The Mormon psychologist who designed the torture program

[MikeWaters]

James Mitchell.

Says he is in fact not a Mormon. That he's an atheist.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/201...ture-interview

However the other guy, Jessen, is now a Mormon bishop.

http://www.spokesman.com/stories/201...cia-on-terror/

[MikeWaters]

http://www.thedailybeast.com/article...re-report.html

[ChinoCoug]

So people got him mixed up with the other guy. Guy got super defensive (not to mention condescending towards Mormons). Looks like he has psychological issues of his own.

[BlueK]

This whole thing is so sickening to me.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by BlueK

This whole thing is so sickening to me.

For arguments sake, not because I believe, let's consider another argument.

Mike is making the argument that torture, even the lesser psychological aspects employed by the CIA, should be avoided no matter what in all conditions.

One of the pragmatic arguments against it is its ineffective results. If it is ineffective, then obviously we shouldn't be using it. Pragmatic.

However, what if the CIA methods were not harsh enough to be effective. The CIA from what little I've read about it to cause no permanent, lasting physical injury. Perhaps the detainees realized all they had to endure was psychological distress and physical discomfort. What if the extreme measures of torture are all that can be effective? Would people be supportive of these measures if they were effective. I know Mike would not be, but would others.

I understand the goals of the CIA to obtain information to protect the US. And not being in the intelligence business, I don't know how they do their business. I have suspicions based on numerous junk spy books, but I realize much of what is written is simplified, glamorized and untrue. Thus, I stay with my original statement, I don't know. By not knowing, I don't know what they should be allowed to do. If the enemies are killing us, it's not nice to kill, but we are forced to kill. What else are we forced to do to compete for valuable information?

[BlueK]

Originally Posted by Archaea

For arguments sake, not because I believe, let's consider another argument.

Mike is making the argument that torture, even the lesser psychological aspects employed by the CIA, should be avoided no matter what in all conditions.

One of the pragmatic arguments against it is its ineffective results. If it is ineffective, then obviously we shouldn't be using it. Pragmatic.

However, what if the CIA methods were not harsh enough to be effective. The CIA from what little I've read about it to cause no permanent, lasting physical injury. Perhaps the detainees realized all they had to endure was psychological distress and physical discomfort. What if the extreme measures of torture are all that can be effective? Would people be supportive of these measures if they were effective. I know Mike would not be, but would others.

I understand the goals of the CIA to obtain information to protect the US. And not being in the intelligence business, I don't know how they do their business. I have suspicions based on numerous junk spy books, but I realize much of what is written is simplified, glamorized and untrue. Thus, I stay with my original statement, I don't know. By not knowing, I don't know what they should be allowed to do. If the enemies are killing us, it's not nice to kill, but we are forced to kill. What else are we forced to do to compete for valuable information?

Sure, some would be ok with it under what you describe. The fact is, many are ok with it now even if it doesn't work. To them it's more about punishment and revenge. In fact, that's the main use totalitarian regimes have for torture. It's more about punishment for not falling in line with authority than it ever is about extracting useful information.

I think some of the books coming out now say that the methods were harsh enough to cause permanent mental damage to some of those who were subjected to it -- as in they're now crazy. One detainee was forced to live in a box the size of a coffin for months. Who knows, but it's believable to me because we see that with prisoners here who go through long periods of solitary confinement or other extreme methods used in our penal system.

[MikeWaters]

America is now doing the same kinds of things to our captives that the communists would do their American captives or American sympathizers.

I would read about this in Reader's Digest when I was a kid. For example, political prisoners in Cuba, being kept in small confined spaces, with blinding lights.

And now Americans are saying "yeah, that's cool. That's us. Necessary."

F this.

[BlueK]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

America is now doing the same kinds of things to our captives that the communists would do their American captives or American sympathizers.

I would read about this in Reader's Digest when I was a kid. For example, political prisoners in Cuba, being kept in small confined spaces, with blinding lights.

And now Americans are saying "yeah, that's cool. That's us. Necessary."

F this.

I agree with you. It sucks and it pains me as an American that we now accept and even celebrate these tactics. I'm also disgusted with the NSA and its blatant disregard of the 4th amendment. Edward Snowden is a hero. I'm now starting to believe that one of the purposes of the cold war was to remind us that civil liberties are important. Under fear of getting nuked we had to stand on the principle that America stood for liberty and we did things the right way. Now we've lost that and the worst part is so many people under age 40 just don't care about their own freedoms anymore, much less anyone else's rights as long as the politicians are telling us they're just trying to kill terrorists. Thanks George W -- that's your legacy -- with help from Dick Cheney and Barrack Obama. The Bill of Rights is just a nice theory now but no longer expected to really be used in practice.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by BlueK

Sure, some would be ok with it under what you describe. The fact is, many are ok with it now even if it doesn't work. To them it's more about punishment. In fact, that's the main use totalitarian regimes have for torture. It's more about punishment for not falling in line with authority than it ever is about extracting useful information.

I think some of the books coming out now say that the methods were harsh enough to cause permanent damage to some of those who were subjected to it -- as in they're now crazy. One detainee was forced to live in a box the size of a coffin for months. Who knows, but it's believable to me because we see that with prisoners here who go through long periods of solitary confinement or other extreme methods used in our penal system.

The real reason people accept this behavior is a sense of powerlessness.

With the terrorists striking at home, people were willing to sacrifice liberty for the appearance of security. So people are frustrated that terrorists can capture our citizens, kill them with impunity under the guise of a radical religious belief, and do so with impunity. That builds the rage that "those" people deserve whatever we need to use to "get" them.

[MikeWaters]

I agree with you BlueK.

One freaking guy living in a concrete house in Pakistan with no internet, sitting around and watching porn tapes, is able to cause Americans to consent to giving up their civil liberties.

Un-F-ing believable.