crime was when Libby lied and committed perjury. If he would have just told them exactly what happened, there would have been no crime at all because Valerie didn't fit the legal description of a covert agent, and it was in fact Democrats concered with free speech issues during the Reagan era who specifically insisted that people like Plame could legally be "outed" in order to protect free speech.

My understanding also was that outing Plame was done more by accident than to hurt her. It just slipped.

Well, there was some talk by hobsen about people changing their names to protect their identities, real covert stuff just like we're talking about here in fact. I'm glad I didn't let anything slip though and was just trying to help you protect your identity, but I guess it's all good.

It's funny though that people seem to have so divergent views on this story. The quintessential Rashoman phenomenon, because my recollection of events is very different from that of a lot of other people.

Posts: 7675 | Registered: Mar 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
agents who engaged in water-boarding and other coercive interrogation techniques that saved American lives
Whatever else may be going on, that's still a completely spurious claim. Those techniques not only did little, if anything to gather useful information, but they served to stop sources that were providing useful information with techniques that were both humane and effective to stop providing it.
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
BobDylanThomas
Member
Member # 6520

 - posted      Profile for BobDylanThomas   Email BobDylanThomas   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Libby, Rove, and Armitage all three just happened to let slip the name of one of our CIA agents to reporters?

And it was just a coincidence that they "slipped" right after the CIA agents husband wrote a report called "What I didn't Find in Africa." Disproving Bush's claim that there was yellow cake in Nigeria that Iraq was trying to purchase for its WMD's. Thus threatening Bush's chance to do what he wanted and invade Iraq?

That all sounds both too convenient and like we have a lot of incompetent morons running our country?

No, I don't think they are morons. Vindictive and corrupt, but not stupid or sloppy.

KE

Posts: 211 | Registered: Oct 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
G2
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
quote:
agents who engaged in water-boarding and other coercive interrogation techniques that saved American lives
Whatever else may be going on, that's still a completely spurious claim. Those techniques not only did little, if anything to gather useful information, but they served to stop sources that were providing useful information with techniques that were both humane and effective to stop providing it.
Says who?
IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Says every experienced and effective interrogator that's been asked for comment. Says the Army Field Manual and the CIA operations guide. Says pretty much everyone but Cheney and his direct supporters. Not a single authoratative source has spoken up in favor of such techniques and there is, as yet, no evidence that they have produced any productive results.

The easiest example is Abu Zubaydah, who gave useful information when standard techniques were used, then stopped once torture was introduced.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2009-04-20/torture-doesnt-work/

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11/28/AR2008112802242.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/05/AR2007100502492.html

http://www.scribd.com/doc/6222229/Senate-Testimony-Col-Steven-M-Kleinman

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB122/CIA%20Human%20Res%20Exploit%20A1-G11.pdf

From page 5:
quote:
The interregator must [u]never[/u] take advantage of the source's weaknesses to the extent that the interrogation involves threats, insults, torture or exposure to unpleasant or inhumane treatment of any kind. Experience indicates taht force is not necessary to gain cooperation of sources. Use of force is poor technique, yeilds unreliable results, may damage subsequent collection efforts, and can induce the subject to say what he thinks the interrogator wants to hear.

Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
http://humanintel.blogspot.com/

Also has good information on the subject.

But it all comes back to the same place- rapport building gets good information. Torture does not.

Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Quinnalus
Member
Member # 6374

 - posted      Profile for Quinnalus   Email Quinnalus       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
But it all comes back to the same place- rapport building gets good information. Torture does not.

Prytolin?

I read your link and this line was repeated several times...

quote:
(It should be remembered however that rapport-building techniques themselves have not been validated scientifically in the intelligence context even if the narrative and historical record overwhelmingly supports their effectiveness.)
Can you provide any other support for rapport-building being a superior method of interrogation?
Posts: 177 | Registered: Nov 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rallan
Member
Member # 1936

 - posted      Profile for Rallan   Email Rallan   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
My understanding is that this is all ancient history. And while every effort should still be made to find out who (if anyone) was responsible for any shenanigans in the Plame affair, it's not exactly newsworthy stuff any more.
Posts: 2570 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
RickyB
Member
Member # 1464

 - posted      Profile for RickyB   Email RickyB   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"My understanding also was that outing Plame was done more by accident than to hurt her."

Wanna see this bridge I have for sale?

Posts: 19145 | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Kuato
Member
Member # 6445

 - posted      Profile for Kuato   Email Kuato       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Cheney has a good side, somewhere.

[ November 05, 2009, 04:33 PM: Message edited by: Kuato ]

Posts: 1038 | Registered: Apr 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
hobsen
Member
Member # 2923

 - posted      Profile for hobsen   Email hobsen   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Thinking back over the Plame affair, I realized RickyB is right outing her could have been malicious. But what came out later was that the CIA had forbidden her to take any dangerous undercover assignments for some ten years, because they believed her status was known at least to the Cubans and the Russians. She did travel incognito to places like Belgium, but it seems unlikely the Belgians would have imprisoned or executed a CIA agent even if they found out about her. And her covert status was slipshod at best - claiming to work for a company near Boston, well known to be a CIA subsidiary by local reporters, while living in Washington and driving to CIA headquarters in Virginia every day. As soon as reporters started trying to learn everything possible about Joe Wilson and his family, because he had become a declared enemy of the White House, her employment was going to be revealed - Cheney or no Cheney. And Rallan is right this is very old news, and far from the worst done by Bush or those around him.
Posts: 4387 | Registered: Jul 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
cherrypoptart
Member
Member # 3942

 - posted      Profile for cherrypoptart     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
If we don't need torture to get information, how is it explainable that we don't have all the information we need from common criminals to bust up gangs and organized crime?

Have all of these criminals told us everything they know? We haven't tortured them so obviously they must have...

Posts: 7675 | Registered: Mar 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
aupton15
Member
Member # 1771

 - posted      Profile for aupton15   Email aupton15   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
So cherry, are you suggesting that the only thing (or perhaps the biggest thing) between us and a country without gangs and organized crime is a little more information?
Posts: 1445 | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
G2
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by hobsen:
She did travel incognito to places like Belgium, but it seems unlikely the Belgians would have imprisoned or executed a CIA agent even if they found out about her.

I dunno, Belgians man. They can can be a pretty rough bunch. I think those waffles make'em crazy, unpredictable. You ever go to Belgium, you better watch yourself.
IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Quinnalus:
quote:
(It should be remembered however that rapport-building techniques themselves have not been validated scientifically in the intelligence context even if the narrative and historical record overwhelmingly supports their effectiveness.)
Can you provide any other support for rapport-building being a superior method of interrogation?
Better question- can you provide at least that degree of validation for torture?

I'm not sure, really what the state of actual interrogation research is. (My guess, though is that there's a whole heap of research ethics that prevents it from happening at all, though)

What we do know, though, is what professional experience has shown to be effective. We don't have solid double blind studies on interrogation, and probably won't ever really get them- so that disclaimer is a bit of a dodge. Experience suggest that rapport can get useful information, torture only really gets misinformation.

Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
G2
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
Experience suggest that rapport can get useful information, torture only really gets misinformation.

That is simply not true. Not even close. It's only a talking point regurgitated so often that it starts to take on the thinnest veneer of truth.
quote:
The IG report said detainees in the interrogation program made the CIA aware of plots to attack the U.S. consulate in Karachi, Pakistan; to fly hijacked aircraft into Heathrow Airport; to derail a train in the U.S.; to blow up gas stations in the U.S.; to fly an airplane into the tallest building in California; and to collapse bridges in New York. If any of the planned attacks in the U.S. had come off, many of the same critics braying about the CIA’s interrogation program would be outraged about its failure to “connect the dots.”

The IG report doesn’t flatly assert that the enhanced interrogations were responsible for this intelligence haul, but the facts make it obvious. Top terrorists were withholding information prior to the application of the toughest techniques, and were compliant afterward. Surely, their decision to talk didn’t result from a sudden fit of conscience. According to the report, KSM was “an accomplished resistor,” who provided mostly “outdated, inaccurate, or incomplete” information until he was waterboarded. Subsequently, he became the “most prolific” source of important leads.

According to the IG report, KSM’s cooperation led to the arrest of a truck driver in the U.S. named Iyman Faris who was plotting attacks on New York landmarks; of a sleeper operative in New York named Saleh Almari; of an operative named Majid Khan who had easy entree into the U.S.; and of two Pakistani businessmen whom KSM “planned to use to smuggle explosives into the United States.”

Overall, according to another CIA document released last week, “detainees in mid-2003 helped us build a list of 70 individuals — many of who we had never heard of before — that al-Qaeda deemed suitable for Western operations.” In the War on Terror, learning the identities of these operatives is almost the equivalent of the ULTRA program breaking German codes in World War II.

The former CIA inspector general John Helgerson tells the Washington Post that “waterboarding and sleep deprivation were the two most powerful techniques and elicited a lot of information.”

Saying enhanced interrogation techniques like waterboarding and sleep deprivation "only really gets misinformation" simply is not accurate.
IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
BobDylanThomas
Member
Member # 6520

 - posted      Profile for BobDylanThomas   Email BobDylanThomas   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
who (if anyone) was responsible for any shenanigans in the Plame affair, it's not exactly newsworthy stuff any more.
[LOL]
quote:
Originally posted by hobsen:
And Rallan is right this is very old news, and far from the worst done by Bush or those around him.

Yes, intentionally outing one of our intelligence agents for political reasons is no big deal. Let it go.

The Vice President and Chief of Staff teaming up with a gargoyle to punish a woman because her husband dared to tell the truth and might could have possibly kept our country from getting into a horribly stupid war that has cost American lives and treasure is just not a big deal. Surely when the culprits have been out of office a whole year the statute of limitations has run out?

That kind of abuse of power is perfectly fine.
Which is "why" this was "far from the worst done by Bush or those around him". The got away with it. Why shouldn't they do worse?

We get what we deserve.

Nothing to see here. Move along.

[ November 06, 2009, 04:30 PM: Message edited by: BobDylanThomas ]

Posts: 211 | Registered: Oct 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
velcro
Member
Member # 1216

 - posted      Profile for velcro   Email velcro   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
G2,

Quantity vs. Quality.

Information was undoubtedly obtained from suspects. But there is no indication whether the valuable information was obtained before or after torture. Not in your quote (source?), not in any of the released CIA memos.

Here's a more complete quote from Mr. Helgerson.

quote:
Certain of the techniques seemed to have little effect, whereas waterboarding and sleep deprivation were the two most powerful techniques and elicited a lot of information. ... But we didn't have the time or resources to do a careful, systematic analysis of the use of particular techniques with particular individuals and independently confirm the quality of the information that came out.
No evidence that torture was any better than other interrogation methods at getting quality intel. Quantity? Sure, a tortured man will talk for days if it stops the torture. But he will probably lie. That is what KSM says he did.


So your whole thesis hangs on the unsourced, unsupported comment that KSM gave “outdated, inaccurate, or incomplete” information until he was waterboarded.

Some evidence would be helpful. Absent evidence, Pyrtolin's sources seem to prevail.

Posts: 2096 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
hobsen
Member
Member # 2923

 - posted      Profile for hobsen   Email hobsen   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The Plame affair ended on June 22, 2009:
quote:
A lawsuit by former CIA operative Valerie Plame against former Bush administration officials will not be revived by the US supreme court.

Last year a lower court tossed out the lawsuit filed by Plame and her husband, former ambassador Joseph Wilson, which accused Dick Cheney and former top Bush officials of leaking Plame's identity to the media in 2003. Wilson and Plame argued the move violated their constitutional rights.

The US court of appeals said the lawsuit didn't meet legal standards for constitutional claims because part of the suit is based on alleged violations of the Privacy Act, a law that does not cover the president or the vice-president's offices.

Former Bush officials Karl Rove, I Lewis "Scooter" Libby and Richard Armitage were named in the lawsuit. Armitage admitted to being the source of a column by conservative writer Robert Novak that identified Plame as a CIA operative. The column appeared shortly after Wilson wrote an opinion piece in the New York Times questioning a claim by Bush that Niger sold uranium yellowcake to Iraq. Rove also talked to the media about Plame...

The decision by the supreme court effectively ends any legal manoeuvres Plame can pursue against the Bush administration.


Posts: 4387 | Registered: Jul 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Waterboarding is inhumane treatment and so violates the convention against torture.

But torture? While Jesse never grasped the difference between the water treatment vs. waterboarding, I think that the 10% of folks who survived the water treatment could explain the difference to the 100% that survived waterboarding. I'm not sure I'm confortable using the word "torture" to describe something that I'd be willing to submit to in exchange for 2 weeks salary or a paid trip to Disneyland for the kids.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
velcro
Member
Member # 1216

 - posted      Profile for velcro   Email velcro   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Pete,

Have you ever been waterboarded? If not, how do you know it would be worth a trip to Disneyland?

Posts: 2096 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DonaldD
Member
Member # 1052

 - posted      Profile for DonaldD   Email DonaldD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I was going to mention that. It would need to be a really good, expensive hotel room at Disneyland to make up for the ongoing anxiety, nightmares and panic attacks. And those are symptoms experienced by previously-cynical 'dilettantes' (like Hitchens) who allowed themselves to be waterboarded by people they trusted (I figure detainees who have it worse, as they would reasonably fear that the torturer doesn't much care about his or her life)
Posts: 10751 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
G2
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by velcro:
G2,

Quantity vs. Quality.

Information was undoubtedly obtained from suspects. But there is no indication whether the valuable information was obtained before or after torture. Not in your quote (source?), not in any of the released CIA memos.

Here's a more complete quote from Mr. Helgerson.

quote:
Certain of the techniques seemed to have little effect, whereas waterboarding and sleep deprivation were the two most powerful techniques and elicited a lot of information. ... But we didn't have the time or resources to do a careful, systematic analysis of the use of particular techniques with particular individuals and independently confirm the quality of the information that came out.
No evidence that torture was any better than other interrogation methods at getting quality intel. Quantity? Sure, a tortured man will talk for days if it stops the torture. But he will probably lie. That is what KSM says he did.


So your whole thesis hangs on the unsourced, unsupported comment that KSM gave “outdated, inaccurate, or incomplete” information until he was waterboarded.

Some evidence would be helpful. Absent evidence, Pyrtolin's sources seem to prevail.

The quote I provided relies on the Inspector General's report that resulted from the IG investigation of the CIA enhanced interrogation techniques. That's the official investigation and the official results from the operatives actually involved. You can deny the reality presented by this report but reality is what it is.

Talking about it for days on end is not a guarantee of truth either. These people will still lie, why do you think they wouldn't? The IG report specifically addressed KSM but you prefer KSM's version over the results of the IG investigation. Given that, I don't see any evidence that could possibly sway to any other conclusion but the one KSM wants you to have.

The idea that these techniques do not work is laughable. Of course they work. Do a little thought experiment here. I kidnap you and hold you for an undetermined time and I want the PIN to your debit card so I can steal your entire life savings, I want your SSN, driver's license number, etc, the whole identify theft. It'll wreck your life. We can have a cup of coffee, share a few hugs and tell some jokes. Maybe watch a Will Farrell movie and share some laughs. We'll be big buddies. You going to give me your PIN and all that so I can take your money just because I asked with a "pretty please"? You may, eventually, when you get tired of hanging with me but since I'm giving you better food, cleaner living conditions, etc than you normally get, you're going to relax for a bit and enjoy the break from the daily grind.

I waterboard you, you'll tell me today. Probably within the first few minutes. Now you may lie to me. That's inadvisable, but you'll try and the first time I come back with no money from the ATM you're going to wish I came back with a wad of bills. Waterboarding is unpleasant and only a few trips through that particular fun factory makes an honest man that very much wants to cooperate (just like the IG report says KSM did). Just in case, I got a few other people that happen to know those details too. When you all come up with different answers, I don't even have to risk going out to the ATM to check the PIN.

I'm not saying we should do this to everyone or that it's always the best approach but the idea that it does not work is absurd.

[ November 07, 2009, 11:15 AM: Message edited by: G2 ]

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
And then, when you get away, I call the bank, report the fraud, take a small loss while it sends law enforcement after you. It's a trade of basically worthless, low cost information, so your parallel falls apart. It's even worse for me if I don't have a bank account at all, because all I can do is keep giving you made up information in hopes that it'll keep you away.

How about a better parallel.

I arrest you for a crime and want you to tell me how to get your conspirators too.

Would you be more likely to tell me where they are if I subject you to constant torture and miserable conditions, show no concern for your health and safety, and threaten your family? I even promise to stop if you tell me who they are and help capture them.

What about if I treated you respectfully, offered you help get you off easy and even swing some financial support your way, and discussed evidence that they were planning to hold your kids hostage to ensure that you remained loyal to them. I even throw in an offer to help protect your family and friends from reprisal if you help us bring them in.

Under which of those scenarios would you be more likely to cooperate? Which would make you more likely to make up information and maybe even try to turn in people you don't like instead? In which of them do I come out looking better if it turns out that I picked you up on false information?

Which of those led us to where Saddam Hussein was hiding out?

Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Cause and effect in human psychology rarely happens along a straightforward axis. There are typically counter-movements. Also, it rarely happens along one single axis.

So while torture IS a very effective way of breaking a prisoner's resolve, it also thoroughly removes all interest a prisoner may have in cooperating with a captor.

Axoim: a prisoner may be willing to say ANYthing to stop the torture but the *truth*. Extreme pain drastically reduces one's self-control.

It is a blindfold game: the torturer lacks information. Because of this lack, the torturer cannot reliably tell when a captive is lying. So a subject can lie and lie and lie for a long time, relishing how a) it stops a round of torture while b) sending his captors on wild goose chases and frustrating them further. The captive HATES his captors. How could he not?!?

After torture has been applied, searing a captive's psyche into a severely hardened shell of fear, distrust, and hatred toward his captor, a captive no longer has adequate means of trusting his captor enough to believe the torture will stop when he tells the truth. In fact, the actual truth may well be unverifiable. The captive may have known and revealed vital intricate details of a genuinely dangerous plot, but those details may not be apprehensible by his captor, and so his captor may not be able to verify their veracity any more than he can truly prove false the many false fantasy dangerous plot details the captive may have produced to cease a round of torture.

The further this cycle goes, the less motivation a captive has to provide truth. Indeed, beyond cessation of pain, his chief satisfaction in his now horrible, seemingly doomed life, is to not give his captor the one thing his captor wants. And, to repeat what I said above, the captive may indeed have given the truth he had but his captives may not have believed it.*

Human beings are, however, extremely subjective and totally dependent on incoming stimulus. The more trust and kindness a captive experiences from his captor, the more likely it is for the captive's mind to 'turn', to relinquish his antagonism toward and resistance of his captor, and to find ways to rationalize within himself why his captor deserves the truth, that his former comrades can be discarded, that he can in fact betray a cause to which, supposedly, the captive has dedicated his life, fortune, sacred honor, you name it, to the point of sacrificing both his own life and that of his comrades.

Such zealotry is extremely volatile. Properly change the environmental inputs of such a person, and that person is virtually forced by internal pressure to realign with his new comrades: his captives. Intensely fanatical positions are inherently unstable and vulnerable to conflicting input like consistent kindness from the Great Shaitan.

The Stockholm syndrome is more reliably effectively understood -- by far -- than the relationship between deliberately applied pain and
accuracy of elicited information.

Plus: the ticking time bomb scenario is bogus from the gitgo. Unless you have something DEAR to that captive, say his daughter or wife or mother, and so can make him watch you torture them, the very urgency of the ticking time bomb provides the captive with the knowledge that they have a VERY high chance of lying their way through torture until it goes off. But, if your captive is truly a hardened, emotionally cauterized radical fanatic, he will have already anticipated this and will know that, at least in the short run, he can stop that torture with lies.

Unless you have a VERY precise situation like the red vs green nuke trigger dilemma... and there it still fails. A captive can look you in the eye and say:

"You cannot know if I lie or tell the truth about the wire. You have to trust me to find out. If I trick you into triggering the nuke, Manhattan goes down. Meanwhile, here in Langley, Virginia, there will no longer be any morally justifiable purpose in torturing my child. There will, in fact, no longer be any morally justifiable purpose in torturing me. The very most your conscience will suffer and allow you any peace of mind might be to put me through a very slow and painful death, and even that is scarcely palatable to the conscience of someone who believes in doing good and believes they ARE doing good."

Such a person can be so focused on their ideologically driven purpose and world view that they might well be able to hate their captor for threatening to torture his child more than he feels compassion for his child. If one is prepared to detonate a bomb that will cause children in the tens of thousands to suffer horrible pain and disease, not all of them with the promise of death as a result, one is perhaps prepared to watch your child be flayed alive.

Brainwashing is something that takes care, kindness, proven technique, and lots of time.

Succumbing to barbaric impulses no more nuanced or effective than banging an engine with a sledge hammer because it won't start, is something that can be very satisfying when one feels powerless against what one perceives as an enemy's plan to do evil and harm. Panic and rage can fool one into confusing righteous indignation with a technique that might actually work, and that won't create more harm than whatever good it *might* provide.

I find virtually no circumstance where torture provides any verifiable result other than mutual degradation of captor and captive.

I find 'scale of one to ten' distinctions ranking, say, keeping someone cold, hungry, and sleepy a one, and pouring molten lead down one's throat a ten, to be truly vile evasions of the simple fact that deliberately causing pain is deliberately causing pain.

If it's wrong for me to rape my daughter is it OK to fondle my crotch when she's around and make lewd overtures?

Please, please, please, stop embarrassing yourselves and your colleagues by attempting any justification of blind barbarism with no reliable means of gauging whether the end justifies the means. We all understand the moral balance of killing someone in self-defense. The experience will probably scar us horribly, but the benefit that homicide produces far outweighs the damage received.

But condoning torture? In the face of millennia of history recording the dubiety of its reliable effectiveness, and a century of scientifically performed experiments further establishing that dubiety?

Leave this one be. Soil yourselves with it no more.

*This suggests a paradox of the heaven/hell routine. Imagine one is in hell, suffering and aware one is doomed to suffer forever. Imagine being told that if you would just reach out to god, the suffering will stop. But to reach out to god you must open your heart, and your heart has been sealed shut by the belief that God let you be placed here in the first place.

The idea that it isn't God's fault, that reality is simply configured in such a way that one MUST open and dedicate one's heart god before one dies, or else on will suffer eternally, finds little traction in the captive's mind because he is never sure if he's *really* opened up his heart to God; he felt that ambiguity many times before death: am I *really* surrendering my will to the Lord? All of it?

A similar ambiguity pollutes the relationship between torturer and victim.

Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
velcro
Member
Member # 1216

 - posted      Profile for velcro   Email velcro   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
G2 wrote
quote:
The quote I provided relies on the Inspector General's report that resulted from the IG investigation of the CIA enhanced interrogation techniques.
No, G2, the quote you provided is an interpretation of the IG's report, that takes elements out of context to try to back up an opinion. I already showed how Helgerson's actual quote has quite a different meaning when read in its full context. The IG said that KSM gave “outdated, inaccurate, or incomplete” information. Your (still unidentified) source added the fact that the good information came only after waterboarding. If you can find any evidence at all in the IG's report to back up the allegation that the good information came only after torture, I concede the point. But according to all the sources I have seen, no such evidence exists.

To sum up, I don't argue with the snippets of the IG report that were quoted. I argue with the interpretation inserted between ambiguous snippets.

My point is that you have no evidence that torture works. And just so you know, no matter how many "thought experiments" you do, no matter how many times your reference an official report without giving specific complete quotes, if you don't have evidence, you don't have evidence.

Posts: 2096 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
yossarian22c
Member
Member # 1779

 - posted      Profile for yossarian22c   Email yossarian22c       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Well said KL.
Posts: 1121 | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Please note that while I tentatively don't think that waterboarding is torture, that I don't think that it's legal under the CAT, and don't want to see it used by authorities. Saying that rape isn't a form of arson doesn't mean that you're trying to justify rape.

[ November 08, 2009, 12:43 AM: Message edited by: Pete at Home ]

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
BobDylanThomas
Member
Member # 6520

 - posted      Profile for BobDylanThomas   Email BobDylanThomas   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by hobsen:
The Plame affair ended on June 22, 2009:
quote:
A lawsuit by former CIA operative Valerie Plame against former Bush administration officials will not be revived by the US supreme court.

Last year a lower court tossed out the lawsuit filed by Plame and her husband, former ambassador Joseph Wilson, which accused Dick Cheney and former top Bush officials of leaking Plame's identity to the media in 2003. Wilson and Plame argued the move violated their constitutional rights.

The US court of appeals said the lawsuit didn't meet legal standards for constitutional claims because part of the suit is based on alleged violations of the Privacy Act, a law that does not cover the president or the vice-president's offices.

Former Bush officials Karl Rove, I Lewis "Scooter" Libby and Richard Armitage were named in the lawsuit. Armitage admitted to being the source of a column by conservative writer Robert Novak that identified Plame as a CIA operative. The column appeared shortly after Wilson wrote an opinion piece in the New York Times questioning a claim by Bush that Niger sold uranium yellowcake to Iraq. Rove also talked to the media about Plame...

The decision by the supreme court effectively ends any legal manoeuvres Plame can pursue against the Bush administration.


If "the Plame Affair ended" in June with this lawsuit, why are they still questioning Dick Cheney about it now?
quote:
Last year a lower court tossed out the lawsuit filed by Plame and her husband, former ambassador Joseph Wilson, which accused Dick Cheney and former top Bush officials of leaking Plame's identity to the media in 2003. Wilson and Plame argued the move violated their constitutional rights.

The US court of appeals said the lawsuit didn't meet legal standards for constitutional claims because part of the suit is based on alleged violations of the Privacy Act, a law that does not cover the president or the vice-president's offices.

[Frown] [Mad] How sick is that? How Bush/Cheney got out of office without being impeached is beyond me. Obama is going to have to work very hard to do more damage to the country than these two.


KE

Posts: 211 | Registered: Oct 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by DonaldD:
I was going to mention that. It would need to be a really good, expensive hotel room at Disneyland to make up for the ongoing anxiety, nightmares and panic attacks. And those are symptoms experienced by previously-cynical 'dilettantes' (like Hitchens) who allowed themselves to be waterboarded by people they trusted (I figure detainees who have it worse, as they would reasonably fear that the torturer doesn't much care about his or her life)

Good link. Good catch. Thanks, Donald; I'll read that. It may change my mind.

Damn, that Christopher Hitchens has balls. Glad he tried it before someone took me up on my offer.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1