Is 183 the Magic Number?

[I.J. Reilly]

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/20/wo...n.html?_r=1&hp

In the month of March 2003 the CIA used waterboarding 183 times against Khalid Shaikh Mohammed in an effort to extract valuable information. These enhanced interrogation techniques, now labeled as torture, supposedly provided us with valuable information.

Was it worth it? And if 183 got us some valuable information would 190 have yeilded some even better stuff? Or was 183 where we hit the point of diminishing returns and it was no longer worth it?

There is no dispute that this man was an obviously bad person but did the information that he provided outweigh the loss of standing and moral superiority on torture that the US has worked long and hard to establish? Was it worth having torture techniques used on our own agents and soldiers?

[cowboy]

Was it worth having torture techniques used on our own agents and soldiers?

Are you taking the position that torture techniques would not have been used on our guys but for our waterboarding of theirs?

[I.J. Reilly]

I am taking the position that it puts our people at higher risk and with our moral authority placed on shifty grounds we have less room to cry foul.

[myboynoah]

I am taking the position that it puts our people at higher risk and with our moral authority placed on shifty grounds we have less room to cry foul.

Considering our enemy, your position seems a bit naive. They were carrying out terrorist attacks against U.S. interests as well as cutting the heads off of hostages and putting it on the Interet long before "waterboarding" became an issue.

It seems that "moral authority" is something that makes certain Americans feel better, particularly those on the left. Where was this talk of "moral authority" among Dems on the Senate and House intelligence committees when they were briefed on these tactics? Our enemy already claims "moral authority" in its ruthless tactics. They win.

[wuapinmon]

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/20/wo...n.html?_r=1&hp

In the month of March 2003 the CIA used waterboarding 183 times against Khalid Shaikh Mohammed in an effort to extract valuable information. These enhanced interrogation techniques, now labeled as torture, supposedly provided us with valuable information.

Was it worth it? And if 183 got us some valuable information would 190 have yeilded some even better stuff? Or was 183 where we hit the point of diminishing returns and it was no longer worth it?

There is no dispute that this man was an obviously bad person but did the information that he provided outweigh the loss of standing and moral superiority on torture that the US has worked long and hard to establish? Was it worth having torture techniques used on our own agents and soldiers?

Why do you hate America?

[landpoke]

Was it worth it? And if 183 got us some valuable information would 190 have yeilded some even better stuff? Or was 183 where we hit the point of diminishing returns and it was no longer worth it?

Someone with more knowledge than I can give the exact number, but there is a rule of thumb about how long an intelligence source (under such circumstances) is useful and reliable.

[I.J. Reilly]

Considering our enemy, your position seems a bit naive. They were carrying out terrorist attacks against U.S. interests as well as cutting the heads off of hostages and putting it on the Interet long before "waterboarding" became an issue.

It seems that "moral authority" is something that makes certain Americans feel better, particularly those on the left. Where was this talk of "moral authority" among Dems on the Senate and House intelligence committees when they were briefed on these tactics? Our enemy already claims "moral authority" in its ruthless tactics. They win.

I certainly believe that there is an enemy out there that hates America. Part of what they hate about America is our ideals. If we are to backslide on our ideals becuase we have been attacked by those that hate those ideals then, in a sense, we have let them win. They can point to that and say, "Look, America isn't what she says she is. She will do whatever she wants to get what she wants and then tell you that you can't. What hypocrites." It's a great recruiting tool for those out there that can be swayed to give time, money and life.

For not one second do I sit here and think that those that are carrying out attacks on us give a crap about what we do to our prisioners when they set their policies on what they will do with their prisoners. I do believe that there are those out there that can help us shoulder the burden (Britian, Canada, Australia, France, et al.) that become more reluctant to do so because of our actions.

As far as moral authority goes I believe that it is tied into the issue of rallying our allies to help us in our cause and in establishing ourself as the leader of the world. I belive that these issuse are interconnected and when a leader of another country can point to an instance and say, "America does not honor her own rules here (interrogation) then we cannot trust that they will live up to their end of the bargain here (economic pacts, environmental iniatives, etc.) These things matter. I believe that America has ideals that can and should be emmulated the world over. I think that we lose some of our ability to convince others of those ideals when we engage in tactics for expediency.

And becuase I question these things, wuapinmon, there will be those that say I have no amor de patria.

[UtahDan]

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/20/wo...n.html?_r=1&hp

In the month of March 2003 the CIA used waterboarding 183 times against Khalid Shaikh Mohammed in an effort to extract valuable information. These enhanced interrogation techniques, now labeled as torture, supposedly provided us with valuable information.

Was it worth it? And if 183 got us some valuable information would 190 have yeilded some even better stuff? Or was 183 where we hit the point of diminishing returns and it was no longer worth it?

There is no dispute that this man was an obviously bad person but did the information that he provided outweigh the loss of standing and moral superiority on torture that the US has worked long and hard to establish? Was it worth having torture techniques used on our own agents and soldiers?

I'm not a huge fan of waterboarding but we never had any moral superiority to lose. Any country that says otherwise is posturing for some particular purpose whether internal or external.

The only real questions are whether it is effective and whether, even if effective, it is nevertheless immoral. That is an internal judgment to be made. We need not look anywhere else to answer those questions.

[myboynoah]

I certainly believe that there is an enemy out there that hates America. Part of what they hate about America is our ideals. If we are to backslide on our ideals becuase we have been attacked by those that hate those ideals then, in a sense, we have let them win. They can point to that and say, "Look, America isn't what she says she is. She will do whatever she wants to get what she wants and then tell you that you can't. What hypocrites." It's a great recruiting tool for those out there that can be swayed to give time, money and life.

For not one second do I sit here and think that those that are carrying out attacks on us give a crap about what we do to our prisioners when they set their policies on what they will do with their prisoners. I do believe that there are those out there that can help us shoulder the burden (Britian, Canada, Australia, France, et al.) that become more reluctant to do so because of our actions.

As far as moral authority goes I believe that it is tied into the issue of rallying our allies to help us in our cause and in establishing ourself as the leader of the world. I belive that these issuse are interconnected and when a leader of another country can point to an instance and say, "America does not honor her own rules here (interrogation) then we cannot trust that they will live up to their end of the bargain here (economic pacts, environmental iniatives, etc.) These things matter. I believe that America has ideals that can and should be emmulated the world over. I think that we lose some of our ability to convince others of those ideals when we engage in tactics for expediency.

I love this "we've made it easier for them to recruit more terrorists" arguement. Would you mind quantifying that for us so that we can make a rational decision on whether or not it is worth it? They hated us before. Your reasoning would suggest that we do nothing, for fear that we will stir them up for retribution. Quantify the effect for me. Based on the number of pre-waterboarding anti-U.S. attacks/deaths compared to the post-waterboarding attacks/deaths, I would say the effect is marginal.

You are mistaken if you think that some "moral" arguement convinces nations to take action. They act in what they perceive to be their self interests. Plain and simple.

The great myth out there is that because of Guantanamo, countries like France, Germany, Canada, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, etc. are not cooperating with the U.S. Bullshit. Intelligence and defense cooperation goes on ever so strongly, because nations see it is in their self-interest to cooperate. Funny too that the U.S. left seems to believe such "torture" tactics are not used by our allies. Believe me, they all do things that you might find unpleasent in order to extract information. They will just ignore our "moral highground" if it suits their purposes.

Case in point: Obama's last trip to Europe.

[I.J. Reilly]

I love this "we've made it easier for them to recruit more terrorists" arguement. Would you mind quantifying that for us so that we can make a rational decision on whether or not it is worth it? They hated us before. Your reasoning would suggest that we do nothing, for fear that we will stir them up for retribution. Quantify the effect for me. Based on the number of pre-waterboarding anti-U.S. attacks/deaths compared to the post-waterboarding attacks/deaths, I would say the effect is marginal.

You are mistaken if you think that some "moral" arguement convinces nations to take action. They act in what they perceive to be their self interests. Plain and simple.

The great myth out there is that because of Guantanamo, countries like France, Germany, Canada, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, etc. are not cooperating with the U.S. Bullshit. Intelligence and defense cooperation goes on ever so strongly, because nations see it is in their self-interest to cooperate. Funny too that the U.S. left seems to believe such "torture" tactics are not used by our allies. Believe me, they all do things that you might find unpleasent in order to extract information. They will just ignore our "moral highground" if it suits their purposes.

Case in point: Obama's last trip to Europe.

I don't see how one can think that these sort of rhetorical arguments don't matter. These people aren't joining at gunpoint to fight the cause. They are shown what they believe to be the hypocrocies of the US, decide that that hypocracy and moral degredation would be worth their lives to fight against and they proceed accordingly. Every action that we take to bolster their opinion that we are not who we say we are strengthens them.

As far as quantifying, I will quantify the effects of waterboarding on the recruitment of anti-US groups when you can quantify the worth of the information that we gained from using these waterboarding techinques. The real point of the post is to explore the morality of using said techniques and whether the cost of using these techniques outweighted the cost of not using them.

I believe that states can act as moral agents. Furthermore, those actions can have real consequences. And while self-interest is a strong factor in decisions made I don't believe that it is the highest factor.

[cowboy]

I don't see how one can think that these sort of rhetorical arguments don't matter. These people aren't joining at gunpoint to fight the cause. They are shown what they believe to be the hypocrocies of the US, decide that that hypocracy and moral degredation would be worth their lives to fight against and they proceed accordingly. Every action that we take to bolster their opinion that we are not who we say we are strengthens them.

As far as quantifying, I will quantify the effects of waterboarding on the recruitment of anti-US groups when you can quantify the worth of the information that we gained from using these waterboarding techinques. The real point of the post is to explore the morality of using said techniques and whether the cost of using these techniques outweighted the cost of not using them.

I believe that states can act as moral agents. Furthermore, those actions can have real consequences. And while self-interest is a strong factor in decisions made I don't believe that it is the highest factor.

I think we're overlooking a viable alternative here. We could employ all sorts of heinous methods to extract every bit of useful information possible from the Godless heathens that we hold and then keep our mouths shut, avoiding the temptation to publicize our interrogation techniques as a way to undermine our political adversaries. Just a thought.

[wuapinmon]

I think we're overlooking a viable alternative here. We could employ all sorts of heinous methods to extract every bit of useful information possible from the Godless heathens that we hold and then keep our mouths shut, avoiding the temptation to publicize our interrogation techniques as a way to undermine our political adversaries. Just a thought.

So, if we don't tell our wife about adultery we commit, it's okay to have a mistress?

If you're not kidding, I'd recommend that you read this book:

http://www.google.com/books?id=-XGKF...over&source=bn


For the record, I read it for a class at BYU.

[myboynoah]

I don't see how one can think that these sort of rhetorical arguments don't matter. These people aren't joining at gunpoint to fight the cause. They are shown what they believe to be the hypocrocies of the US, decide that that hypocracy and moral degredation would be worth their lives to fight against and they proceed accordingly. Every action that we take to bolster their opinion that we are not who we say we are strengthens them.

As far as quantifying, I will quantify the effects of waterboarding on the recruitment of anti-US groups when you can quantify the worth of the information that we gained from using these waterboarding techinques. The real point of the post is to explore the morality of using said techniques and whether the cost of using these techniques outweighted the cost of not using them.

Nice dodge. You're the one claiming a significant effect on recruitment of America-haters. If it's just a feeling, admit it, and we can move on. There was plenty of American hypocracy before waterboarding to get these people to act. I suspect they get much more exercised by predator missiles taking out family members in the Hindu Kush than the waterboarding of some fat man they have never met.

I believe that states can act as moral agents. Furthermore, those actions can have real consequences. And while self-interest is a strong factor in decisions made I don't believe that it is the highest factor.

Wow, I thought we were talking about a place that actually exists in the real world. While states "can," they don't. And in this world, those that would venture to "do," wouldn't be states for very long.

[Coach McGuirk]

Let's all be nice to the terrorists. We have seen what they are not being tortured. Who knows what can happen when we throw water boarding into the mix.

[I.J. Reilly]

Let's all be nice to the terrorists. We have seen what they are not being tortured. Who knows what can happen when we throw water boarding into the mix.

Oh, I get it. The terrorists are all really bad guys. Why would we ever want to live up to our ideals when we're dealing with such bad people? They don't respect us, we won't respect them. That'll show 'em.