Enhanced Interrogation- from a guy who did it, and saved a lot of lives

[ATM]

So, there's never been a box on any form that you've ever filled out which says you are a US Citizen? Or do you just leave the box blank?

I'll write whatever I need to achieve my goals, we all jump through lots of insane hoops just to exist.

I actually abide by many infringements that I call out as illegitimate, which is different than consenting to them.

 

[ATM]

So, who will defend [STRIKE]state-sponsored torture[/STRIKE] cruel and unusual punishment to extract information?



ETA: Let's try some different terminology.

 

[HoughMade]

So, at least some rights are inherent?

Sure, but not absolute.

 

[Woobie]

I'll write whatever I need to achieve my goals, we all jump through lots of insane hoops just to exist.

I actually abide by many infringements that I call out as illegitimate, which is different than consenting to them.

Ah, so you are pragmatic.

 

[ATM]

Ah, so you are pragmatic.

Of course, but only to an extent. It is not the foundation by which I am guided.

 

[Woobie]

Of course, but only to an extent. It is not the foundation by which I am guided.

Well, as a fellow pragmatist, you'll be happy to know I'll jump through whatever insane hoops the terrorists require of me to achieve my goal, which is to make sure innocent people can still exist.

 

[ATM]

Well, as a fellow pragmatist, you'll be happy to know I'll jump through whatever insane hoops the terrorists require of me to achieve my goal, which is to make sure innocent people can still exist.

Then go torture people to extract their knowledge. If possible, I will attempt to defend them from you.

You seem a decent fellow, I'd hate to kill you.

 

[Lex Concord]

First of all, I would make a distinction. These tactics are specifically not used as punishment. They are used to gain information. The punishment is an entirely different matter.

So, in your opinion, the restriction placed by the Eighth is to be construed to protect cruel or unusual acts or tactics performed by the government or its agents strictly in the execution of punishment; all (some, most) other purposes that might be used to justify cruel or unusual acts are acceptable?

Secondly, I think the legal vs. inherent discussion is interesting in this instance. I would say humans have an inherent right to not be treated like an animal. But I would also say that right doesn't trump another humans right to be alive. If I have to choose between the two, I will side with preserving the innocent life over the dignity of the murderer. Also, I am in no way convinced any of the ten things on the CIA list stoop to the level of inhumane. They're mean, but so is letting your dog poop on someone else's lawn.

People waive their rights -- even the most basic inherent rights, such as life -- by their actions all the time. I have no argument with this at it's basic truth and necessity of coexistence.

However, can being suspected (strongly suspected) of having certain knowledge rise to the level of such an action? If so, what are the acceptable parameters? What if it is your gun collection that is considered to be the threat, and it's your (insert beloved relative here) being interrogated? Would that make it different?

In other words, what are the acceptable minimums for due process? What are the hurdles that must be crossed to deprive someone of life, liberty, and property.

Thirdly, I will reiterate the source of a right does not impose a responsibility to protect that right for all mankind. A government formed of the people, by the people, for the people has no business with someone that is not one of its people. Inasmuch as some goat rapist decides to attack the people the government is formed to serve, that government must do its obligation, not invent reasons to shirk that obligation. The government is a legal entity, not a moral entity. So while some founding principles are morally based, they do not make the mechanics of the government moral. Being a legal entity, it must deal with those who possess legal standing.

I understand your point and that you are adamant about it. I will agree, the source of a right doesn't impose any responsibility for protecting a right, but I do believe that no natural right should be encroached upon more easily merely due to one's apparent legal standing.

While it is true that the government is a legal entity, I don't think that the fact that (some/many/most) of its founding principles being morally based should be so easily dismissed. If the foundation of a thing is of a certain nature, should not the things built upon that foundation follow, or flow from that nature?

 

[Woobie]

Then go torture people to extract their knowledge. If possible, I will attempt to defend them from you.

You seem a decent fellow, I'd hate to kill you.

You think the government has no right to knowledge. I think people have no right to wantonly kill each other without provocation. Now these principles are rarely in conflict, but sometimes they are. If you really think a person's right to keep specific information to themselves is worth the lives of the people the information could save, then you have a twisted set of values. But I wonder what those values would look like if at stake was your own existence, which you pragmatically serve.

Oh yes, kill me. That would be morally superior to slapping someone. It seems so easy to say.

And you said "torture." I thought we were talking about water boarding?

 

[Woobie]

So, in your opinion, the restriction placed by the Eighth is to be construed to protect cruel or unusual acts or tactics performed by the government or its agents strictly in the execution of punishment; all (some, most) other purposes that might be used to justify cruel or unusual acts are acceptable?



People waive their rights -- even the most basic inherent rights, such as life -- by their actions all the time. I have no argument with this at it's basic truth and necessity of coexistence.

However, can being suspected (strongly suspected) of having certain knowledge rise to the level of such an action? If so, what are the acceptable parameters? What if it is your gun collection that is considered to be the threat, and it's your (insert beloved relative here) being interrogated? Would that make it different?

In other words, what are the acceptable minimums for due process? What are the hurdles that must be crossed to deprive someone of life, liberty, and property.



I understand your point and that you are adamant about it. I will agree, the source of a right doesn't impose any responsibility for protecting a right, but I do believe that no natural right should be encroached upon more easily merely due to one's apparent legal standing.

While it is true that the government is a legal entity, I don't think that the fact that (some/many/most) of its founding principles being morally based should be so easily dismissed. If the foundation of a thing is of a certain nature, should not the things built upon that foundation follow, or flow from that nature?

The short answer for me to all this is that we must figure out what causes the least harm. If a person is strongly suspected of having committed a crime, should we water board him? No, I don't think so. If someone is strongly suspected of being privy to imminent taking of innocent life, and doing them harm can prevent the greater harm, then I would say you are morally obligated to do your best to save those lives. No one does brain surgery on healthy people. No one questions cutting open a brain cancer patient's head. Saving a building full of people is not inconsistent with our moral underpinnings.

ETA: I may be assuming too much, but it seems to me your concern is if government can have this power, then what safeguards should be in place? What limits should there be to prevent abuse, over reach, mission creep? If that is the case, I share your concern and think it is a worthwhile discussion. I'm too worn out at this point to go into it much, but I think the restrictions should be very strict.

 

[jamil]

I'm gonna borrow the conversation a bit here and say something about the topic. I purchased Mitchel's book on kindle. Pretty interesting. It seems some of his accounts from the book contradict what was said in the CIA report about EIT. Concerning KSM, the CIA report said that he went through "intense" walling which yielded no new information, and then underwent waterboarding, which after an hour he started talking.

In the book, Mitchel said that after KSM resisted many techniques, they escalated to waterboarding, which he described as completely ineffective. He said that KSM had figured out two techniques to defeat waterboarding. Apparently KSM wasn't bothered by waterboarding at all. Mitchel told of one instance where after a session, the interrogators stepped out of the room to confer with the physician, and when they entered the room KSM was asleep on the board snoring. He also said this was before they started sleep deprivation.

I'm curious why the accounts of what got KSM to talk are so different. Mitchel says waterboarding was completely ineffective with KSM. To get him to talk, they employed classical conditioning/avoidance conditioning. They got him to associate thoughts of being deceitful with emotional discomfort. The "discomfort" was a form of EIT called "walling". Mitchel said that Walling, which he experienced in his SERE training, was not painful but was very disorienting.
Contrast that with the CIA report which said that the walling wasn't effective but the waterboarding was.

 

[jamil]

I'll write whatever I need to achieve my goals, we all jump through lots of insane hoops just to exist.

I actually abide by many infringements that I call out as illegitimate, which is different than consenting to them.

But you have declared that you are a US citizen.

 

[hoosierdoc]

Sure, but not absolute.

why would you limit my pursuit of happiness? It's not my fault my happiness is found while laying on top of your car.

 

[hoosierdoc]

But you have declared that you are a US citizen.

And yet he has never produced his birth certificate

 

[jamil]

And yet he has never produced his birth certificate

Well. Not to my knowledge.

 

[actaeon277]

The right to torture....

The right to self defense. You are not limited to knives, dueling pistols at 20 paces, karate, etc.
You are allowed a large repertoire, one of which is gun.
I would post that torture is one.
Not one normally used. And an ugly tool. But don't some say the same about guns.

Now, if a loved one of ATM is being brutally beaten/tortured on Internet video, and in front of him is a person that knows where his loved one is, does he ask nicely, and then give up when there is no answer?

 

[Woobie]

I'm gonna borrow the conversation a bit here and say something about the topic. I purchased Mitchel's book on kindle. Pretty interesting. It seems some of his accounts from the book contradict what was said in the CIA report about EIT. Concerning KSM, the CIA report said that he went through "intense" walling which yielded no new information, and then underwent waterboarding, which after an hour he started talking.

In the book, Mitchel said that after KSM resisted many techniques, they escalated to waterboarding, which he described as completely ineffective. He said that KSM had figured out two techniques to defeat waterboarding. Apparently KSM wasn't bothered by waterboarding at all. Mitchel told of one instance where after a session, the interrogators stepped out of the room to confer with the physician, and when they entered the room KSM was asleep on the board snoring. He also said this was before they started sleep deprivation.

I'm curious why the accounts of what got KSM to talk are so different. Mitchel says waterboarding was completely ineffective with KSM. To get him to talk, they employed classical conditioning/avoidance conditioning. They got him to associate thoughts of being deceitful with emotional discomfort. The "discomfort" was a form of EIT called "walling". Mitchel said that Walling, which he experienced in his SERE training, was not painful but was very disorienting.
Contrast that with the CIA report which said that the walling wasn't effective but the waterboarding was.

I would like to read the book.

I don't know what to think, really. It's not like it would be the first time a government commission got the facts horribly wrong. Then again, it also wouldn't be the first time a guy wrote something to get a book deal, or felt the need to lie to make himself look better.

The truth could be either, or, in between, or none of the above.

 

[ATM]

You think the government has no right to knowledge.

No, nobody has a right to extract knowledge against my will.

I think people have no right to wantonly kill each other without provocation.

Agreed.

Now these principles are rarely in conflict, but sometimes they are.

Describe this conflict, please.

If you really think a person's right to keep specific information to themselves is worth the lives of the people the information could save, then you have a twisted set of values.

Explain the twist in my values.

But I wonder what those values would look like if at stake was your own existence, which you pragmatically serve.

They would look the same.

Oh yes, kill me. That would be morally superior to slapping someone. It seems so easy to say.

You are attempting to contrast two things I did not. It was easy to say because it was a quote from a movie.

And you said "torture." I thought we were talking about water boarding?

Were we?

 

[ATM]

But you have declared that you are a US citizen.

I've also declared that I am a subject of the State. Are those in conflict? Can they be resolved?

Do I need to denounce one or other to purchase a gun from an FFL? Would that help you sleep at night?

Would it help you to defend cruel and unusual techniques of information extraction?

 

[ATM]

And yet he has never produced his birth certificate

I may be willing to produce a modified copy if it serves my purposes to do so.