19
   

Did Waterboarding lead to the death of Osama?

 
 
failures art
 
  1  
Reply Wed 4 May, 2011 08:55 pm
@Renaldo Dubois,
Renaldo Dubois wrote:

Of course not. That's sick. You really need help, pal.

So you'd let your children die? What if torturing , raping, and murdering the man's daughter would get you the information? It's not important enough to save your daughters? You'll give up?

I'm not sick. I've not claimed that in such a scenario, I'd resort to violence. you have, and I'm curious at what point you'd quit and let your children die.

A
R
T
parados
 
  4  
Reply Wed 4 May, 2011 09:05 pm
The funny part of all this posturing is I'll bet those that think they can get good info out of torturing people also think they would be able to withstand torture and not give up any good info.
0 Replies
 
revelette
 
  1  
Reply Thu 5 May, 2011 07:01 am
How profile of bin Laden courier led CIA to its target

Quote:
That “match” between the known details about Abu Ahmed’s background and the composite agency profile helped CIA officials cut through multiple conflicting accounts — and considerable misinformation — about the identity of bin Laden’s courier, the official said.

Once the match was made, the official said, analysts intensified their hunt for Abu Ahmed. If they could find Abu Ahmed, they reasoned, they just might be able to find bin Laden himself.

The information about the use of “profiling” fleshes out the story of how agency officials were finally able to locate bin Laden after a frustrating search that spanned nearly a decade. Those and other new details would appear to conflict with claims in recent days that waterboarding or other “enhanced interrogation techniques” produced some blockbuster piece of information that led to bin Laden’s death.

A mysterious, well-placed Kuwaiti
The story began in late 2002, when detainees at Guantanamo described a mysterious Kuwaiti man who seemed to be in bin Laden’s inner circle. As first reported by NBC, one of the first — if not the first — to do so was Mohammed Qahtani, the suspected 20th hijacker for the 9/11 attacks, who tried but failed to enter the U.S. at the Orlando airport in August 2001.

A Defense Department Joint Task Force assessment of Qahtani, released last month by WikiLeaks, describes the information provided by the prisoner they called “Maad al-Qahtani” after abusive interrogations that were later described by one senior Bush administration official as meeting the legal definition of torture.

The document contains multiple references to his interactions with a mysterious al-Qaida operative identified as “Abu Ahmad al-Kuwaiti.” The document states that before being dispatched to board a plane to Orlando, Qahtani received computer training in Karachi, Pakistan, from the Kuwaiti operative "for his mission to the United States."

The document further states that Qahtani told interrogators that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed had directed Al-Kuwaiti to teach him how to use email and had taken him to an Internet café for his training. The Kuwaiti operative is further described in the document as a “senior al-Qaida facilitator” and “courier” who was a subordinate to Mohammed.

The document includes this note: “Al Kuwaiti was seen in Tora Bora and it is possible al-Kuwaiti was one of the individuals … accompanying UBL (Osama bin Laden) in Tora Bora prior to UBL’s disappearance.”

When U.S. intelligence officials first heard this information in late 2002 and early 2003, they had no idea who “Al Kuwaiti” really was. And they soon received conflicting reports that threw them off the trail.

Did harsh interrogations work?
Because U.S. military officials later concluded that Qahtani was subjected to abusive and “degrading” interrogations — including being chained to a leash and forced to perform dog tricks — his case could provide ammunition to defenders of such methods.

But Defense Department records and interviews with U.S. officials show that three other detainees who were also subjected to extremely rough interrogations provided misleading or false information about the Kuwaiti courier.



[more at the source]

The main information came from a man who was tortured, , three other detainees were tortured at least one including water-boarding and gave false and misleading information which threw intelligence officials off the trail. What ultimately led to Bin Laden's death was painstaking investigative work of shifting through bits of conflicted reports.

In terms of whether waterboarding produces enough useful intel that would justify its continued use, I would say it does not. Would we have gotten that first bit of information without the use of torture? (not sure whether waterboarding was used) I don't know. However since the following three detainees who were tortured gave false information which then threw intellegence off the trail for a decade, then I would say that it is now proven that harsh techniques can not be relied upon enough to justify it being used.

Even if it was proven to work, it is plain wrong and can not be justified for any reason. It was illegal before 9/11, we prosecuted other countries who used it on our people in the past as torture. It is not who we are or who I want us to be.
Renaldo Dubois
 
  1  
Reply Thu 5 May, 2011 09:02 am
@revelette,
There's a reason why no one watches MSNBC.
0 Replies
 
Renaldo Dubois
 
  1  
Reply Thu 5 May, 2011 11:00 am
I found this interesting.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/05/president_obama_and_the_masked.html
revelette
 
  1  
Reply Thu 5 May, 2011 11:07 am
@Renaldo Dubois,
Rolling Eyes
0 Replies
 
Renaldo Dubois
 
  1  
Reply Thu 5 May, 2011 02:33 pm
@failures art,
You damn right I'd resort to violence and that violence would be directed toward the thug. His children aren't even in this scenario. You have just made your own scenario now a part of mine. Expected. You can't answer my question so you have to redirect the point. That's because you're dishonest and I suspect you always have been. You can't answer the hard questions.
failures art
 
  1  
Reply Thu 5 May, 2011 03:02 pm
@Renaldo Dubois,
Renaldo Dubois wrote:

You damn right I'd resort to violence and that violence would be directed toward the thug.

Yes, I understand. I read your previous posts.

Renaldo Dubois wrote:

His children aren't even in this scenario. You have just made your own scenario now a part of mine. Expected.

Correct. I have adapted the scenario to see at what point you'd quit and allow for your children to die. I want to know your limit.

Renaldo Dubois wrote:

You can't answer my question so you have to redirect the point. That's because you're dishonest and I suspect you always have been.

I did answer. I would not resort to violence. We are different. I gave a hard answer to a question. To elaborate, the best chance I'd have to get my theoretical children back would be to involve the authorities. That would be very difficult, but it would be the best chance I'd have.

Renaldo Dubois wrote:

You can't answer the hard questions.

I did. Now I've asked you an even more difficult question to test your claim that you'll do anything it takes to get the answer. I sounds like you won't do anything, and at a certain point, you'll quit and allow your children to die even with options still on the table in terms of coercion.

Is that correct?

A
R
T
Renaldo Dubois
 
  1  
Reply Thu 5 May, 2011 03:10 pm
@failures art,
You didn't answer the question, which is what do YOU do to with the thug?
failures art
 
  1  
Reply Thu 5 May, 2011 03:59 pm
@Renaldo Dubois,
Renaldo Dubois wrote:

You didn't answer the question, which is what do YOU do to with the thug?

Yes, I did answer the question. I answered directly.

failures art wrote:
I would not resort to violence. We are different. I gave a hard answer to a question. To elaborate, the best chance I'd have to get my theoretical children back would be to involve the authorities. That would be very difficult, but it would be the best chance I'd have.


So, I've answered your question, and you've answered mine. I would give the thug to the authorities and they'd mobilize to the best of their effort which would be far better than I could do. You would use violence on the thug, and if it didn't work, you'd stop given further options of coercion through violence/torture. You'd let your children die. You'd give up at a point.

A
R
T
Renaldo Dubois
 
  2  
Reply Thu 5 May, 2011 04:16 pm
@failures art,
Yes, I would resort to violence and I would get my children back. You would turn the thug over to the cops who will tell him he has the right to remain silent and he will. My children are very happy you are not their father.
failures art
 
  1  
Reply Thu 5 May, 2011 04:41 pm
@Renaldo Dubois,
Renaldo Dubois wrote:

Yes, I would resort to violence and I would get my children back.

How do you know you'd get your children back? You can't promise your techniques would work.

Renaldo Dubois wrote:

You would turn the thug over to the cops who will tell him he has the right to remain silent and he will.

Perhaps he would, and that would be his right. The cops can use persuasive techniques to get him to break his silence.

Renaldo Dubois wrote:

My children are very happy you are not their father.

Well, I'm sure they are fond of you. I also don't care to remove your children from your care.

Kidnappings happen frequently. It's a terrible thing. Can you find a case where a person took the law into their own hands and got their family back safe? We can certainly find cases where the authorities have been able to recover captives.

You confidence in your ability to get the needed information is noted, but what is it based on? Do you have some sort of special training that the police/FBI don't have? Essentially, you believe you can do a better job than they can, and yet they have the greatest record on the matter. This raises the question on if you'd make smart decisions given the situation where your children are taken.

I'm sure your children prefer you to me. That does not mean that their father would make the best decisions on their behalf if they were in danger.

A
R
T
Renaldo Dubois
 
  1  
Reply Thu 5 May, 2011 05:21 pm
@failures art,
It's an analogy. Duh.

Do you still believe we obtained no info about Osama from "torture"?
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Thu 5 May, 2011 09:42 pm
@Robert Gentel,
But of course it is not, it is a political debate.

At least it is for the Left.
Renaldo Dubois
 
  0  
Reply Thu 5 May, 2011 09:46 pm
Now I see why lefties are so angry all the time......they're wrong a lot.
0 Replies
 
MontereyJack
 
  3  
Reply Thu 5 May, 2011 10:13 pm
Since Renaldo has created a totally absurd and completely improbable hypothetical situation to attempt to justify torture, let's look at the most probable outcome of his situation. The thug, being a thug, has spent his life getting into fights. You have not. He knows what he's doing in such situations. You don't. He kicks you in the crotch, and when you fall over retching he cold cocks you. His ally, meanwhile, being no fool, slams on the brakes and backs up to go to his confederates' aid. He runs over you backward and forward three or four times, they're so pissed off at you. Good work, bozo, you're now dying or dead, or so maimed for life you're at the very least totally out of action for the foreseeable future, and there's NO chance of getting your kid back. You are ten times as likely to get tortured yourself out of the deal as you are to actually torture the thug, if that's your desire.
failures art
 
  2  
Reply Fri 6 May, 2011 01:28 am
@Renaldo Dubois,
Renaldo Dubois wrote:

It's an analogy. Duh.

What is an analogy? The thug thing? You're mistaken. Analogies are examples in non-literal terms. We are discussing the topic of torture to get information, and our example is one of using torture to get information. That's not what an analogy is. That's just an example; a prototype; an illustration.

Renaldo Dubois wrote:

Do you still believe we obtained no info about Osama from "torture"?

-We obtained info on the courier from person A.
-We tortured person B and C for info and they said they did not know of the courier.

So what did torture get us?

Doesn't the credit belong to the people using deductive logic, not the people torturing who ultimately did not get the info out of them?

A
R
T
failures art
 
  2  
Reply Fri 6 May, 2011 01:28 am
@Finn dAbuzz,
Finn dAbuzz wrote:

But of course it is not, it is a political debate.

At least it is for the Left.

What is it to the right?

A
R
T
Renaldo Dubois
 
  -1  
Reply Fri 6 May, 2011 07:31 am
@MontereyJack,
You can't reply to my scenario so you make up one of your own. After you criticize mine for being unlikely, you then go off into fantasy land even more with your own. Pass that joint around.
Renaldo Dubois
 
  -1  
Reply Fri 6 May, 2011 07:33 am
@failures art,
Show me your source.
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.07 seconds on 12/22/2024 at 12:59:44