Ex-CIA Agent Who Claimed Torture Worked Admits He LIED!!  

Tell me Taskr, if I believed that you had some information I wanted but you actually knew nothing, when I tied you to a chair and attached the electric wires to you, would you keep insisting you knew nothing as I cranked the voltage up until you fried? Or would you tell me anything you could think of that I might want to know, just to stop the increasingly agonising pain?

I could tell you a million different things, but not one of those things would be called "high value information."

I watched a CIA agent once describe the limited use where torture actually could work. Just torturing someone saying "tell me what you know" is garbage. You have to KNOW what knowledge the terrorist has. You also have to be able to verify the information he gives you.

They only waterboarded 3 terrorists. None of them were innocent and they knew the ranks and range of knowledge of these men when they waterboarded them. Of course waterboarding isn't torture anyway.

But you haven't answered my question. I said WOULD you tell me, not could you tell me.

Of course I would, but then you're presenting me with an impossible hypothetical situation. I would never be in the situation you presented so my answer is irrelevant.

To use YOUR OWN logic, Taskr, if one person lied that must mean torture never worked. Most experts have admitted all along that torture doesn't work but the ends doesn't justify the means anyway even if it may have worked once or twice. Water-boarding most certainly IS torture. Even John McCain, someone who WAS tortured, said it is.

Annie

Taskr

So you admit that you would say anything you thought your interrogator wanted to hear in order to stop yourself from being tortured? This doesn't say a lot for the reliability or accuracy of information extracted from anyone by using torture.

This may be an impossible and hypothetical situation for you, but it is a very real one for thousands of people around the world who find themselves in this position. This is why your answer is very relevant. It is difficult to form a valid opinion or judgement on something like torture unless you can put yourself in the the same chair. As Annie says, John McCain has done exactly this in real life. So whose opinion and judgement should people take more seriously?

"To use YOUR OWN logic, Taskr, if one person lied that must mean torture never worked."

Since when have I ever used that logic? This moron has no idea if torture works. If you believe his new revelation, which may just be part of his sales pitch for a new book, then he has not been present during any form of torture or enhanced interrogation. He lied about two things, being present during waterboarding, and how many times it was used before information was gathered. There is still no denying that waterboarding gained information even if it took 83 pours (not 83 separate times that he was waterboarded) to get the information.

I know John McCain believes it's torture, but many other people who have undergone waterboarding do not believe it's torture. By the legal definition in the US constitution, I don't believe it's torture at all.

By the way Annie, do you no longer believe Obama's people as his own National Intelligence Director has said that waterboarding worked?

Enemyofempire, your hypothetical doesn't apply to terrorists. You asked if "I" was waterboarded. I have no high value information to give so it would be physically impossible to get such information from me. A terrorist like KSM on the other hand, has plenty of information and they know what information he has based on his position in al Quaeda.

I don't know who the "thousands of people" you're referring to are, but the US has only waterboarded 3 terrorists.

Taskr

I said that the hypothetical applied to you while the reality applied to real victims of torture. It was very simple, I merely asked you to put yourself in their shoes and say what you would do. How you fail to grasp this simple exercise I really don't know.

The thousands of people are as I said , the thousands of people in the real world who are tortured in reality. And there are thousands of them. Egypt tortures, China tortures, Jordan tortures, Syria tortures Uzbekistan tortures etc etc etc.

Please don't twist my words to try and support your twisted logic.

I can't be in the shoes of terrorists as I don't have the information they do. Were I a terrorist, with knowledge of a terror plot, I would certainly give the information most likely to end the torture which would be the correct information. Why you felt the need to bring Uzbekistan and all these countries into the discussion is beyond me. This is about one CIA officer who claimed waterboarding worked to get information while later admitting he had no idea since that will help him sell books.

Let me get this straight taskr

you ask me a question
I give you an answer
then you ask me why I answered your question

Perhaps I should have cranked up the hypothetical voltage to max while you were in the hypothetical chair, but I don't think even Dr. Frankenstein with all of his animating talents could have sparked anything into life between your ears.

I leave you to your own little reality disconnect, as I refuse to take part in a battle of wits with an unarmed man.

Enemy, if you are going to question my intelligence at least take the time to get your facts straight before making a fool of yourself.

YOU asked ME a hypothetical question. I answered, thoroughly validating my answer, and explained why the use of torture on me is not comparable to a terrorist.

You then asked me the same question again because your skull was a bit to thick to read and comprehend the first line of my response.

I answered AGAIN and reiterated my point that the hypothetical is invalid.

The funny thing is, I never asked YOU any questions.

Apparently your reading comprehension skills are lacking. Perhaps you need to retake a childhood reading class and learn what a question is. It's hardly a battle of wits when you can't even comprehend simple statements.

Taskr36 you say, "I would never be in the situation you presented so my answer is irrelevant." Not really. Tell that to the people, many of who were innocent during the Salem Witch Trials and during the Inquisition. I know that's not possible, but when the Last Judgement happens, we'll see those in white who have been tortured. Maybe you can ask them. In reality in this world, you never know when something may happen to put you in the situation that was presented. And you say, "but many other people who have undergone waterboarding do not believe it's torture." Who do you know who has been waterboarded and doesn't believe it's torture? Only nuts would go through torture and say it's not torture. And lastly, you miss the point presented earlier, that there are people being tortured in other countries. And they are not terrorists.

hi rob - matersfish is confusing waterboarding done as torture and it being done as military training. there are a few key differences - including that the latter, although highly unpleasant, does not involve somebody thinking they are going to die and does involve consent. completely different kettle of fish. waterboarding is a torture - and interestingly was used by the spanish inquisition too.

ooops sorry meant taskr was confusing.

"does not involve somebody thinking they are going to die"

Well according to the documents released they were required to make it very clear that the waterboarding would not kill or cause permanent damage to the terrorists involved.

Consent doesn't really change the act. Would you say that cutting someone's finger off isn't torture if you convince, even through bullying, them to consent to it?

taskr i am really unsure what your point here is. earlier you were talking about people experiencing waterboarding and i was pretty sure you were talking about in the military or possibly drunken groups of friends. which is of course completely different to it being used as a torture. and i think you should change 'terrorist' to 'suspected terrorist' - your reaction might be less emotional

and your quote of my sentence - reread it. there was a 'think' in there - i am not sure what point you are trying to make there either

I was talking about the military. Waterboarding was typically done as hazing. It's about as consensual as other forms of hazing where I feel bullying is an element.

"i think you should change 'terrorist' to 'suspected terrorist'"

They are not U.S. citizens. They were captured on the battlefield, and I personally don't afford a presumption of innocence to anyone unless I feel that there is a chance they might actually be innocent. They also aren't entitled to Miranda rights, but then Obama's soft on terror so they're getting that too.

alright. i was under the impression before that it was a training exercise. thanks for clearing that up. however i am not sure that 'guilty until proven innocent' is very just.

and it disturbing i have to say that you seem to think basic justice should only apply to a certain group of people. dangerous route to go down taskr.

for the record - Khalid Sheikh Mohammad was captured in bed in a house in Peshawar, Pakistan, by the civil authorites there. Not on a battlefield.

quick correction - Rawalpindi, not Peshawar, which is even further away from the battleground.

I agree totally. We can't really call ourselves the best in the world if we don't hold ourselves to higher standards than our enemies.

Annie

It's certainly a good sound bite.

I happen to disagree entirely, but no use explaining why. You've preemptively eliminated every contrary opinion. But to each their own.

Oh no, I haven't 'eliminated every contrary opinion', I've merely stated mine. If you feel that you have an argument which justifies torture, then I'm quite happy to discuss it.

I just personally don't subscribe to the belief that "torture," as relative as it is, obviously, brings one down to the same level when done to save lives.

I've certainly entertained many opinions to the contrary, but I just couldn't be convinced that dumping water on people and blowing smoke in their faces made the person giving the same as the person receiving.

To me, that's making the terrorist the victim. And they've done absolutely nothing to earn my sympathies.

As I stated in my post below, they would gladly kill me.

To know that someone is willing to do whatever they believe necessary to stop that, well, I cannot bring myself to call that the same -- or even remotely similar.

Which one do you think is the good sound bite?

I personally prefer the first one. It's relatively short, snappy, deals with the relevant issues and doesn't require too much thinking on the part of the listener.

While the second is somewhat lengthy, uses bigger words, is accusatory in tone and requires a little bit of thought.

Anyone who tortures, thinks they have a justifiable argument for doing so. The torturers during the Salem Witch Trials, the Inquisition, slavery, Auschwitz, etc. all thought they were justified.

What planet were you living on from 9/11 until this year, Rose? We were NOT attacked three times on our soil but we most certainly WERE attacked numerous times following 9/11 while Bush was still in office. Since I THINK you're probably counting counting the "underwear bomber" as one, even though it failed and the only person hurt was him, I guess we should also count the "shoe bomber" against Busy, right? Then there were the anthrax attacks, the D.C. snipers, the attack at the L.A. Airport and the one in North Carolina.

Looks like Bush didn't have "even close to a good terrorist record far as keeping the people of United States safe"; his Administration also had 9/11, for some reason some ppeople don't think that counts!

Annie

Annie for 8 years he had a solid record of preventing terrorist attacks. 9-11 was ONE attack. We were attacked numerous times under Clinton and he never stepped up our security in the slightest.

You're right, Taskr, 9/11 WAS one attack, the biggest and deadliest EVER on our shore by a bunch. I'm not going to get into a big argument about the Clinton Administration but I will say it was the Bush Administration that ignored the memo saying basically what Bin Laden had planned for us. Anyway, if Bush had a "solid record of preventing terrorist attacks" after 9/11, so does Obama so far. If there have been terrorist attacks on our soil since President Obama took office there were MORE under Bush. I guess you'll have to take it up with Rose!

Annie

Taskr, I think they were talking about terrorists on "American" soil. What attacks were done by terrorists on American soil during the Clinton administration?

Rob, have you already forgotten about the first time al Quaeda attacked the World Trade center?

"Anyway, if Bush had a "solid record of preventing terrorist attacks" after 9/11, so does Obama so far."

Ok, Annie, tell me how many of our people were killed by al Quaeda on our soil under Bush like the Fort Hood shooting or the military recruiters that were attacked by a Muslim terrorist?

i think that the human condition is secretely twisted. there are many of us who think that we are goody two shoed, and pure at heart, when deep down inside..there is a part of every human being that takes pleasure in the torture of another. that's why we have some of the movies we have. the people who make them, no how to feed our inner dark side. i think that's what's it's all about, not getting the terrorist, or keeping countries safe...it's about human secrete fetish for seeing, or knowing another human being is being hurt. there are actually psychological test that prove this to be true.

Don't be ridiculous Irish. Pouring water on the face of a terrorist responsible for the deaths of thousands is far FAR worse than decapitating a journalist on international television just because he's not a muslim.

I know I'd rather be decapitated for my wife, child, and the rest of the world to see than have water poured on MY face.