Was torture used to foil the latest terror plot?

Parent Cafe
61

<p>Allmusic,</p>

<p>I’d love to return to a simpler time, too, if it meant we didn’t have to fight terrorism. We don’t have that choice unless you want to pretend that 9/11, Bali, Madrid, the London subway bombing, Beslan, and at least 5,610 other Islamic terrorist attacks since 9/11 didn’t happen. (Source: <a href=“http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Pages/TheList.htm[/url]”>http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Pages/TheList.htm&lt;/a&gt;) Not to mention the attacks they tried that were unsuccessful.</p>

<p>America tried 50+ years of providing generous aid to virtually every nation in the world, embracing tolerance, and supporting the UN and it’s goals/programs. I hope America continues to support countries with humanitarian aid and to promote tolerance and assimilation. We didn’t ask for this war (and it is a war between the West and Islamic militants), just as our fathers and grandfathers didn’t want to fight the Nazis or Japan. In my opinion, war is messy hell but it’s better than surrender.</p>

62

<p>FF: I did look at the Pakistani Interior Minister’s comments who stated that ‘Rashid Rauf had given investigators “many, many clues which link this plan with Afghanistan, especially the al-Qaida of Osama bin Laden”.’ The Interior Minister did not say that Rauf had given information about the London plotters. He did say that Rauf provided information about higher-ups in the scheme’s chain. </p>

<p>The spokeswoman for the Pakistani Foreign Ministry (Tasneern Aslam) claims that Mr. Rauf provided information that led to arrests in Britain and that the plot also involved al-Qaida in Afghanistan.</p>

<p>Who then to believe? If Mr. Rauf did provide useful information that led to arrests in Britain, I would have thought the Interior Minister would have said so. In the chain-of-command, I believe that the various police and security agencies would report to the head of the Interior Ministry. Until more information comes out, it’s unclear exactly how much information Mr. Rauf provided to authorities.</p>

<p>What does not seem to be in dispute is that British authorities asked Pakistan to arrest Mr. Rauf. Some news sources claim his arrest was within hours of the arrests of the London plotters and some say he was picked up three days earlier. In any event, Mr. Rauf was picked up before the London plotters. During his time incarcerated, did he provide information? Until the conspirators are tried in court, we can only guess.</p>

<p>As to why the London authorities waited some hours before arresting the bombers, I would think that having adequate manpower to arrest the near two dozen suspects within a limited time frame would be daunting. Do you wait until everyone was home or at work? Walking down the street? Last Sunday’s NYT had an interesting article on how the US authorities differ from the British. The British prefer to let the plotters go about their business to follow all the various trails that might lead to higher ups in the organization. This is a very risky business. The British were willing to take the very real risk of having word get back to Pakistan. US officials prefer to make arrests as soon as there’s enough evidence to charge suspects with a crime. This is based on the fear that officials may not have enough resources or time to stop a plot once in motion. Think about the Florida plotters who wanted to blow up the Sears Tower. Whatever happened to that case? Different countries, different procedures and different risk levels…</p>

<p>As for the China Daily article, it had an AP by-line. Reading through it, I believe it’s mostly a cut and paste job from a variety of AP sourced material. I wouldn’t put too much stock in it.</p>

<p>From the NYT: <a href=“http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/18/washington/18detain.html?_r=1&hp&ex=1155873600&en=640bf058e91c1ea2&ei=5094&partner=homepage&oref=slogin[/url]”>http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/18/washington/18detain.html?_r=1&hp&ex=1155873600&en=640bf058e91c1ea2&ei=5094&partner=homepage&oref=slogin&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>A CIA contractor was found guilty on several assault charges stemming from his beating of an Afghan man with his fists and a flashlight. After two days of coercive interrogation, the man died. That’s two days of beatings, a dead suspect and, it appears, no credible intelligence. The contractor’s CIA handlers let him take the fall. It’s the CIA’s official policy not to use overly aggressive interrogation techniques. Reminds me of the old Mission Impossible TV show: “If any member …caught or killed, the Secretary will disavow any knowledge…blah, blah, blah…</p>

63

<p>“Turnabout is fair play, so I get to ask you a question: what in your opinion is the “root cause” of our problems?”</p>

<p>To me, one of the root causes of our problem is not respecting other nations we deal with that aren’t in our corner pocket. 27 years without diaglog with Iran? Heck we went to war with vietnam. lost and they have become an economic ally. Both these countries had prior governments we basically installed. Both of those installed governments were overthrown. </p>

<p>It’s hard to accept some of these places as evil nations that we won’t talk to when at the same time, if the labor costs are right and environmental laws lax, we’ll do business with just about anybody that business can profit from regardless of their politics and practices. </p>

<p>That is why I didn’t buy the Iraq thing… There’s alot of bad men out there, some we do business with, for the time being… </p>

<p>“We don’t talk to…(fill in the gap)” Why not? What will talk hurt? </p>

<p>What will a ping pong team accomplish?</p>

<p>So I guess a lack of communcation, or the lack of attempts is a root problem. When there is no communication, all you can do is guess, and who guesses positively?</p>

64

<p>Michuncle #62,</p>

<p>Both China Daily and apparently the Guardian quote a Pakistani government source as stating that information obtained from Mr. Rauf was used by the British to make further arrests:</p>

<p>

Parse the NY Times article all you want but it doesn’t change the content of the quote. Perhaps the Pakistanis misunderstood and information they thought was new and helpful was already known to the British. Or maybe it wasn’t known. Are you really that willing to trust a NY Times reporter on something as important as this?</p>

65

<p>I’m already on record as having an editorial doubt about the way the NYT article was written. As for the quality and veracity of their reporters, may I ask whom you feel meets high journalistic standards? </p>

<p>When the plotters are tried in London’s Law Courts, we can all judge the evidence presented.</p>

66

<p>

I can’t imagine a more urgent priority for British police than a potential terrorist attack such as the one we are discussing. Undoubtedly the British have the resources to arrest everyone involved - whether there were 20 or 200 - at any time they liked. The real question was determining who was involved, and it appears that the Pakistanis and Mr. Rauf helped the British identify more conspirators.</p>

67

<p>

I’m not clear on what you are asking. I thought we discussed earlier in this thread that the NY Times has suspect editors and reporters. If you are asking who at the NY Times I admire, I have to say no one. Even good reporters are subject to the poor editorial decisions made at the Times, causing me to question much of what I read there. </p>

<p>If your question was more general, there are reporters I find credible but I’m not sure how that relates to this discussion. I wouldn’t take the word of any reporter on an issue such as this and, like you, would much prefer to await the court proceedings. </p>

<p>In the meantime, however, I don’t rule out the possibility that coercive interrogation helped stop a terrorist event. Am I missing your point?</p>

68

<p>“Are you really that willing to trust a NY Times reporter on something as important as this?”</p>

<p>My comment was a general one. You question the veracity of the Times reporters on this important issue. You respond: “I wouldn’t take the word of any reporter on an issue such as this and, like you, would much prefer to await the court proceedings.” If all journalistic accounts are suspect (even from your “credible reporters”), how do you come by your opinions? All we have to go on are the published press reports (flawed though they may be). </p>

<p>And I have not ruled out that coercive interrogation methods may have been used. I do question how important a role it played in the arrest of the London plotters. When the evidence is produced in the British law courts, we can all sit in judgment… Meanwhile, speculation based on press accounts should always be met with caution (my comments and opinions included).</p>

69

<p>I am more likely to rely on press reports of what public officials say than on reporters’ interpretations of events.</p>

70

<p>Yeah, I REAALLLY trust the Pakastani government officials, uhhuh uhhuh</p>

<p>They have a HUGE agenda with getting on our governments good side…it may or may not be true what he said</p>

<p>Government officials make statements that are not factual or accurate all the time, even golly gee, our own government, imagine</p>

71

<p>Opie wrote:

Do you really think that our not talking with Iran is a root cause for people like al Qaeda vowing to kill us? Somehow, I don’t recall that on bin Laden’s list of “grievances”. If it it were “our fault” that terrorists want to kill as many of us as possible, how do you explain their attacks all across the globe - even against fellow Muslims whose governments are just not Islamic enough to suit the demands of the fundamentalists. I wish that the answer to the war against radical Islam were nothing more than opening a dialog - but I believe you are being hopelessly optimistic/naive in believing that that would have any impact at all.</p>

72

<p>All this talk about Pakistan. Citygirlsmom…aka cgm. cgm…cm. cm…cathy mayo. Could it be?</p>

73

<p>DRJ4 said “I am more likely to rely on press reports of what public officials say than on reporters’ interpretations of events.”</p>

<p>If you mean the accuracy of the report of what an official said, as opposed the reporter’s interpretations, maybe yes (although considering how many times the actions of people in my family have been misrepresented in the press, I’m not sure I’m willing to take any newsreport as sufficiently accurate to treat it as I would the Bible).</p>

<p>But the fact is that cgm is right on this point, I believe: It is a real question whether what the Pakistan Prime Minister said had any bearing on the truth. Anytime the politicians get involved - ours, or other countries’ - agendas do have a way of playing a role. It is possible that Pakistan’s questioning could have played a part in the subsquent arrests. But what we know for a fact is that Pakistan has a strong interest in having Americans confident of whose side they are on, and in appearing as involved as possible in the stopping of terror plots. So I’m more confident that the Pakistani Prime Minister said what the paper reported he said. But whether what he said is true, is another kettle of fish altogether.</p>

<p>It seems like people are dissecting the news reports about this as if they were the Gospels, and every nuanced phrase carries weight. michuncle is right: we don’t have enough of the facts - or perhaps any of the real facts at all ! - to know what happened here, much less fashion a policy based on it.</p>

74

<p>Hayden,</p>

<p>To a certain extent, this thread has been plagued by discussions of apples and oranges. Sometimes we discussed the specifics of the recent London/Pakistan terror arrests, and other times we discussed general topics like the validity of coercive interrogations and the reliability of the press.</p>

<p>In my comment #69 (“I am more likely to rely on press reports of what public officials say than on reporters’ interpretations of events.”), I responded generally to a question from Michuncle asking what published press reports I find credible. I stand by my answer. I do find the statements of government officials to be more reliably reported by the press than reporters’ interpretations of statements and events. However, please don’t confuse my belief that the press reliably reports government statements with a belief that the government statements themselves are always true. In addition, while I believe the press reports that the Pakistani minister said those words, I don’t know if his statement was true and correct - as I specifically stated in my comment #64. </p>

<p>Finally, it seems to me that FF and I support a discussion of whether there is a role for coercive interrogations, both because of this case and as a general proposition. Michuncle disagreed with whether coercive interrogations were helpful in this case but he did support a general discussion of this topic. He’s also the commenter I’ve noticed who dissected news reports.</p>

75

<p>DRJ4, I wasn’t taking issue with what you said at all. I was just using it as a jumping off point to bring two parts of the conversations together, and comment on the fact that there had been much discussion of whether the China paper or the NYT or the AP were more or less correct. I just don’t think we know yet, so the use of the London case as an example of successful torture is dicey until we know what role torture may or may not have played.</p>

<p>FF’s op does raise an important question, I agree. My problem with it is this: my BIL and his wife appeared on the Newlywed Game once. The MC asked a question of the wives, and his wife blushed, laughed, and gave an answer. When the husbands’ turns came, they went through the same thing, with the same suggestive laughs, etc. And he gave a matching answer to his wife’s.</p>

<p>But the point is, they arranged the whole thing in advance. Whenever anyone asked a certain thing they did not have an answer for, they would answer, Jill. So why can’t terrorists figure that out?</p>

76

<p>

I’m a little confused but if your point is that terrorists can manipulate the media, I completely agree - not only that they can but that they have been for some time. </p>

<p>It also seems that some people are willing to discuss coercive interrogations although they aren’t convinced that some London arrests resulted from successful interrogations of Rauf. Given what we know and what we don’t know, I think that’s reasonable.</p>

77

<p>What we need to remember, is that all governments manipulate the media, and have done so forever…its the nature of the business of politics</p>

78

<p>… and the media manipulates the public, too, in this politicized world.</p>

79

<p>Hayden,</p>

<p>I’m sorry if I did not directly respond to the substance of your comment #75 and I want to thank you for your clarification. I agree that we don’t know all the facts of the Rauf case but that we can still discuss coercive interrogations. In fact, I doubt we will ever know all the facts about Rauf since presumably the investigation is ongoing and undoubtedly some aspects will be shielded by the British for national security reasons.</p>

<p>Nevertheless, I think we can hypothetically assume that Rauf was the subject of a coercive interrogation that produced new, actionable information that helped prevent a terrorist attack. It is surprising to me that some people believe (or seem to believe) that we can’t consider coercive interrogations until we know if they work. That reasoning is circular. You can’t know whether it works until you develop techniques and see if they produce results. I’m sure our government and military are doing this now and have been doing this since the days when the Vietnamese, the Soviets, and others began using these techniques on us.</p>

<p>We Americans may decide we want no part of coercive interrogations - a term I prefer to torture since not every coercive technique is torture. In fact, calling it torture esstentially forecloses the debate since few people would agree to “torture” in the abstract, although they might very well agree to the use of techniques such as sodium pentothol, sleep deprivation, and appeals to religion (in the criminal context, police frequently use the Christian burial argument to induce a suspect to produce the victim’s body) on captured combatants. </p>

<p>I agree with Oren Gross and his quote in my comment #5: that we would be foolish to announce we will never use torture or coercive techniques, and that it might even be immoral to refuse to try to stop an imminent and devastating terrorist attack on innocent people.</p>

80

<p>I’m inclined to think that facing an imminent attack, and having a person in custody whom I had strong and valid reasons for thinking had information that could prevent the attack, I would probably stop at nothing to get that information. I might not be proud of myself, and I would probably be conflicted forever, but I think I would use torture if I thought it would save innocent lives.</p>

<p>But there are just so few cases where that is going to happen. If we are torturing people in Abu Graeb or Gitmo, that is not justifiable. Those folks have been in our custody for several years now, and the chances of them having information that is still accurate are slim. </p>

<p>My point about the Newlywed Game: terroristist, from what many of the experts say, appear to limit the information shared among the cells. Remember when we got the tape of Ben Laden with a visitor, and Ben Laden described the 9/11 attack, and said that the “martyrs” were surprised too? In other words, only one or at most two on each flight knew that flight was going to go down. The others knew of the general plan, but didn’t know until either that day or the night before that the plan was scheduled for that day. </p>

<p>The terrorists keep everyone on a “need to know” basis. So torture is, in many cases, going to be restricted as to value. The majority of the cell members did not know the day of the flight. I’ll bet they did not necessarily know the id’s of all the others, either - some, probably. But not all. Remember, these people survived in Afghanistan against the Russians by segmenting their information. Russians are less squeamish about torture than Americans, yet they ended up losing in Afganistan, didn’t they?</p>

<p>And the terrorists probably also do the Guns of Navarone trick - not just withholding information, but giving out false information to their colleagues, in case they get caught, or in case they are themselves spies. Or, as I mentioned in the Newlywed Game analogy - they simply agree on names that under torture they will give up. Who knows if Mohammed Akba who lives on the third street from the left really exists. Dan Brown even threw this one in the Da Vinci Code. </p>

<p>So torture doesn’t necessarily reveal information that is accurate or timely; and could be practiced on people we assume have information but may not.</p>

<p>The most important thing is that torture should only be practiced by people who don’t want to practice it. The minute we allow torture by people who secretly enjoy it, is the day we stop being Americans. </p>

<p>After all, when a man in US custody dies after being beaten for two days, and we give a slap on the wrist to the man who deliberately and knowingly beat the man to death, what kind of people are we becoming? And how do we then criticize Saddam’s torture rooms?</p>