Posted on Dec 12, 2022
Torture may not leave marks, but scars the soul forever: filmmaker
682
2
5
1
1
0
Torture may not leave marks, but scars the soul forever: filmmaker
MY SAY: Torture is wrong. But it must be DEFINED. I could say reading this article was torture, but is it, definitively? Who decides what is torture & what is not, the tortured? A handful of unlawful combatant Islamists (detainees) who want to kill US & other innocent people were waterboarded at the US military detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, in order to obtain valuable information that saved many lives. At the time, waterboarding was legal/approved & did not meet the definition of torture.
MY SAY: Torture is wrong. But it must be DEFINED. I could say reading this article was torture, but is it, definitively? Who decides what is torture & what is not, the tortured? A handful of unlawful combatant Islamists (detainees) who want to kill US & other innocent people were waterboarded at the US military detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, in order to obtain valuable information that saved many lives. At the time, waterboarding was legal/approved & did not meet the definition of torture.
Torture may not leave marks, but scars the soul forever: filmmaker
Posted from dawn.com
Torture
Guantanamo Bay
War on Terror
Terrorism
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 2
1
1
0
0
0
0
Really? That's a pretty bold statement. Prove it.
What was gained from waterboarding that was both proven to be true AND we didn't already know from another source?
Whose life was saved with this info?
I have heard the claim a lot. I have yet to see any evidence. But I *have* seen people close to the program specifically deny the claim.
I was also a fully certified interrogator, and my training very specifically included instructions against torture or even approaching torture for both legal and intelligence reasons. Legal because, well, torture is illegal. And intelligence because Intel gained under torture is not reliable. Same reasons torture confessions don't hold up in court. People will say anything, admit anything, and make up what they think you want to hear to get the torture to stop.
And yes, waterboarding is torture, regardless of one lawyer's memo justifying it.
What was gained from waterboarding that was both proven to be true AND we didn't already know from another source?
Whose life was saved with this info?
I have heard the claim a lot. I have yet to see any evidence. But I *have* seen people close to the program specifically deny the claim.
I was also a fully certified interrogator, and my training very specifically included instructions against torture or even approaching torture for both legal and intelligence reasons. Legal because, well, torture is illegal. And intelligence because Intel gained under torture is not reliable. Same reasons torture confessions don't hold up in court. People will say anything, admit anything, and make up what they think you want to hear to get the torture to stop.
And yes, waterboarding is torture, regardless of one lawyer's memo justifying it.
(0)
(0)
MAJ Montgomery Granger
At the time, waterboarding and other EIT were not torture, but legal and approved techniques taught only to the CIA, that according to Don Rumsfeld in hi memoir, "Known and Unknown." You can look up the internationally accepted definition of torture at the time and then judge for yourself. I include it in my book, "Saving Grace at Guantanamo Bay: A Memoir of a Citizen Warrior." According to George W. Bush, in his memoir, "Decision Points," " . . . Only a handful of detainees were waterboarded in order to obtain valuable information that saved many lives." After he was elected, Barack Hussein Obama unilaterally declared waterboarding and other EIT to be torture and then added them to the list of torture techniques banned by the US. The definitions of torture only changed slightly, but enough to say waterboarding could be considered torture. According to Rumsfeld, no DoD personnel, uniformed or civilian, were trained in any EIT. As for torture, it is only speculation that it doesn't work at all. When vetted, many confessions turn out to have significant actionable information. No technique is 100% effective. In the end, protecting and saving innocent lives should be the prime directive.
(0)
(0)
SFC Casey O'Mally
MAJ Montgomery Granger Just because it is legally approved does not mean it isn't torture. As I said, a memo from a lawyer doesn't change the nature of what it is.
It is not only speculation that torture doesn't work. It has been shown to produce false confessions and false intelligence time and time again. So often than confessions under torture are immediately inadmissible as evidence. So unreliable that tortured Intel is considered no better than RUMINT by any analyst who is worth talking to. Sure, we'll listen. And we may even follow up with other sources. But act on it or use it as final corroboration? Hell no. One of the few times you can find an A5 rating.
No technique is 100% effective, true. But the Intel gained from no other technique is near as suspect.
In the end, protecting and saving innocent lives is exceptionally important. But not at the cost of our soul - individual or collective.
It is not only speculation that torture doesn't work. It has been shown to produce false confessions and false intelligence time and time again. So often than confessions under torture are immediately inadmissible as evidence. So unreliable that tortured Intel is considered no better than RUMINT by any analyst who is worth talking to. Sure, we'll listen. And we may even follow up with other sources. But act on it or use it as final corroboration? Hell no. One of the few times you can find an A5 rating.
No technique is 100% effective, true. But the Intel gained from no other technique is near as suspect.
In the end, protecting and saving innocent lives is exceptionally important. But not at the cost of our soul - individual or collective.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google