• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Osama found using Gitmo torture info

Lowpro

Philosopher
Lowpro
Joined
Jan 1, 2011
Messages
5,399
So, do you think the ends justified the means?

I've always though torture to be cruel and evil and requires oversight to be sure, but I've also stood by the fact that it works no matter how evil it is.

Does this validate torture? Nope, and torture never needed validation to begin with.

Thought and inflammatory remarks?
 
Got a link for that? Because there was one earlier to Rumsfeld denying that torture led to the intel in any way.
 
Hmm, first area I heard it was actually on the Colbert Report (His interview with Francis Fukuyama)

Now I know the news said he was located by the U.S. after they identified and followed a "trusted courier" and as I've heard, the courier was found using Gitmo torture info.

Quick google found http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...en-killed-after-tip-offs-from-Guantanamo.html


Although I've also found the Rumsfeld article as well, so that may lead to something.

EDIT: Im finding other places (probably not reliable, it's either i'm running across well-designed blogs to fool me into thinking they're reliable or not...) but they say things like KSM DID gve up the information, but much earlier (as far as the name) but actually TRACKING the courier took far longer after discovering his name?

AND they also say that KSM gave up the name under normal interrogation methods, not expressly after being waterboarded, IF he was (again I got nothing to say he was, and I never cared earlier in 2002-2011 if he was or not) so I dunno.

That article is http://www.whereistheoutrage.net/wo...servatives-exclaim-torture-works-not-so-fast/

Again, not sure if it's reliable, but google isn't churning much out, and the Rumsfeld line doesn't say MUCH to the info other than there was no torture involved BUT if it's a name KSM gave up years ago, and just took years to discover the person, then I wonder how "important" the info was then vs now so methods may have changed (with those good ole 50/50 hindsight glasses)

Okay, CNN posted a video of Peter King announcing it WAS information obtained using torture but not specifically from Gitmo, but in Europe. Can we trust Peter King? Hell no, but at least if he lied we can point it out...

http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/bestoftv/2011/05/03/exp.piers.peter.king.torture.cnn?iref=allsearch

Hope that video maintains its link
 
Last edited:
We probably could have found Usama by indiscriminantly kidnapping and torturing innocent people in Pakistan, too. Surely that would not have been justified.

I know, it's hyperbolic, but I hope you see my point. Even if it is found that Usama bin Laden was only located through "extra-legal methods," there was no guarantee that it would have worked, nor that it will work in the future. On the other hand, these kinds of methods are a serious threat to the rule of law and liberty itself here at home, to speak nothing of our international relations.

I shed no tears at all for Usama. But I opposed torture then and I do so now. The failure to close Camp Delta, thus far at least, is my number one disappointment in President Obama.
 
Howie Felterbush said:
Oliver North was on The Dennis Miller Show (of all places) today, He seemed pretty convinced that information uncovered by waterboarding someone led to this operation's success.

I have no link, but you might check Miller's website.
Click to expand...

Yeah um I didn't take North at his word when he was still IN a position to know stuff.
 
R.Mackey said:
We probably could have found Usama by indiscriminantly kidnapping and torturing innocent people in Pakistan, too. Surely that would not have been justified.

I know, it's hyperbolic, but I hope you see my point. Even if it is found that Usama bin Laden was only located through "extra-legal methods," there was no guarantee that it would have worked, nor that it will work in the future. On the other hand, these kinds of methods are a serious threat to the rule of law and liberty itself here at home, to speak nothing of our international relations.

I shed no tears at all for Usama. But I opposed torture then and I do so now. The failure to close Camp Delta, thus far at least, is my number one disappointment in President Obama.
Click to expand...

Agreed that there is no perfect solution; you could torture every Pakistani and get everything or nothing, but that's part of the game we're playing. If torture GUARANTEED results I doubt there's room to argue and it'd be unable to be debated. I also don't quite understand why you think torture's a threat to law and liberty but I guess it's not so much torture itself, or it's dark history (I mean innocent people who get tortured regardless, either due to bad intel or something to that effect)

But still I would not move to stop torture unless it met enough qualifications to me that the person being tortured did not contain information I needed. KSM DEFINITELY had information I mean, that is a given. So is torturing KSM MORE valid then? To me, I say yes.
 
Last edited:
Lowpro said:
I also don't quite understand why you think torture's a threat to law and liberty but I guess it's not so much torture itself, or it's dark history (I mean innocent people who get tortured regardless, either due to bad intel or something to that effect)
Click to expand...

It's a threat specifically because it invites legal gradualism, abuse of executive powers, and exceptionalism for purposes of expediency. Look at how badly concepts such as "unlawful combatant," habeas corpus, and the true definition of torture itself were rewritten, mangled beyond any recognition, in an attempt to provide excuses for this behavior. Understand why it happened at Guantanamo Bay in the first place.

As far as we know none of this was inflicted upon American citizens, but several of those mistreated in this fashion were definitely innocent. Good luck even getting a settlement in your favor.

I'm not exaggerating, this is a serious threat to our freedoms. It encourages the government to set new, semantic, dire legal precedents that can later be dusted off whenever the perceived need arises. It must be stopped.

Lowpro said:
But still I would not move to stop torture unless it met enough qualifications to me that the person being tortured did not contain information I needed. KSM DEFINITELY had information I mean, that is a given. So is torturing KSM MORE valid then? To me, I say yes.
Click to expand...

"Definitely" had information, sure. Who doesn't have information?

Did he have unique information? Actionable information? Verifiable information?

Weasel words. I say nuts to this gradualism, let's simply decide to stand up for principles, and if that costs us a little bit of security or convenience, so be it. Opposing torture shouldn't be a controversial standpoint.
 
R.Mackey said:
It's a threat specifically because it invites legal gradualism, abuse of executive powers, and exceptionalism for purposes of expediency. Look at how badly concepts such as "unlawful combatant," habeas corpus, and the true definition of torture itself were rewritten, mangled beyond any recognition, in an attempt to provide excuses for this behavior. Understand why it happened at Guantanamo Bay in the first place.

As far as we know none of this was inflicted upon American citizens, but several of those mistreated in this fashion were definitely innocent. Good luck even getting a settlement in your favor.

I'm not exaggerating, this is a serious threat to our freedoms. It encourages the government to set new, semantic, dire legal precedents that can later be dusted off whenever the perceived need arises. It must be stopped.



"Definitely" had information, sure. Who doesn't have information?

Did he have unique information? Actionable information? Verifiable information?

Weasel words. I say nuts to this gradualism, let's simply decide to stand up for principles, and if that costs us a little bit of security or convenience, so be it. Opposing torture shouldn't be a controversial standpoint.
Click to expand...

My standpoint is that it's bad and evil, but I don't oppose it. I also haven't considered the gradualism argument, mostly because it SEEMS to far away and Orwellian that it's doomed to hyperbole only.
 
An article that someone linked to in another one of these threads said that the argument for torture is based on the fact that a key piece of information came from Khalid Sheik Mohammed (I'm too lazy to look up how to spell that). But the article also says that he gave up that information in a standard interrogation, several months after he had been tortured. I'll see if I can find it.

Edit: This is the article I had in mind, but the claim it makes isn't quite as strong as I thought. It says what I said above about KSM, but it does't deny (or in any way comment on the possibility) that some of the other people who supplied information did it while being tortured.
 
Last edited:
That is still the question, if after the torture and psychological pressure, he simply did not crack.

Remember one aspect of torture is to make the pain stop. Another aspect is that you fear it enough afterward to give up info, ANY info to make sure it does not start again.

So yeah, I still think torture is not and was not justified.
 
R.Mackey said:
We probably could have found Usama by indiscriminantly kidnapping and torturing innocent people in Pakistan, too. Surely that would not have been justified.

I know, it's hyperbolic, but I hope you see my point. Even if it is found that Usama bin Laden was only located through "extra-legal methods," there was no guarantee that it would have worked, nor that it will work in the future. On the other hand, these kinds of methods are a serious threat to the rule of law and liberty itself here at home, to speak nothing of our international relations.

I shed no tears at all for Usama. But I opposed torture then and I do so now. The failure to close Camp Delta, thus far at least, is my number one disappointment in President Obama.
Click to expand...

Hey, Mackey! Long time no see.
 
The average American is affected by organised criminals far more than by terrorists. Seems to me, if I'm OK with using torture to stop "terrorism", then I should also be OK with using torture domestically. The only real difference between the two cases is that in the latter case friends and family might be affected as opposed to just faceless Muslims.
 
How many false leads did we get from torture info? How many people did we torture who didn't actually know the things we wanted to find out? It's quite dishonest to never mention any of the many misses and then jump up and down when there's a hit.

If I torture a million people and demand to know what crimes they committed, I'll probably find out about something I can act on. That doesn't mean that my actions were good or made the world better.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom